http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=167619 Do your own research. I assume you're at least capable of using Google. If you're too lazy for that, that's your own problem.
lol so Bats isn't going to stoop to responding to anybody but his merry band of liberals. Got it. Sounds like a scared man to me.
And Kennedy didn't win because of the failure of the Eisenhower Admin.. I was just pointing out to weslinder that his argument that Republicans only won when there wasn't a Republican movement because of the failures of the previous Democratic Admins also applies to many Democrats.
If they dropped the RR, wouldn't they basically be Libertarians? I'd be a Republican were it not for the social issues of the RR.
I remember people bemoaning the "dead" democratic party after Bush was re-elected in 2004. They blamed the DNC for every yadda yadda yadda. The religious right was going to ensure the republican party was never defeated ever again bla bla bla. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now. People have short memories, and whenever the people in office screw up, the country goes the other way.
You know just for the record, we usually give your boy Chicken George a little more than an hour and 11 minutes before we declare POOF.
Oh yeah! chickentexxx calling someone else scared. You NEVER disappear when someone slaps you down here, huh? What a laugh.
I don't think the Republican Party is dead now, just on life support and largely irrelevant when it comes to the concerns of a good majority of Americans. They could probably thrive with a moderate social agenda and a conservative fiscal policy. The leadership isn't interested. They are too busy being joined at the hip with the far-right/Christian Conservatives that have a grip on the party leadership. No matter how badly they do in elections, they seem bent on cranking out the same absurd, failed policies, taking the same bizarre stand on the issues of that group... blaming everyone but themselves for why it hasn't worked.
Nope they couldn't the "fringe" IS their base. Problem is how are they going to attract younger voters who are much more tolerant on issues like gay marriage without alienating their base?
That whole thread by Bats is simply a surrender. He's basically admitting that he cannot offer a logical defense to the conservatives on the board. Instead, he chooses to claim some kind of moral high ground and declare that he's above responding to the conservatives. I can see through his act and call him out for what it is - intellectual cowardice.
It is not just social issues that have the GOP in trouble. It is their whole running the country for the benefit almost exclusivey of the wealthy that is getting tarnished--the whole anti-government, tax cuts for the wealthy, anti-regulation of the finanicial industry, making some wealthy while endenturing student loan takers , making bankruptcy tough for credit card holders, trying to abolish social security and turn it over to the fianciers etc--. While there were some Democrats involved in these failures, it was overwhelmingly a GOP thing and people are not so trusting of the whole trickle down concept any more.
Shhh! Aren't you a Dem? Why tip the Republicans off on what their real problems are? Leave 'em be. Seriously, for the Republicans to come back any time soon, their sole hope is for Obama to fail. If Obama does well, the GOP is doomed until 2014/2016. All of what you say above is borderline irrelevant IMO. That part of the GOP will never change. It's what makes them what they are.
What thread was that? I don't agree with Batman a lot, but I don't remember him running from debates.
There was a major wing of the party, centered on the South, that was. That's certainly true. I would never say "the party" was segregationist, just as large numbers of Republicans don't buy into the RR and bigotry. They just don't control their party. In 1960, while still hugely powerful in the Democratic Party, segregationists lost control. Kennedy and Johnson, for all practical purposes, were ascendant. Kennedy was a brilliant, charismatic Democrat, but also a classic liberal of New England and the Northeast. Johnson was a classic Southern liberal, in the ballpark of Senator Ralph Yarbrough of Texas, if not as liberal, with a ruthless streak Yarbrough not only didn't have, but wouldn't have descended to in a million years. Johnson believed in a strong national defense, as did Kennedy, but was also strongly in favor of reform of a host of domestic issues. That's why he took Kennedy's social agenda and pushed it through. Not for political expediency, but because he believed in it. Both men had flaws and LBJ's went deep, but both didn't wave the flag of social justice simply to get votes. They believed.
