View Full Version : Romney may be end of line for establishment GOP
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/romney_may_be_the_end_of_the_line_for_the_republican_establishment
-
Mo_Zam_Beek
09-26-12, 00:56
If Romney loses in November, the Republican base will no longer buy the electability argument for an establishment candidate. From the view of the base, the elites will have given away an eminently winnable election. Someone new, from outside of Washington, will be the party's nominee in 2016.
If Romney wins and does nothing to change the status quo, the economy will falter. He will end up as the second straight one-term president, and the nation will desperately be searching for an authentic outsider in 2016.
Not sure if the correct word here is disingenuous, or complicit.
The shenanigans (elections fraud) during the primary process is what directly contributed to pulling the air out of Ron Paul's balloon early on by the establishment.
Not until media figures like Rasmussen begin to accurately report the connections between establishment candidates (from both major parties), big banks, the FED, and how it all really works in wonderland - will anything CHANGE.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
Good luck
Doc Safari
09-26-12, 11:03
As a dedicated member of the unofficial Tea Party it would please me no end to see both the Democrat and Republican parties go down the tubes.
George Washington was correct about permanent political parties.
They will never give up power willingly. It will have to be taken from them. I just hope it can be accomplished without resorting to use of force. :(
Littlelebowski
09-26-12, 12:20
I think the Republican Party doubled down on being socially conservative in an attempt to win evangelical votes. We will all pay for it.
Doc Safari
09-26-12, 12:52
I think the Republican Party doubled down on being socially conservative in an attempt to win evangelical votes. We will all pay for it.
I actually think they failed to learn the lesson that people prefer to vote "for" something rather than "against" something.
Like or dislike Gingrich, his Contract with America in 1994 was something to vote for.
What have any of them done for us lately?
I get the idea they think Obama is so bad that an unbathed chimpanzee could beat him.
Big, big mistake.
I get the idea they think Obama is so bad that an unbathed chimpanzee could beat him.
.
Hmmm. I do not want to reply with something liberal like, "Avoid the racial innuendo."
Hmmm. I do not want to reply with something liberal like, "Avoid the racial innuendo."
You do understand that in that sentence Obama wasn't being called anything as it was in reference to a hypothetical candidate that could be run against him right?
Hmmm. I do not want to reply with something liberal like, "Avoid the racial innuendo."
Then don't. Resist the "Everything is Racist" Koolaid.
I think the Republican Party doubled down on being socially conservative in an attempt to win evangelical votes. We will all pay for it.
I'd agree if the GOP had nominated Santorum. Even though he is Catholic, that would be epitome of social conservatism and the evangelical vote. Instead, they nominated Romney, and his Mormon faith is largely considered to be a cult to the Religious Right in the Bible Belt (I live in Charlotte, NC with in-laws in G'ville, SC). Interestingly, none of the Bible Beaters around me seem to care. They all think that Romney's cult is infinitely better than Obama's Black Liberation Theology Cult or closet Muslim faith - which ever you happen to believe.
Honestly, I can't remember the last time that Romney made a significant mention of a social issue such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. He may have positions on those issues, but they are not a centerpiece of his campaign and he seems to do a good job of redirecting every interviewer back to the economy when they stray into the social issue weeds.
As a dedicated member of the unofficial Tea Party it would please me no end to see both the Democrat and Republican parties go down the tubes.
George Washington was correct about permanent political parties.
Then prepare for Democratic rule for at least a generation. Why? Because our electoral college system of winner-take-all punishes fractured voting blocks.
For example, the liberal progressives are content with the hard left turn that the Democrat Party has taken. The Dems have purged their ranks of Conservative thought over the past 10 years and what remains is the MSNBC faithful who have no desire to form a third party. They can count on at least 40-45% of the popular vote as a base in most national elections, and then focus their efforts on the 15% undecideds who are largely morons. Sure, you see some sniping of Obama from fringe groups such as Code Pink, but the chorus from the establishment left, the media, academia, etc. is harmoniously pushing the Democratic party.
On the other hand, it seems to be the Republicans are composed of 3 loosely aligned camps: conservative, moderate, and libertarian. These 3 camps have largely perfected the art of the circular firing squad. Any modern third party will likely result from a fracture of one or more of these camps. My gut tells me that it would be a portion of the conservative and libertarian wings that separate from the moderate over issues of entitlement and welfare reform. This will guarantee that Dems have a plurality of the vote despite not having a national majority on the issues. If you don't believe me, take a look at Ross Perot in '92. That little bastard was indirectly responsible for the likes of Ginsberg, Bryer, GLBA, Lewinsky, et al.
High Tower
09-27-12, 08:15
On the other hand, it seems to be the Republicans are composed of 3 loosely aligned camps: conservative, moderate, and libertarian. These 3 camps have largely perfected the art of the circular firing squad. Any modern third party will likely result from a fracture of one or more of these camps. My gut tells me that it would be a portion of the conservative and libertarian wings that separate from the moderate over issues of entitlement and welfare reform. This will guarantee that Dems have a plurality of the vote despite not having a national majority on the issues. If you don't believe me, take a look at Ross Perot in '92. That little bastard was indirectly responsible for the likes of Ginsberg, Bryer, GLBA, Lewinsky, et al.
I agree with this assessment. But any replacement party for the RNC would need the backing of Christian conservatives. Without us, the RNC would never have come this far. But the RNC has been slapping us in the face for quite some time now with their liberal ideologies and decisions. But as you said, there would be democratic rule for awhile until this new party built up steam and I'm still unsure if that is the best way to go.
Belmont31R
09-27-12, 21:48
Where's the party for the 'live and let live' crew?
It's either country club GOP/evangelicals or pelosi/reid/obongo.
Bolt_Overide
09-27-12, 22:47
Where's the party for the 'live and let live' crew?
It's either country club GOP/evangelicals or pelosi/reid/obongo.
in other countries...
The two party system is the vehicle by which the people are kept under control.
Where's the party for the 'live and let live' crew?
It's either country club GOP/evangelicals or pelosi/reid/obongo.
If you want a viable 3rd Party, it must put forward competant candidates. Simply creating an empty shell 3rd Party because you don't like the Big Two does not benefit the country. The reason why the Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates will each get less than 5% of the vote has a lot more to do with their own weaknesses, and a lot less to do with "the system."
For example, the Constitution Party nominee, Virgil Goode, is a career politician out of SW Virginia. He has made a living out of switching parties for political gain and has never had any real executive experience (i.e. run something). For those hoping for a candidate without ties to special interests, Goode never met a tobacco subsidy that he didn't like.
Then, there is Gary Johnson who is the Libertarian Party candidate. He actually has an interesting personal story prior to entering politics, and did a respectable job running NM. However, his positions since leaving office make him sound stoned. Nobody believes that he could cut DOD by 46% in 1 year without getting a bunch of service members killed. Next, he goes onto FNC and calls for an assassination team to go into Africa to kill the rebel leader Kony. These positions demonstrate him to be a man that will pander to get elected - just like every other politician.
So, before you go forming a 3rd Party, I suggest that you make sure that you can staff it with something other than GOP flunkies and clowns. Otherwise, get ready for a generation of Obamas.
Y'all made some great points but at the end of the day I place the blame on a non-critical thinking, apathetic public.
The_War_Wagon
09-28-12, 07:11
I'm voting Constitution Party again. Constitution or Libertarian - SOMETHING'S gotta take the place of the estbalishment sorts, for certain!
Y'all made some great points but at the end of the day I place the blame on a non-critical thinking, apathetic public.
It's the people that suck.
The governments they elect are a reflection of themselves.
Face it: 3/4 of the voting population of this country ****ing suck at leaving each-other alone
How can a people keep liberty when they have forgotten what it is?
CarlosDJackal
09-28-12, 08:29
As a dedicated member of the unofficial Tea Party it would please me no end to see both the Democrat and Republican parties go down the tubes.
George Washington was correct about permanent political parties.
Same here. Unfortunately, the chances of that happening to either party is pretty slim.
IMHO, until we get the press back under control and we hold them accountable for their biased reporting (on all sides) this will never happen. The so-called media likes to build up one party or another and they tend to convince the sheeple to keep giving either party the funds they need to stay in business.
If America were to stop sending contributions, these parties would eventually cease to exist. JM2CW.
I'm voting Constitution Party again. Constitution or Libertarian - SOMETHING'S gotta take the place of the estbalishment sorts, for certain!
What about those candidates make you think that they are different than any other politician? For example, Virgil Goode (Constitution Party Candidate) is a career politician whose positions and party affiliations flip according to popular opinion. His pockets have been lined by big tobacco and his House votes have followed that cash. Do you really think that he his going to stand on principle?
Now, take a look at this video of Gary Johnson on FNC:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/15/special_report_panel_interviews_gov_gary_johnson.html
Do you have any problem with his foreign policy regarding military cuts and Joseph Kony? IMHO, Krauthammer embarrassed him on national TV.
DeltaSierra
09-28-12, 09:44
No, you got that waaaay wrong.
Krauthammer is the embaressment .... You should be ashamed to even use that guys name, without spitting three times....
If you want a viable 3rd Party, it must put forward competant candidates. Simply creating an empty shell 3rd Party because you don't like the Big Two does not benefit the country. The reason why the Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates will each get less than 5% of the vote has a lot more to do with their own weaknesses, and a lot less to do with "the system."
For example, the Constitution Party nominee, Virgil Goode, is a career politician out of SW Virginia. He has made a living out of switching parties for political gain and has never had any real executive experience (i.e. run something). For those hoping for a candidate without ties to special interests, Goode never met a tobacco subsidy that he didn't like.
Then, there is Gary Johnson who is the Libertarian Party candidate. He actually has an interesting personal story prior to entering politics, and did a respectable job running NM. However, his positions since leaving office make him sound stoned. Nobody believes that he could cut DOD by 46% in 1 year without getting a bunch of service members killed. Next, he goes onto FNC and calls for an assassination team to go into Africa to kill the rebel leader Kony. These positions demonstrate him to be a man that will pander to get elected - just like every other politician.
So, before you go forming a 3rd Party, I suggest that you make sure that you can staff it with something other than GOP flunkies and clowns. Otherwise, get ready for a generation of Obamas.
Why is there only two candidates in the debates next week? But every election I see other choices, libertarian, green and constitutional parties.
No, you got that waaaay wrong.
Krauthammer is the embaressment .... You should be ashamed to even use that guys name, without spitting three times....
Why? Is it because he asked your favorite candidate a tough question that he could not answer? So your favorate candidate botched an interview and you blame the person asking the question. I suppose that Johnson's shitty performance in the polls has nothing to do with people disagreeing with his positions. It's all the system's fault...:rolleyes:
Why is there only two candidates in the debates next week? But every election I see other choices, libertarian, green and constitutional parties.
Because you can't run a debate with 5 or 6 people on the stage. The GOP Primary debates proved this. There has to be some criteria or else the debate becomes a cluster with the likes of the guy from The Rent is Too Damn High Party (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20rent%20is%20too%20damn%20high&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dx4o-TeMHys0&ei=Q81lUMnvMqbC0QGg04H4Bw&usg=AFQjCNHHPPdxcVvPDTksaHNxZCI1jZwc_g). Thus, the debates set a criteria based on polling. Get about 15% of the population to agree with his positions and he'll get a spot on the stage.
Our parties aren't permanent they just keep the same names as they evolve.
The GOP risks becoming a regional party because of their views on social issues more than anything. The south likes their Christianity in their politics. Northern conservatives are mostly perfectly happy to let gay people get married. The salvation of the party will be if the libertarians and the fiscal conservatives force the social conservatives aside.
Doc Safari
09-28-12, 13:02
The GOP risks becoming a regional party because of their views on social issues more than anything. The south likes their Christianity in their politics. Northern conservatives are mostly perfectly happy to let gay people get married.
I bet if you ran the numbers for abortion, higher taxes, social programs, and everything else you'd get similar results.
And it's starting to sound like the 1860's all over again...
DeltaSierra
09-28-12, 15:04
Why? Is it because he asked your favorite candidate a tough question that he could not answer? So your favorate candidate botched an interview and you blame the person asking the question. I suppose that Johnson's shitty performance in the polls has nothing to do with people disagreeing with his positions. It's all the system's fault...:rolleyes:
You know, I don't even like Johnson, so your whole argument is what I would call, flawed.
The fact is that Knucklehead (er, Krauthammer) is a flaming right-wing, neoconservative loon.
By the way, this is the correct spelling of "favorite."
You know, I don't even like Johnson, so your whole argument is what I would call, flawed.
And your tactic of changing the topic to Krauthammer is what I would call, weak. However, I will concede that you are a better speller...;)
The Republican party is a cheating whore that should be divorced.
Y'all made some great points but at the end of the day I place the blame on a non-critical thinking, apathetic public.
Completely agree. As a nation we have the government we deserve.
DeltaSierra
09-28-12, 19:55
And your tactic of changing the topic to Krauthammer is what I would call, weak. However, I will concede that you are a better speller...;)
Hey, you are the one that brought Knucklehead into the discussion... :)
Here is the problem - you brought up something that didn't have any relevancy to the current discussion, and I (stupidly) got irritated by what you said, and pounced.
I can't disagree with your statement about career politicians, be it Virgil Goode, or Gary Johnson, or Mitt Romney....
The problem is, while you have such insight regarding politicians, when said career politician happens to agree with you on certain issues, it seems that insight goes out the window, and you support them, regardless of the facts.
The problem is, while you have such insight regarding politicians, when said career politician happens to agree with you on certain issues, it seems that insight goes out the window, and you support them, regardless of the facts.
Is that why, or is it because we have only two viable candidates to choose from and one of them is usually an abhorrition?
Amazing to see so many idealogs here sit on their high horse while offering not a single link to their new web or facebook page documenting their organized effort to establish a new, better party or to run for a more conservative party. Yes you may have cast a vote for Paul or what not, but if you're so horrified by the current Republican party you should know that isn't nearly enough anymore.
Hey, you are the one that brought Knucklehead into the discussion... :)
Here is the problem - you brought up something that didn't have any relevancy to the current discussion, and I (stupidly) got irritated by what you said, and pounced.
I can't disagree with your statement about career politicians, be it Virgil Goode, or Gary Johnson, or Mitt Romney....
The problem is, while you have such insight regarding politicians, when said career politician happens to agree with you on certain issues, it seems that insight goes out the window, and you support them, regardless of the facts.
I will vote for the most conservative AND electable candidate in this race. Given the stakes when it comes to SCOTUS nominations, that means that I go to the mat for Romney on the issues where he is correct and do my best to swallow the 20% that I don't support.
It also means that I'll point out the fallacy that some third party candidate would somehow be a refreshing change for the country. That notion seems to be the undercurrent of this thread and the focus of my ire for the past 3 or 4 posts.
DeltaSierra
09-28-12, 20:59
Is that why, or is it because we have only two viable candidates to choose from and one of them is usually an abhorrition?
Amazing to see so many idealogs here sit on their high horse while offering not a single link to their new web or facebook page documenting their organized effort to establish a new, better party or to run for a more conservative party. Yes you may have cast a vote for Paul or what not, but if you're so horrified by the current Republican party you should know that isn't nearly enough anymore.
Two viable candidates, blah, blah blah....
You know what? If you think, for one second that this political situation can be reversed, by ANY party, even a new "party," you are beyond help.
My point is that any career politician has sold their soul, in some way shape or form, and simply by changing the bus driver, you aren't gonna change the destination.
I was involved in a campaign in the 2008 elections - I drank the kool-aid, and thought that this candidate might actually change the direction of the country. It took a while, but I finally figured out that placing your trust in ANY candidate, or party, or ideology is just plain stupid, so I am now a political agnostic. I don't claim any ideology anymore, and have little patience for anyone that thinks their favorite side is gonna do better than the other side....
Two viable candidates, blah, blah blah.... I don't claim any ideology anymore, and have little patience for anyone that thinks their favorite side is gonna do better than the other side....
And I could say the same about utter simpletons who are content to pout in the corner and bitch on election day because mommy won't give them what they want.
If you want a viable 3rd Party, it must put forward competant candidates. Simply creating an empty shell 3rd Party because you don't like the Big Two does not benefit the country. The reason why the Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates will each get less than 5% of the vote has a lot more to do with their own weaknesses, and a lot less to do with "the system."
For example, the Constitution Party nominee, Virgil Goode, is a career politician out of SW Virginia. He has made a living out of switching parties for political gain and has never had any real executive experience (i.e. run something). For those hoping for a candidate without ties to special interests, Goode never met a tobacco subsidy that he didn't like.
Edit: meant to quote your post before this one.
Then, there is Gary Johnson who is the Libertarian Party candidate. He actually has an interesting personal story prior to entering politics, and did a respectable job running NM. However, his positions since leaving office make him sound stoned. Nobody believes that he could cut DOD by 46% in 1 year without getting a bunch of service members killed. Next, he goes onto FNC and calls for an assassination team to go into Africa to kill the rebel leader Kony. These positions demonstrate him to be a man that will pander to get elected - just like every other politician.
So, before you go forming a 3rd Party, I suggest that you make sure that you can staff it with something other than GOP flunkies and clowns. Otherwise, get ready for a generation of Obamas.
This is 100% spot on. Democrats rarely criticize/undermine other Democrats no matter how far apart they are in ideology. They are playing this as a team from the ground up, and "we" are not.
Two viable candidates, blah, blah blah....
You know what? If you think, for one second that this political situation can be reversed, by ANY party, even a new "party," you are beyond help.
My point is that any career politician has sold their soul, in some way shape or form, and simply by changing the bus driver, you aren't gonna change the destination.
I was involved in a campaign in the 2008 elections - I drank the kool-aid, and thought that this candidate might actually change the direction of the country. It took a while, but I finally figured out that placing your trust in ANY candidate, or party, or ideology is just plain stupid, so I am now a political agnostic. I don't claim any ideology anymore, and have little patience for anyone that thinks their favorite side is gonna do better than the other side....
^ This....Nothing is gonna change in this country until we are flat broke, and a loaf of bread is costing $100, (an extreme example, I know, but you get my point)and we are reduced to bartering to get things. Right now, I figure that Obama is going to win, Romney just can't seem to keep from ****ing up, Every other week it seems like he slips up and say something damaging....Obama has spent roughly, 5 trillion in 4 years, putting us in debt to the tune of 16 trillion,(not counting SS and medicare/medicaid) Four more years of that kind of spending, plus the Fed's plan to spend 40 Billion a month buying back morgage backed securitys(endless QE) and we should be close to the tipping point. Neither party has a viable plan to reduce the defict in a meaningful way, and frankly four more years of Obama style spending,+ endless QE, and Default may be the only viable answer...I just wish that there was a "none of the above" box to check on the ballot...Myself, I'll vote for Romney, only because at this point, it's the only meaningful way to vote against Obama...But make no mistake, the only way to change things around in this country is through alot of pain..and there will be plenty to go around for everybody.. That's something no one in Washington has the guts to face up to...or admit.
Right now, I figure that Obama is going to win, Romney just can't seem to keep from ****ing up, Every other week it seems like he slips up and say something damaging.
Oh I know, it's just been horrible. Utterly torturous in fact. Now what is it you like so very much about the flavor of MSM koolaid?
And where is the link to your libertarian website? What is your plan other than bitching and moaning? You want change, make a real attempt to achieve it rather than waiting around like a clueless peasant.
Tonight when I get home I am going to try something myself to set an example. It's an idea I've had for about a week, if it hasn't already been done I will do it within 24hrs. If it's viable I'll have it up and provide a link, if not I'll explain later to show I'm not blowing smoke.
By the way Ralph, I want to make it clear that while I was responding to your post, I was primarily talking to everyone here who does a lot of complaining about the current Republican party and especially those that said they will not be voting. At least you plan to do that, which is more than we can say of others.
Only this morning my neighbor said she is not voting this year. I asked why and she said because she doesn't care for Obama anymore (she's an elderly liberal) and doesn't "trust" Romney. I casually asked her to elaborate about Romney and she had not a single substantial claim of any sort, just a feeling.
I let it go at that but find such a mindset very counterproductive and frustrating at this critical juncture. It also highlights the negative effect the media has on too many people today via biased reporting.
Safteyhit:
No problem, I like everyone else, get frustrated with the current state of the elections.. Living in a swing state I get bombarded with election ad's..I'm so tired of it I could just puke.I honestly think there some brilliant people who could make a difference, But choose not to, because they don't want to subject themselves and their families to the level of mudslinging, back stabbing, outright lying, that is now considered "normal' for elections..I look at voting as the only chance that I have to do something,put my 2 cents in. I'm happy to do it. I'm interested in your idea.. Let's see what you have..
Both of these parties are for shite.....and with the rise of the internet and smaller computers people are better informed. This is dangerous for both parties because they are now being scrutinized like never before. You can bet your ass that both parties are running around like crazy trying to figure what to do. You can already tell with the bills being presented through congress about the gov't trying to take control and censor the internet.
People are starting to realize that neither of these parties care about the electorate, they have their own agendas and they want to stay in power to attain their goals. Even if it means flip flopping, changing parties, lying.....pandering....you name it.
This shit is broken, like not fixable broken. We need to clean house and send all of these people packing.
Install term limits, pay caps, elimanate these crazy pensions after just serving one term. cut their pay by 75%, and give them a one time 250K pay out and the end of their term...which is capped at 2 terms. Get rid of the life long politician's....the true power brokers in the gov't.
It's gonna happen....hide and watch. We are seeing this bullshit firsthand over, over the past decade, like never before. We can only stomach so much....so yeah I think things will change. I think we're seeing the begining of the end for the mainstream 2 party system.
Safetyhit, I just noticed that you are in NJ. My condolences. That is just slightly better than being in prison.
Littlelebowski
09-30-12, 17:49
Is that why, or is it because we have only two viable candidates to choose from and one of them is usually an abhorrition?
Amazing to see so many idealogs here sit on their high horse while offering not a single link to their new web or facebook page documenting their organized effort to establish a new, better party or to run for a more conservative party. Yes you may have cast a vote for Paul or what not, but if you're so horrified by the current Republican party you should know that isn't nearly enough anymore.
What's even more amazing is you haunting threads where libertarians dare speak, haranguing us for not doing enough. What the **** have you done for anybody regarding political change? It's not like you asked DeltaSierra which candidate he actually volunteered for last election and it's for goddamned sure you haven't enlightened us to what work you've done to effect change within the Republican Party so we can assume you're FINE with the current state of affairs. Good.
Sit there in your shitty little union ran, highly taxed, gun controlled state and ****ing ENJOY it. Meanwhile, we can ****ing discuss what we think is wrong and there's not a goddamned thing you can do about except bitch and whine about what you think we should do but you apparently don't do yourself.
I think the time is ripe for the internet to create a new political party. I think the very first thing they should require is an extensive background check for EVERY candidate for office, regardless of the level of government. Said check should be paid for by the candidate and the results published online (with sensitive personally identifiable information redacted of course). Follow that with a 30 day period for the web gurus to pour over the data and post verifiable results.
The first disqualifying criminal offense should be any formal involvement in the official party hierarchy for the current two parties. :mad:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.