The fate of the Republican party?

Originally Posted by russotto

Doing a bunch of Democratic-mainline feel-good things doesn't do a thing for people in the armed services. There's no connection between the two; you're just exploiting them the same way the Republicans are often (correctly) accused of doing so.

HUH? Kitsune seemed to be responding to Walrus's post which ended with "We expect to sustain these greedy little lives forever, not realizing that the polices that support this greed, are based on violent and opressive trade practices. I laugh at what the democrats and the Republicans call free trade. In essence if every American scaled back, we could probably afford not having to be so agressive in our search for resources and products, but this will never happen I'm afraid. We'll persist in such a manner until this country runs itself into the ground. Forgive me for trying to find a way out."

I was merely giving some modest suggestions as to how one might scale back without all that much effort. I assumed that the point of this discussion was that the average American expects to spend their life as a bloated energy/oil/natural resources pig without having to lift a finger. Meanwhile, we expect that the members of our armed forces will give up their lives for our careless lifestyles. My apologies to all if I misunderstood this.

[iamthewalrus109]

Quote: 'You sure don't sound like a Republican. At least for the last 60 years"

When speaking of not "sounding" like a Republican, one must ask, what qualities are you reffering to. In my mind, I've been a Republican supporter for years, due to the fact that I thought it stood for hard work. A do it yourself and ask no favors type of party. This I hope helps to explain the critisim I have leveled upon the party like a gaunlet of truth in these threads and posts. I do not agree with Bruce's contention that it's out of sync with the last 60 years of Republican party.

Then (Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon) the Republican party stood for small businesses, and hard working folk who weren't looking for handouts, now, I'm afraid it's all a big corporate orgy. Republicans now won't sacrifice a God damned thing, except other people's sons and daugthers, for their dominance and riches, it's completely and utterly dispicable, and I have contempt for the current leadership. One man's vision is no excuse for lives lost, not only American,but Iraqi as well. And for both sides of the election, I condemn both do the fires of hell for waging a political policy debate on the backs of dead soldiers. The continued support for a flagging war effort is beyond me, but the alternative is not a effective response either. But, to sum up my position on these issues, it's my contention that the Republican party used to stand for progress and responsilbity in conjunction, now it stands for nothing but arrogance and greed.

-Walrus

[Kitsune]

(Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon)

Roosevelt? Teddy or FDR?

[iamthewalrus109]

TR is whom I was refering to in the last post. His progressivism was something I will always look up to, although, he rose to power through assasination. If it wasn't for a couple of bullets at Pan American expedition there probably would have been no TR in the presidency, who knows.

Barring Warren Harding, who was one of the most corrupt presidents we ever had, the tradition of the Republican party was that of penny pinching, hard working, entepernurial types looking for good leadership. I'm afraid this tradition has been killed by corporatism, as it has killed many of the ideals of the Democratic party, just in different ways. The take it all mentality of GW Bush is not grounded enough for traditional Republican values. But one value remains steafastly attached to the Republican party, and that's blind loyalty. Sometimes I think the Republican symbol should be a donkey, not an Elephant, being that most Repulicans are so damned stubborn.

-Walrus

[Kitsune]

For a moment, I thought you might have meant FDR, which made this a little confusing.

His progressivism was something I will always look up to, although, he rose to power through assasination.

And he had that big club he always beat people with. Damn, that thing kicked ass.

[glatt]

American Conservative Magazine has found itself in the position of not being able to endorse George W. Bush. The editors are split. Some have actually endorsed Kerry, even though they hate him. Others have only endorsed Bush because they want to see the Republicans take responsibility for the mess they made in Iraq and force a change in the party to toss out the neocons that got them into this mess. One editor has actually endorsed Nader!

One of the editor's endorsement of Kerry has this interesting point:

this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century.

He then goes on to denounce much of what Bush has done.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy.

It looks like some people in the Republican party still have the ability to reason.

[iamthewalrus109]

Glatt I congradulate you on a good example here. I have heard reguratations of this through P. Buchanan in his WND articles. He mentioned the strife within the American Conservative Magazine. He of course has gone on to endorse Bush for the reasons you mention and has gone as far as to criticize those who would only vote for Kerry as punishment. I would have to agree if Kerry won his tenure would be assuredly short, ie. one term. Your right there are those in the RP who still have a couple of witts left, and I count myself one of them, but there needs to be more done. I think there definately needs to be a house cleaning if the party is to survive in it's former form.

-Walrus

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by glatt

Others have only endorsed Bush because they want to see the Republicans take responsibility for the mess they made in Iraq and force a change in the party to toss out the neocons that got them into this mess.

I would hope that the neocons would lose control of the Republican party even (especially) if they lost... But I guess very little about politics makes sense.

[glatt]

The editors of American Conservative Magazine all agree that Bush is a disaster. They only disagree on what to do about it. The sticking point for them seems to be the best way to play their current hand to the advantage of the Republican party. Some think that getting Kerry in there now is better for the Republican party, others think having Bush is better.

Nobody seems to care about what is best for the country.

[Clodfobble]

There's another point to consider: If Kerry wins, he could indeed be a one-termer unless he pulls some miracles out of his ass for Iraq. But he will certainly be RUNNING for a second term in 2008, which means Hillary Clinton can't run. I'm in favor of pushing that inevitability back as many years as we are able.

[Happy Monkey]

Hey, cool! Another way that right wing Hillaryphobia can help us!

A Bush victory could easily turn into both a Republican AND a national nightmare. Then again, given the outright stupidity of the many American voters who would vote Bush in for another 4 years of fun and games, who's to say? If you ask me, you can get ANYTHING past the American voter as long as you wrap a US flag around it. If the flag wrapped object happens to be the coffin of one of our soldiers, you just censor the picture. No one wants to think anything but happy thoughts anyhow, right?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

There's another point to consider: If Kerry wins, he could indeed be a one-termer unless he pulls some miracles out of his ass for Iraq. But he will certainly be RUNNING for a second term in 2008, which means Hillary Clinton can't run. I'm in favor of pushing that inevitability back as many years as we are able.

Yeah, she couldn't run before 2012 and by then she'll be an ugly old hag.
Oh ...wait a minute....uh....nevermind..