OT: Republican Party, moderates need not apply

[afx114]

Yep, forgot about that one.

We’ve already heard a few whispers about the GOP backing off the hardliner stance against gay marriage. McCain’s campaign manager said as much, so has David Brooks, and so did McCain’s daughter — although I’m not sure how much relevance she has.

It seems as though public opinion has flipped pretty quickly following the Iowa gay marriage change. I think most people realize that marriage equality is inevitable over the long run and they’re afraid of being on the losing team. Perhaps we’ll actually see some Republicans switching their stance on this in a hope to exploit it before the Dems can. Remember, Obama ran against gay marriage. Imagine that — the GOP being the party of gay marriage!

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[ucodegen]

I’d like a “no party” system, where you vote for an individual instead of a party. This whole notion that everyone has to fit neatly into a box is partly to blame for our govt’s demise (from a citizen’s standpoint), IMHO.

There were several discussions about what form the US gov should take within “The Federalists” papers.. some of the founders of this country were concerned that a strict two party system would result in the parties each vying for power to the detriment of the public.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Founding_Fathers_want_a_two_party_system_of_government

#1. moderate Republicans regroup and form a new party of the center. GOP stays and linger on as a fringe party.

I think this would be the best solution. It has also been shown to occur in the past. It would leave the small fringe group out of direct power and only act as a spoiler. The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents. I think one of the barriers to the formation of additional parties, is the cost of financing an election. To that end, I think Ron Paul demonstrated a way to get around a good portion of the cost {more grass routes, less main-stream media @ $300k/min(+/-)}

Interesting article:
http://www.matthewg.org/multiparty/ch1.pdf

[afx114]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents.[/quote]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

[afx114]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents.[/quote]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

[afx114]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents.[/quote]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

[afx114]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents.[/quote]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

[afx114]

[quote=ucodegen]The problem with the fringe portion of the GOP is that it represents a minuscule portion of their constituents.[/quote]

Some would argue that the evangelicals represent that ‘fringe’ portion of the GOP. Can the GOP win an election without the evangelicals?

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[ucodegen]

I do think it is hilarious about the canard of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. If anything under Bush, we got more liberal, as least with respect to government spending.

As to spending yes, but the GOP started pushing a more religious agenda which caused more collisions with the issue of separation of church and state. I also think that the media coverage of Bush’s expenditures were unbalanced, particularly when taken in contrast with Obama’s.
Real quick to end sniping:
*The TARP money spent on banks is a loan, the banks have to pay it back and are charged interest on the money.. about 3.5% (BofA just paid 403mil for 4 months on the money). It cost the fed about 2.5% interest on treasuries to loan the money. The fed is getting a skim of 1% on $700Bil because of the TARP – under the “baddie Bush”… Obama’s spending is not a loan, yet the amount is costing us about 2.5% interest.. which taxpayers not the banks are paying.
*Christian beliefs were not fundamental to this country when it was formed. The founders emphasized separation of Church and State. The phrase “in God We Trust” was added to our money around 1940, and was not placed there by the founders of this country.

[Author]

Posts