Thread: 42% - Republicans Say Own Leaders Unclear

The GOP pool of people is getting smaller and smaller.

Jeb Bush has just said he's "rebuilding the party."

Smart guy, but he's got the wrong last name.

The wheel has fallen off of the GOP bus. The bus has broken down, and it's skidding down the freeway. There is nobody behind the wheel.


Fine by me.

Geb Bush would be 1 of 2 repubs I would consider voting for at this point, huckabee being the other. Although, he did get dragged into that schiavo shit-sandwich his brother got him wrapped up in.

The party does seem to be out of touch right now, which kinda pleases me. 1 of 2 things will happen, it will go more center or go too far right and fracture, significantly changing the flawed 2 party system. This would be good for the libertarian party, which I am finding myself having more in common with every day.

Just don't get everyone saying they need to go more center when the Democrats gained power by going to the extreme left.

Not 4 years ago, everything was going the Republican's way. People talk as if the party is dead. I think it's pretty simple.. they spent wrecklessly & they are paying for it now.

I have all the confidence in the world that Obama's weak stance on terrorism ... oops, sorry, I mean "overseas contigency operations" will be his downfall.

The political tide could change overnight.

Lies, lies, lies and the party that told them to their own countrymen!

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Just don't get everyone saying they need to go more center when the Democrats gained power by going to the extreme left.

Not 4 years ago, everything was going the Republican's way. People talk as if the party is dead. I think it's pretty simple.. they spent wrecklessly & they are paying for it now.

I have all the confidence in the world that Obama's weak stance on terrorism ... oops, sorry, I mean "overseas contigency operations" will be his downfall.

The political tide could change overnight.

4 years ago the Dems put up a shitty candidate, people were fed up with Bush in 2004 there was just no good alternative.

I believe you hit the nail on the head with the wreckless spending, but I don't believe you see what the wrecklessness was. The "wreckless" part of Bush's spending has to do with spending on things that won't better the country, not with the magnitude of what he spent. If Bush spends 10x on something that doesn't benefit the country, I am fine with Obama spending 1000x on something that will. I believe spending on infrastructure and research will benefit the country more than going to war with Iraq did.

I honestly don't believe we will be attacked under Obama's watch, at least not in a 9/11 type of way. The shit going on in the Middle East will continue, but no home threat will occur.

Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind - Washington Times
Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

The former president's brother, often mentioned as a potential candidate in 2012, said President Obama's message of hope and change during the 2008 campaign clearly resonated with Americans.

"So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it's great, but it doesn't draw people toward your cause," Mr. Bush said.

'nother turd

Republicans have moved further left on fiscal issues and remained the same on social issues.

The "Republicans have moved far right" is absolute garbage with zero evidence to support it. Show me where Republicans have moved further right of Ronald Reagan, a president who won 2 massive landslides.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind - Washington Times
Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind

Jeb Bush is a sharp guy, and way better than his dunce brother.

But he's got the wrong last name. He can fill a cabinet post in the future for a GOPer in the White House, but that's about it, politically.

Reagan was from a very different era in America - sociologically.

The Baby Boomer were in their early 40s, then. And Reagan was actually a spender, although less so, the previous and future Presidents of both parties.

It's too bad Jeb didn't get to try for the Presidency. The annointers annointed GWB.

Maybe Jeb was too smart and too independent.

Originally Posted by brogers

Republicans have moved further left on fiscal issues and remained the same on social issues.

The "Republicans have moved far right" is absolute garbage with zero evidence to support it. Show me where Republicans have moved further right of Ronald Reagan, a president who won 2 massive landslides.

They need to do the polar opposite.

We are in a different time with Gay marriage, abortion, etc., comparing Reagan to now is pointless. The country was in a different place at that time, none of what is going on now with those topics would have even been considered back then. Now, a majority favor what was traditionally the taboo viewpoint. Maybe I was too young and don't remember all that well, but I believe Reagan would have been more open on these issues than the GOP is being now. Hell, Nancy "War on Drugs" Reagan was campaigning for stem cell research as Ron faded away.

I don't pretend to know the answer, I just observe what has happened around me and the majority of the people I know who have left the party, including my entire family, have left because they are left in the stone age with social issues. I think the simplest solution is for them to abandon the religious right, I think the majority don't want the country to be run by them. That's not to say they shouldn't have a voice, that's to say they have too much influence over the party (See Sarah Palin). If Tom Ridge were the VP candidate I probably would have gone for McCain.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I think the simplest solution is for them to abandon the religious right, I think the majority don't want the country to be run by them. .

That's my biggest turnoff there.

It will only get worse if the Republican party doesn't go back toward

1) Personal responsibility/liberty
2) Fiscal conservatism/smaller government
3) Reduce our overseas empire/intervention

Support for abortion is at its lowest levels in 7 years.

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

This crap about the "religious right" is garbage. The bottom line is that the party has moved leftward on fiscal issues and stayed constant on social issues. You fail to cite any evidence to the contrary.

I generally consider you to be less partisan and more objective than most on the board, but in this case it seems you've bought the liberal talking point (which is enthusiastically spouted on the networks, MSNBC, CNN) about the Republican party being beholden to the "CRAZY RELIGIOUS RIGHT!"

McCain was nominated for President. He sparred with Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc. The man was the least favorite candidate of the religious conservatives, myself included.

Your argument is a democrat talking point and has no basis in reality, I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by brogers

Support for abortion is at its lowest levels in 7 years.

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

This crap about the "religious right" is garbage. The bottom line is that the party has moved leftward on fiscal issues and stayed constant on social issues. You fail to cite any evidence to the contrary.

I generally consider you to be less partisan and more objective than most on the board, but in this case it seems you've bought the liberal talking point (which is enthusiastically spouted on the networks, MSNBC, CNN) about the Republican party being beholden to the "CRAZY RELIGIOUS RIGHT!"

McCain was nominated for President. He sparred with Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc. The man was the least favorite candidate of the religious conservatives, myself included.

Your argument is a democrat talking point and has no basis in reality, I'm sorry.

1)The only important question was not asked. "Do you believe the federal government should make abortion illegal?" I would agree that most of the time abortion is immoral, I just don't feel the gov't has the right to come in and tell someone they can't have one. Some people would say that sleeping with a married person is immoral, and it is, but I don't fell the gov't should have a right to regulate that. We don't need more laws, we need to get rid of the shit laws (War on Drugs) and focus on the ones that improve society.

2)McCain was nominated for president, yes. He became religious about 15 minutes before the primary started and has a history of negative talk towards the religious right in the Republican party. Had he not switched gears he would have never won. The response to his election? Sarah Palin. If you do not believe the choice of Palin as his VP had a major negative effect on his campaign you are dreaming. Besides, his election was a result of him being the most likely of those candidates to defeat Hilary or Obama, not because they wanted him there, the GOP knew they were fucked thanks to Bush. That's what Palin was, an offering to the religious right. Even Fox News lampooned her during the election.

At the end of the day, it's not my party, so what do I care? I am hoping the Libertarians come up and push the GOP out. The GOP has gone in the opposite direction from me on fiscal issues and has failed to evolve around the few social issues that they consider primary talking points. As far as I can tell, they don't care, and their action is to continue to go opposite that they need to survive. Oh well, maybe God will help them.


BTW, I don't think they are beholden to the Right, I just think they let the right have too much influence. In other words, when your #1 guy states that abortion should be a state's right issue and almost gets tossed out, it's time to consider cutting the cord a little bit. Crazy how 1 single statement not supporting a single issue can almost get a guy fired.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Crazy how 1 single statement not supporting a single issue can almost get a guy fired.

They aren't unique in that respect... Lieberman was tossed out of the party for supporting the war.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

They aren't unique in that respect... Lieberman was tossed out of the party for supporting the war.

He's something else...both parties should get rid of this weasel.

I have to say Dale makes a lot of good points here as usual.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

They aren't unique in that respect... Lieberman was tossed out of the party for supporting the war.

Ya know, gotta agree with ya here. Liked what Obama did on this by welcoming him back after he campaigned for McCain, but he really had no choice, welcome him back or be thought of as a hypocrite.

I don't really see Obama in the same light as Pelosi and Frank, policy-wise near carbon copy, but they handle things completely different. I dislike Pelosi with a passion.

Originally Posted by brogers

Support for abortion is at its lowest levels in 7 years.

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

This crap about the "religious right" is garbage. The bottom line is that the party has moved leftward on fiscal issues and stayed constant on social issues. You fail to cite any evidence to the contrary.

The point about the Religious right is a one of a few things that are hurting the GOP. The GOP has needed the Religious right in their tent for the tight congessional and Presidental elections (2000, 2004).

Now, with changing demographics, The religious is needed, but not as crucial as before.

The Religious Right is a hinderance to the GOP for many, and I don't vote GOP because of Xtians, among what you also state.

The GOP became the party of spend, spend, spend, particularly under GWB.

Neocons: a major negative to me.

Zionist Jews in many cabinet posts: a major negative to me.


We should not equate abortion polling with the "religious right" numbers.

The majority still are pro-choice. Abortion is not a factor in Congressional nor Presidential elections, statistically.

Originally Posted by Pirate!

It will only get worse if the Republican party doesn't go back toward

1) Personal responsibility/liberty
2) Fiscal conservatism/smaller government
3) Reduce our overseas empire/intervention

Good point Pirate, but I (and I think many others) don't believe the GOP could if it wanted to.

And for damn sure won't believe any politician claiming to hold these values.

To translate your above list (which I do like). The reality is:

1) Big government, Patriot Acts I & II, wire tapping, etc.

2) Fiscal overspending, and running up massive deficits for the last 8 years, while at the same time expanding government in many areas of life, and also encroaching on states' laws and rights.

3) Neo-con agenda: use the military to enforce the economic interest around the world.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Ya know, gotta agree with ya here. Liked what Obama did on this by welcoming him back after he campaigned for McCain, but he really had no choice, welcome him back or be thought of as a hypocrite.

I don't really see Obama in the same light as Pelosi and Frank, policy-wise near carbon copy, but they handle things completely different. I dislike Pelosi with a passion.

She is a retard.

I don't mind people not liking Sarah Palin, but I can't think of anyone who had a legitimate reason. People just buy into the "religious nut" story without a drop of evidence to back it up.

The experience issue astounds me, mainly because these same people who argue that she had none also say that Obama had enough

The rest just latch on to the Katie Couric interview.. that one bad interview is enough to call her an idiot, ignoring other interviews & her successful debate with the gaffe machine Biden.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I don't mind people not liking Sarah Palin, but I can't think of anyone who had a legitimate reason. People just buy into the "religious nut" story without a drop of evidence to back it up.

Some Republican leaders prefer not to discuss Sarah Palin
In the latest instance of a high-profile GOP member taking a passing swipe at the party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney jokingly dismissed Sarah Palin’s inclusion on Time’s list of influential people in an interview broadcast Sunday.

He asked, was “the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people?”

Romney, appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” was replying to a question from moderator John King on whether Time’s inclusion of Palin and talk show host Rush Limbaugh on their list of “The World’s Most Influential People” was good or bad for the Republican Party.

Romney, who has not ruled out another White House bid, said he wanted more influential Republicans on the list before adding pointedly: “I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest.”

“But was that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people?” he continued. “I'm not sure. If it's the most beautiful, I understand. We're not real cute.”

Asked about Romney’s comment, Palin didn’t respond to the reference to her appearance.

"I think there are 100 influential Republicans alone who have tremendous ideas and I hope that we can all work together to accomplish what we believe is best for America,” Palin said through a spokeswoman.
Romney, who was appearing with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor as part of a party re-launch the two are organizing with other prominent Republicans under the banner of the National Council for a New America, was laughing and smiling as he said it. His spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, called it only “a self-deprecating joke as to why there weren't more Republicans on the list.”

But Romney’s quip reflects the deep unease among many in the GOP establishment about the continued high-profile of Limbaugh and especially Palin. There is almost a sense of exasperation among many party elites over the media coverage the two polarizing figures get — attention which, in Palin’s case, is widely seen as a product largely of her good looks and tabloid-fodder family troubles.

“She’s bigger in the media than in reality,” lamented veteran GOP consultant Mike Murphy.



“Palin," he said, "is the only Republican politician right now who is interesting, a little different, connected to the last campaign and related to an occasional story in the National Enquirer.”

Another GOP strategist carped, "The media is still obsessed with the Tina Fey impersonations and intra-campaign drama."

Romney’s comments were striking because such grumbling is rarely expressed in public by high-ranking Republicans. Instead, GOP officials typically strive to ignore Palin, routinely leaving her off lists of the party’s rising stars even though she still retains a significant following among grass-roots conservatives and may run for president in 2012.

The euphemistic mantra is that the party has to rebuild based on policy solutions — not the “personalities” the media insists on focusing their attention on.

Responding to King’s question first, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said “there are some who like to make it all about personalities, but it's about ideas.”

Former Gov. Jeb Bush, who is also playing a prominent role in the Council, similarly told POLITICO after the group's launch in Arlington, Va., on Saturday that the group hopes “to make the next election about ideas and not about personalities.”

Bush, while not responding to a Palin question, expressed frustration at the press wanting to cover the who’s-up-who’s-down political horserace, rather than policy.

Palin was initially not included on the Council because she didn’t respond to requests, but Sen. John McCain said in a conference call with reporters that he hoped she would be involved with the group.

"They would rather just ignore Palin," said Murphy of the GOP mainstream, "but the media won’t let them."

McCain and Romney had a better ring to it.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I don't mind people not liking Sarah Palin, but I can't think of anyone who had a legitimate reason. People just buy into the "religious nut" story without a drop of evidence to back it up.

Palin used religion in Alaska (the first person to do so) for political points.

She talked about praying for a pipeline.

She has been accused (but she hasn't refuted) of having the Young Earther belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed (lived together) as recent as 5,000 years ago.

The rest just latch on to the Katie Couric interview.. that one bad interview is enough to call her an idiot, ignoring other interviews & her successful debate with the gaffe machine Biden.

The Couric interview was the real Palin.

After that she was handled very carefully, and I thought her follow up interview and refusing to say what she reads says it all.

Palin's knowledge was below the level of the average Newsweek and Time reader.

Her debate with Biden was well rehearsed and lacked detail.


She will not bear the torch for the GOP - the smart Republican know if this does happen, the GOP will lose. Palin has more negatives than positives.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I don't mind people not liking Sarah Palin, but I can't think of anyone who had a legitimate reason. People just buy into the "religious nut" story without a drop of evidence to back it up.

The experience issue astounds me, mainly because these same people who argue that she had none also say that Obama had enough

The rest just latch on to the Katie Couric interview.. that one bad interview is enough to call her an idiot, ignoring other interviews & her successful debate with the gaffe machine Biden.

Did you see that interview? She would lose in the first round on "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" Africa...A continent? Surely you jest.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Palin used religion in Alaska (the first person to do so) for political points.

She talked about praying for a pipeline.

She has been accused (but she hasn't refuted) of having the Young Earther belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed (lived together) as recent as 5,000 years ago.

oh no! a politician that used the word prayer. where is the lynch mob? i don't want palin running the GOP, but these 3 points of yours are just dumb.

she hasn't wasted time responding to an asinine accusation of dinosaurs co-existing (living together) with humans? big deal. come up with something better for us will you?