Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm all for a two party system. I can dig the Republican thoughts on government money management (kinda...a little) if nothing else. I really find it sad that they are in the shape they are in. Due to thier political Butt pounding of thier own moderats one of whom switched parties. The democrats are close to holding a rare Super Majority.What is their plan to get back in the game?

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”

Which pretty much sums up the attitude some members of the RNC have toward their chairman these days.

Steele wrote a memo last month opposing the resolution. Steele said that while he believes Democrats “are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism,” he also said in a flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”

SO there you have it, the big plan is name calling, I'da went with "Big stupid doo-doo heads" myself. All kidding and politics aside though, what the heck is going on with the Republicans.

Wow, I agree with Mr. Steele. That's kinda shocking. Calling the Democrats names will only make the RNC look foolish. Maybe for their next big idea, they'll only refer to the Sec of State as Billary or Secretary Cankles.

Original link would be helpful. If Steele is opposed to it then I doubt they will push it too hard. I think making such a move is a waste of time.

If you think that Republicans are the only ones calling names then you need to open your eyes a little. Both sides play the politics game. Maybe the GOP wants the Democrats to live up to their goals. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well you know how it goes...

sexiest hero wrote:Due to thier political Butt pounding of thier own moderats one of whom switched parties.

I'm pretty sure if you ask any current Republican they will tell you that he won't be missed. Specter hasn't been any Republican's friend for a few months. It was just a matter of time before one of the three moderates flipped. I don't feel that this "renaming" initiative is based in any way on the actions of Arlen Specter.

sexiest_hero wrote: All kidding and politics aside though, what the heck is going on with the Republicans.

Well, they lost combat, failed their leadership test, now their routing and they keep failing their leadership test to rally. It might take awhile.

I read a comment today on an article regarding how the Repubs should rebuild themselves that said that winning elections was "inside the beltway group-think" and that political parties exist to promote core values. My thought was, "but if you can't win elections, then you will never be in a position to promote your values." The Republicans need to reach more people, not call people names.

Typeline wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote: All kidding and politics aside though, what the heck is going on with the Republicans.

Well, they lost combat, failed their leadership test, now their routing and they keep failing their leadership test to rally. It might take awhile.

I like to think Gone to Ground, but I'm an optimist to a fault. If they did they've been failing their cover saves.

Do the democrats have a crazy minority that they are responsible for, or is only the republicans who are burdened by such people? It may just be that the republican crazys are more vocal with their crazy.

Oh god. If they really start doing this, I'm switching to Independent.

The Republican party is so far gone and instead of moving center (which the Dems did back in the early 90's to take back power) they are moving farther right, thus alienating us moderates and making us jump ship. Then you have people like Rush and Hannity saying "good riddance" instead of saying, "what can we do to keep these people in the Republican party." Morons.

Blah blah blah. To quote Battlestar Galactica, "all this has happened before and will happen again."

Just like the Democrats blew themselves apart in 1995 they will spin and spin and then someone else will show up. Already the cracks are forming as the Democrats begin to over reach. Then they will lose and the Republicans will take power and the cycle will continue. The names change but everything else stays the same.

It is the cycle of life (cue Disney African theme music)

Elnicko5 wrote:Do the democrats have a crazy minority that they are responsible for, or is only the republicans who are burdened by such people? It may just be that the republican crazys are more vocal with their crazy.

Their are Democratic crazies too. The Democratic party is just better about ignoring them most of the time.

Elnicko5 wrote:Do the democrats have a crazy minority that they are responsible for, or is only the republicans who are burdened by such people? It may just be that the republican crazys are more vocal with their crazy.

Yes. Nancy Pelosi comes to mind.

Frazzled wrote:Blah blah blah. To quote Battlestar Galactica, "all this has happened before and will happen again."

Just like the Democrats blew themselves apart in 1995 they will spin and spin and then someone else will show up. Already the cracks are forming as the Democrats begin to over reach. Then they will lose and the Republicans will take power and the cycle will continue. The names change but everything else stays the same.

It is the cycle of life (cue Disney African theme music)

I don't know if the republicans can honestly come back. This time it might not be the same old song and dance.

The younger voters are more liberal and more involved now than they have been before.

Republicans have alienated a lot of women with their strong opposition to abortion.

Republicans are alienating moderates with a "who needs you anyway!?" attitude toward them.

I personally feel alienated from them because of their ideal or government being the morale authority. I don't vote for people because they are moral, I vote for them because I feel they have a capacity to lead. Go smoke weed, cheat on your wife and cuss at other politicians as long as your doing good with the office you have my vote.

They keep talking about recapturing the base of the party. They have the base of the party, too bad it has never been enough to win on along, they have to reach out to someone to win.

Respectfully, same song and dance. The US has always has two parties. They or another party will reform to the conservative side.

Again the Democrats are already making it easier. Don't forget Obama has higher negatives than most of the previous Presidents and Congress' approval rating is less than Darth Vader.

The one truth of life is that, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Typeline wrote:The younger voters are more liberal and more involved now than they have been before.

That's been the story for the last 40-50 years. Younger voters tend to be liberal. I would guess that young voters during the 60's were more involved, since most of them did not want to be drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Republicans have alienated a lot of women with their strong opposition to abortion.

And a number of women are very opposed to abortion because they consider it the murder of an unborn child.

I agree with our resident crazy old man, Frazzled. This has happened before, and will happen again. Republicans took control in the 90's with their reform movement. Then most of them got there and eventually realized that they didn't want to actually change the status quo that much, because it's good to be the king (or at least in Congress), so you don't want things like term limits. The Republicans became the resident fat cats, and the Dems booted them out. The Dems will stay on top of the mountain for awhile, and the Reps will take it back at some point.

One of the basic problems in American politics is that the primaries appeal to the extreme ends of the party, but the general election brings out a large moderate contingent. Both parties struggle to get a moderate elected, and frankly, both parties struggle to find even one could candidate (John Kerry vs George Bush - really? Neither of you could do better than that?).

Ozymandias wrote:Oh god. If they really start doing this, I'm switching to Independent.

The Republican party is so far gone and instead of moving center (which the Dems did back in the early 90's to take back power) they are moving farther right, thus alienating us moderates and making us jump ship. Then you have people like Rush and Hannity saying "good riddance" instead of saying, "what can we do to keep these people in the Republican party." Morons.

Respectively I disagree. I feel that a lot of Republicans (my self included) felt like we were just settling for somebody closer to the left when we should have stuck with a more conservative individual. Unfortunately during this time their was nobody else that had the "right stuff", and McCain seemed to be the best matchup for Obama. As far as Rush and Hannity saying good riddance that's their job. Say the most obvious thing and clean up the mess later. They're are not always right and if people are taking their words as gospel 100% of the time then they have their own issues that they need to address.

I do agree with Ozymandias that we are not doing enough to strengthen the ties that bind moderates to the Republicans, but that is what happens when the line between the parties is drawn so thin. I hope you can stick with us, but if you gotta switch, you gotta switch.

Pathetic loser elections in the last 20 years
*Whoever ran against Reagan in 84. I can't even remember his name he was so lame.
*Dole vs. Clinton. Dole? I like Dole but come on!!!!
*Gore vs. Bush. Were you guys serial? (SP reference)
*Kerry vs. Bush. Again, Kerry?

I think that one of the biggest problems is that it is a two-party system. Other countries have managed to have more than two parties, but there's this thought over here that two parties are natural...

They're not, but the two parties have a vested interested in keeping newcomers out. Many campaign laws are designed in such a way that if you're already in, you're good, but if you're not in, you face an uphill struggle. One of Perot's biggest accomplishments was actually getting the 20% vote needed to let his party get financing in the next cycle's elections, but sustaining the interest is the other hurdle and he couldn't do that. Not only that, but both parties are more concerned with keeping power than they are in actually representing people. The first thing you do when you get in office is redistrict and gerrymander so that it's easier to stay in office. Forget the people you marginalize along the way...

There is no way that two parties can represent everyone. Take me, for example. I'm socially very liberal. I could care less what other people do behind closed doors. Homosexual marriage doesn't bother me, abortion doesn't bother me, and so on. But, as with most successful people, I'm also financially conservative. I don't see why I should be paying for a bunch of welfare cases who are too lazy to work for a living.

Which party represents me? Neither. If I go Republican, I get lumped in with the Christian right, the moral minority, and the other faith-based whackos who want to force their hate and their small-minded bigotry down other people's throats. If I go Democrat, my vote acts against my personal interests and I find my taxes go up to pay for other people's benefits, and cover their laziness.

It's things like this that keep me from getting my citizenship. There really is no one to vote for who represents me.

Ditto that. We need to form the Redbeard Frazzled Don't Tread on Me party.

As a former Perotista all I have to say is, lets all get on the Perot boat!

I've already got the flag ready. Neckbeard added for effect.

Frazzled wrote:Ditto that. We need to form the Redbeard Frazzled Don't Tread on Me party.

As a former Perotista all I have to say is, lets all get on the Perot boat!

Where do I apply to be the Ohio party chair?

I voted for Perot. I also have voted libertarian in probably 2 of the last 4 elections, just out of protest to the two main parties.

barlio wrote:I've already got the flag ready.

The one represents dangerous terrain checks.

Oh. Wow. Thats just shocking. Seriously.

And I still don't get the USA's aversion to Socialism. Sure, as with any system there is space for abuse, but I consider soceity being geared to lifting people out of poverty and ending it's cycle to be somewhat of a noble effort, however flawed the attempt might be. Far better than it being geared almost entirely to keeping the rich in mink johnnies and silk toilet paper.

Britains socialism flaw comes from a lack of balls on behalf of the Government. The support should be for a very much finite time, unless the problem is genuinely ongoing (for instance, my Landlady is registered disabled due to her severe emphyemia, and she gets disability benefit to help her out). But no, the scum across the way can somehow live off their 'benefits' by working the system. Various initiatives are under way to try and break the cycle of poverty, but as ever, the true results of these efforts will not be seen for some years to come.

My favourite example is the EMA, Educational Maintenance Allowance. Thinking behind this is to give the students from poorer backgrounds a leg up when it comes to further education (16+ for us in the UK). £30 a week into the kids back account which they can use for what they will, though of course it's intended to help buy study books and pay course fees. Doesn't sound a great deal, but it is often the difference between being free to go to College, and having to leave Education to help support the family home. Of course, this also serves as my favourite example of New Labours Schizophrenia. Sure, they'll help kids from disadvantage backgrounds get a shot at being accepted by a Uni, but decided they'd have to pay for the privilege of the Uni course. Which they can't. Meaning there is less incentive for the kid to bother with A Levels in the first place! Cool huh!

But sort that out, and the EMA alone could make a significant impact on Britains poorer peoples. After all, Mum might be a lazy cow, and Dad might be scum, but that is not the kids fault. I'd even go so far as to say it's soceities obligation to help them make the most of themselves. The more people you lift out of poverty my aiding their self improvement, the better soceity becomes. There will be no hopers. There always be those who just cannot be arsed, and there numbers aren't likely to shrink by percentage of population. But giving this slim glimmer of a chance might help prevent kids becoming said no hopes.

This my friends is the right face of socialism. It's not all pikey arseholes sticking their noses in the trough. Anyone telling you otherwise is either lying, or so utterly ignorant it's not even funny.

It's really a cultural thing. US is generally opposed to socialism as we generally prefer a meritocracy where you rise or fall by your own ability. Socialism tends to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful and flies in the face of the "American way." It boils down to: Why should I pay more for being successful to fund the lazy and unsuccessful? If I want to help people, I'll donate to a charity or volunteer my time, but don't add bureaucracy to take my money and give it to someone else.

Saying "well, socialism would be great if the government didn't mess up" is kind of a redundant statement, don't you think?

The problem is with it working poorly.

Can we then rename the republican party the "Republican Fascist Party?"

CaptainCommunsism wrote:Can we then rename the republican party the "Republican Fascist Party?"

Why? Isn't that redundant?

Moving forward, I don't think the traditional opposition to Socialism has the strength it once used to. The current generation of youth have not grown up with a Communist boogie man to hang over their heads to frighten them away from leftist economic policies. Also, demonetization of Socialism is associated almost entirely with the right, who just crashed the economy into the ground hard.

In regards to the youth of today being more liberal as the norm, what the early eighties don't count? It's not the norm so much as an indicator regarding the likely direction our country might be moving in. Our country has been right of center for most of the last two decades. Even Clinton was middle of the road at best.

IMHO this isn't a bump in the road for Republicans. A historically small percentage of Americans identify themselves as Republican right now. The attitude of "good riddance" only alienates moderates further. The next few elections will mark a turning point for the Republican party. They will either change to fit the times (not necessarily become more liberal so much as re-imagine what it means to be Republican) or they will be replaced by a party which better reflects America (Libertarian, Reform, or some other/new party).

The problem with meritocracies is that they functionally break down into non-regulated classed based socialism-style structures, in which the wealthy maintain their resources in amongst their own peers. As opposed to letting their peers fend for themselves. It one of the reasons for the disparity that is growing between the poor and the rich, and the shrinking of the US middle class. Those with money, as a communal structure, almost actively, prevent those without from being able to cultivate their own fortunes. Which makes sense from a perspective of power, since it tends to be more energy efficient to deny others power once you have a base of your own. Since you wouldn't want to demean the sacrifices of your previous generations by helping someone that you view as lesser achieve a similar level of comfort and stability. Even if you didn't make those sacrifices yourself (economic dynasties).

This is why I tell people I'm an anarchist. It gets me out of all arguments about politics. They're both stupid poo-poo heads anyway.

to warpcrafter: Speaking of anarchists, every read any of the crimethink material? Its a bit didactic, but some of it is a fun read.