Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Catalyst

When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?

47 posts in this topic

They believe that you shoudl take from those who have achieved success in their financial careers....to merely hand it to people who do nothing but "want" it.

Does success = failure, bankrupting/nearly bankrupting millions of citizens, and being bailed out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians have had ZERO concept of reality for years.

They believe that you can spend, spend, and spend some more regardless of whether you can afford it.

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Term limits on congressional members would help. When they're held to 8-12 years in office, they may be more willing to get poo done rather than just worrying about being re-elected.

If they don't have to worry about being re-elected why exactly would they get stuff done?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't have to worry about being re-elected why exactly would they get stuff done?

I'm in favor of either one long term or unlimited terms.

My reasoning: Presidents' first terms are nothing but a four year long campaign for a second term, in which they usually go apepoo with the failures. Why would you want the same from Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said in the past that, had I been born 40 years ago I'd likely be a republican. The party today has taken such a sharp turn to the right, though, it's insane. Political extremism is one thing I just can't support and while most conservatives today don't even see how far right the GOP has gone, if you look at the party over the long haul of history you begin to see it.

I uncovered a video on YouTube once of one of the GOP's nominees that ran against FDR and he was doing an ad for his campaign and was talking about all the things he supported: worker's right to unionize, minimum wage, common sense regulations, social security, etc, while still promoting limited/common sense government. He sounded like a modern blue dog democrat. Compare that to today's fringe/tea party GOP - not to mention the way the religious right has hijacked the party - and it's the type of party that would have been considered on the political fringe 40-50 years ago.

That said, the democrats are just only slightly better. I don't think any of them have any backbone at this point short of the Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich types and they're considered left wing nuts. It'd be nice to find a more moderate dem with that same type of backbone and a legit populist message/ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does success = failure, bankrupting/nearly bankrupting millions of citizens, and being bailed out?

Well both parties bailed out the banks (including many by Mr. Obama). The libertarian fringe of the Republican party would have let the banks fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to know when these lunatic Republicans are actually going to cut government. For all the talk of the Republican party taking a hard turn right, they sure aren't making any progress on spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little before Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to know when these lunatic Republicans are actually going to cut government. For all the talk of the Republican party taking a hard turn right, they sure aren't making any progress on spending.

lol. that's because that's not what "a hard turn right" actually means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said in the past that, had I been born 40 years ago I'd likely be a republican. The party today has taken such a sharp turn to the right, though, it's insane.

lolwut?

That's why quasi-progressives such as McCain, Bush x 2, Dole and now apparently, Romney have dominated the GOP the last few decades.

Reagan was considered too conservative to be "electable" so he was stuck with George H.W. Bush as a VP. It wasn't Reagan's choice.

Before Reagan, there were more so-called "moderates" Nixon, Ford, etc.

The problem isn't that candidates are too far right... its that the media and beltway politicians in general are so far left that a moderate appears to be "far right." Our current idea of a moderate conservative is further left than Blue Dogs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lolwut?

That's why quasi-progressives such as mccain, bush x 2, dole and now apparently, romney have dominated the gop the last few decades.

Reagan was considered too conservative to be "electable" so he was stuck with george h.w. Bush as a vp. It wasn't reagan's choice.

Before reagan, there were more so-called "moderates" nixon, ford, etc.

The problem isn't that candidates are too far right... Its that the media and beltway politicians in general are so far left that a moderate appears to be "far right." our current idea of a moderate conservative is further left than blue dogs.

qft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is to compare Reagan/Bush II/the current GOP field to the last pre-Nixon republican President in Eisenhower. Hell, even in 2000 Bush talked tough about being a conservative, but you didn't have these right wing nuts like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. At the very least it should be clear that our standards for what makes a credible Presidential candidate have been lowered significantly over the decades.

I'm all for not having just status-quo politicians in the mix, but there is a certain level of intelligence and knowledge on the issues that I expect out of someone who is running for President. Watching the GOP debates right now is like watching an SNL sketch from 30 years ago. It'd be comical if they weren't serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites