GOP losing touch with its base

Well, this is a funny thing and I think I can explain it or illustrate my point in a fairly small amount of sentences. The GOP big shots, many of them aren't really conservatives. Socially and politically, the Republican Party is closest to the older Democratic party of the 20th century. Economically which is their biggest cylinder today, they are becoming the corporation party falsely thinking what people want is them to to implement the best ways to make a buck which they don't do solidly anyway and they are ignoring more and more the basic principles that makes the society run that is so essentially important for economic prosperity in the first place. And this is still the better party of the two. When I hear they have lost touch with their base, I don't think their base is really their base anymore at all and it's just that their constituents haven't realized it yet. I for one am no longer a proud Republican. I was, though. I was. I even have a blue and red striped elephant keychain. But the Republican party is no longer the Republican Party, the same as with the Democratic Party and what's really happening is the country is becoming more liberal. I for one am going to switch to another party because the Republican party is a crock of s- and doesn't give a rat's ass about this country's integrity or it's citizens, just about its pockets JUST like the Democratic party but only in a different way. I have labeled the Democratic party as the icon of sin and epitome of destruction many times in my earlier days on this forum which was seemingly true until the Republican party reared its true ugly face and had convinced me they're just as bad but in different things. The third largest party is the constitution party which I'm thinking of joining but I'm not sure yet. I'm waiting on some literature etc. But what I'm basically saying is F- the Democratic Party and F- the Republican Party.


Thoughts?

 

I agree that the Republican party has lost touch. It is a breeding ground for corporate whores while the Democratic party is little more than a self hating defeatist club.

I'm not sure where I stand anymore but I do know that these two parties are major disappointments to me....especially the Republicans because I expected more from them.

-Castle

 

I know you haven't been a fan of the Democrats but they really did come in to the center under Bill Clinton. They're really more moderate than Liberal, especially on spending. They believe in the pay as you go method as not to keep raising the budget deficit. Granted they are still more Liberal on social issues but that almost always breaks down to people being allowed to do what they choose and not forcing you to necessarily do anything. And they are much more likely to stand up to big business and be for the regular working guy.

Don't know if you noticed but the Supreme Court under it's new Republican sponsored majority just struck down another working persons right to sue for wage discrimination. If the Republicans are not stopped big again in the next election the middle class will continue to take a beating... especially as all these hundreds of billions in war debt start rolling in. Pretty soon it's going to be rich... or poor... with nothing left in the middle.

 

They didn't come into the center under Bill Clinton. They were beaten by the Republicans in a landslide in '94 and the Republican Congress forced Bill Clinton to the center.

But now the Republicans have even gone more economically liberal than Clinton.

 

Many of the changes made at the time were well known Clinton initiatives. As a matter of fact it's also well known that Clinton had a small placard on his desk that read "It's the economy stupid!". The economy, reducing (completely eliminating) the budget deficit was very important to President Clinton. His policies worked well and the country did well for all of the 8 years he was in office. Even with his personal embarrasments he left office with something like a 62% job approval rating. President Bush and his low of 28% speaks for itself as far as good job/bad job.

You do make a GREAT point though. The whole notion that the Republicans aren't just as big or even big spenders than the Democrats is now totally debunked. They've shown under Bush while in control of both Houses that they actually create more government and spend like the money is endless.

While they try and cloak this with some pseudo tax cuts that save upper income brackets the most they silently steal away at low to middle class programs and try to promote ending Social Security & Medicare. It may be tricky politically to say Federal taxes were cut just so the states then have to charge more to it's residents to make up the loss... but the effect is the same or in many cases worse.

 

Hmmm

Yeah, I'm going to have agree with my other colleague and assert your claim of Clinton being a centrist Democrat is innacurate. I was young then but I know one of the first things he wanted to do was he wanted to let gays in the military. Centrist? "I never inhaled" Centrist? Advocated abortion. Centrist? More like scum to me not to mention a liar and a coward.

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that Clinton was a coward?

 

Hmm

There are a lot of reasons he is a coward and not a leader. The most obvious is his handling of the '93 bombing of the WTC. Most people had no idea what was going on in the middle east at the time and didn't think there was cause for war when there was. Clinton hid the truth from the public and dealt with it in a small-scale political way because he was concearned with his ratings. And that's all he was. He was the man looking to further propel the agendas of his party and really didn't give a rats ass for the american people even though he said he did because he was such an equality pusher. He stahled our interests in the middle east because he didn't want to take the chance and lead for fear of his stupid ratings. War wasn't on Clinton's agenda no matter what happened which is so typical of a liberal President. Personally, I don't think there's ever been a more liberal President than Clinton ever. True, there have been past Presidents who were very liberal for their time but Clinton was insanity coupled with barbarism and that's just his policies.

 

Well that's pretty interesting stuff there Justinian. Let's see... Don't ask, don't tell gave all Americans the ability to fight and die for their country and to this day seems not to have brought our military to it's knees (joke). Not being homophobic it never has bothered me.

And let's see... "I never inhaled" and pro choice. WOW you must really think harshly of Republicans and Especially President Bush and his wife Laura. George was a notorious partier in college and before. Cocaine & alcohol were his party companions according to numerous reports and inside sourses... and when asked about the drugs he will not affirm or deny. Which is probably pretty smart... wouldn't want to get into one of those Clinton lying situations.

And what about Laura Bush. As a teenager killed her own boyfriend in a drunk driving accident. So much for "right to life".

I'd could go into Mark Foley and all the other coming out of the closet that's going on over there but why belabor the point, right?

 

That insult:

de·lu·sion Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn]
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

The truth:

Clinton was a GREAT President. He was very moderate politically and he had a wonderful connection with the American people and understood that huge deficits eventually kill economies. He worked to bring people together in the middle east and at the very least kept everyone talking... and as far as the trade center bombing just what country should President Clinton have invaded?

The truth is President Clinton didn't let his emotions get the best of him and go off half cocked like George W.
Even President Bush #1 when asked during the Gulf War why he wasn't going on into Baghdad said, quote, "Because there would be no exit strategy" end quote.

Intellectually George W. Bush couldn't carry President Bill Clinton's book bag.

 

Ahh man....another presidential punching bag thread? "My President was better than yours"....please!

Clinton was not a bad President and trust me when I say that this is a compliment considering my opinions on modern liberalism. He was a much better speaker than Bush and could connect with the public in ways that Bush can't even grasp unfortunately.

However, Clinton's moments of brilliance were countered with bouts of utter stupidity that made one wonder if he ever owned a book bag!

Damn it, now I've joined in the mud fight.

-Castle

 

He was a decent speaker, but public speaking is an art that's been all but lost. You know, guys like Clinton and Reagan could give decent, rousing speeches and could appeal to the right things to keep people interested - but look back at the 19th Century, when people would turn out by the hundreds just to listen to Daniel Webster or John Calhoun or Henry Clay speak. And they'd talk for hours and everyone would be enraptured.

Those guys knew how to give a speech. Sorry, that's one of my pet peeves - I love public speaking and from what I've seen no one has a clue how it's supposed to work anymore. Oh well.

 

I gotta tell ya though, I'd much rather have a mediocre speaker with the short and sweet truth than an eloquent one blow smoke up my @ss.

Also, I've noticed the attention span of the average citizen shorten somewhat in recent years. Many people look for body language but never listen to the words. Slick hair, a flashy tie, bright white capped teeth and a lawyers smile seem to get big brownie points too.......pity really.

-Castle

 

It's certainly refreshing when you hear someone who is actually down-to-Earth give a speech. In the good 'ole days the orators used words in wonderful and amazing ways - and their words got turned into rhetoric. Nowadays, rhetoric is designed by groups of people sitting around a table for a few hours at a time and then inserted into the speeches. It just doesn't sound right because they're trying to design the catchphrases beforehand rather than letting the people listen to the whole deal and pick and choose what they think is best.

The television generation - if it's longer than fifteen minutes it better have a commercial break. Usually I'm okay with TV as it is a means of delivering both information and culture to a large group of people, but in regards to attention span it's lobotomized our society.

Then again, maybe if someone with a really great voice and great material would hit the stump, people would be able to stay interested longer. Say whatever you want about President Bush, good or bad, but on this I will not waver - the man is a horrible orator. Just by oratorical standards, the only thing interesting about his speeches is waiting to see if he says "misunderestimate" again.

Sadly, none of the candidates for '08 seem much better.

 

Getting back to the point of the thread, or at least the title, I think the conservative movement is in real trouble. Look at the major issues confronting us: global warming, health care, terrorism, globalization, immegration. These all require innovative and collective responses of a strong state, not the individual actions of a loose confederation of self-governing entities that the conservatives apparently pine for.
Here's an excellent article giving examples of how corporate America is beginning to wake up and smell the coffee--and it doesn't smell like conservativism.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0706.hayes.html