What'll the GOP do about their TP Problem Now?

Pretending that there has arisen a complimentary leftist fringe in the Democratic Party may impose a simplistic symmetry but does not reflect reality. There is no comparable extremist faction like the TPs, nor an equivalent contingent of media entertainers spouting hyper-partisan boilerplate. A clear majority of Americans are ideologically at the center and moderates, as a voting bloc, have been solidly Democratic. The hierarchy of the GOP knows it must move back toward the centre to secure those votes.

Are there extreme leftists in the Democratic ranks? Of course. Have they built up the numbers, organisation, or fanaticism to exert the influence upon their party that the extreme rightists do upon the GOP? No, clearly not.

Thus, the rancour within Republican ranks, and no prospect of a mirror-image Carnival Cruz and his flavour of radicalism achieving comparable eminence on "the left."

 

Obviously, any opposition senate leader would wish that a first-term president not be elected to a second term. None but McConnell has stated that that as a priority in such hyper-partisan terms: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

I am unaware of any others who would set such a blatantly political objective before serving the American electorate. Perhaps, now that he need not obsess over denying the Presidet a third term, he can fulfill the obligations for which he was elected: To address the needs of the nation.

 

Simple answer to the GOP TP problem, flush it. Sooner or later the GOP is going to be forced to deal with the problem but at that point it may be too late. I always love it when TP'ers claim they are not Republicans yet all their candidates are Republicans, talk about a messed up way of thinking, I am not sure the TP'ers even know what they are.

 

After the '14 elections, the TPs' have a sense of entitlement added to their lust to have their radical agenda enacted by the Republican congressional leadership - which would sabotage the '16 elections for Republicans. Neither McConnell nor Boehner have evidenced a death wish that would dispose them to pander to their party's wacko birds. When Turtle vowed to "crush them everywhere" he certainly wasn't excluding his own legislative realm.

Nationalizing the TP utopian pipe dream, Sammy's experimental Red State Model would constitute GOP-assisted suicide for America. (TP DeMint enthused about RomneyCare that it was "something we should do for the whole country!", but you won't see anyone wishing that the US aspire to the model of Brownbackistan.)

Democrats are very well-positioned for '16. They have a popular probable nominee to get the bottom feeders in a tizzy; to the inherent advantages of an "off year" election is added which Party has more seats at risk; there will be around 60% voter turnout in the national election (that overwhelms the record-low 37% of '14 in which older, White males were disproportionally represented, to their credit) as the demographic impact upon democratic governance continues. (Registered Democrats are approximately 60% White in a 60% White nation, whilst Repubs are close to 90% racially pure.)

In the meantime, Americans will be entertained by the spectacle of the long-festering Turdblossom's War with the TPs now being waged openly in Congress.

I certainly intend to enjoy the mayhem.

 

they cant cheat enough in elections to make up for the death of their voters by old age.


They are having to cheat so hard they are getting caught more and more.


they have to say evil things to win the TP votes.


at some point they are not even an asset to the party.


to please them you have to make too many voters hate your party

 

Given that Obama's first and second term have been such a gargantuan failure, I can now look back in hind site and say that Mitch McConnell's wisdom was prescient. We would have been much better off without Obama's first term let alone the second. If not for the extreme ignorance of the American public to include the fraction who make the effort to vote, we'd have never suffered these last six years of economic stagnation and social unrest. One has to give credit to the sycophants in the mainstream media for not only failing to report on the failures of Obama, but as advocates for his administration and all his corruptions of government.

Mitch McConnell's main job now is to reverse the damage done by Obama, and to block any furtherance of Obama's agenda, and replace it with sound economic policies in a Constitutional framework of limited government. That is what the nation needs most desperately.

 

your party cheated in the election to win

 

Such hyper-partisan claptrap is a non-starter for rational discourse. The American public's estimation of the President, however negative, is at this stage clearly superior to that of his hapless predecessor whose numbers were then about to plummet even further.

Obama's could follow that pattern - despite the improving economy that has recovered significanly from the disaster Bush had left - but mewling about Obama as a "gargantuan failure" only serves to lower the Bush's status even further as a relative objective assessment.

 

Mr. Hope and Change is beyond failure. He's an outright liar, he's the Liar In Chief.

The simple fact is you clowns got trounced in this election. The voters hate your guts. They have you a chance and you screwed up everything you touched.

If I were you I'd be more worried about your own side of the street. They who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

- - - Updated - - -

Mr. Hope and Change is beyond failure. He's an outright liar, he's the Liar In Chief.

The simple fact is you clowns got trounced in this election. The voters hate your guts. They have you a chance and you screwed up everything you touched.

If I were you I'd be more worried about your own side of the street. They who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

Well, I'm not a Bush cheerleader, there are plenty of things to criticize Bush for, but:

Bush was relatively scandal free when compared to Obama;
Bush was able to conduct 2 wars rather successfully;
Bush was able to gather our allies as well as the world together to conduct those wars with dozens of coalition partners;
Bush was able to partner with democrats to pass bipartisan legislation;
Bush pulled us out of a recession and didn't take 6+ years to do it.

Now I know you understand my view to be hyper-partisan claptrap, and as such is a non-starter for rational discourse, but comparing Bush and Obama as if there is some kind of equivalency in their records, or the quality of their leadership, or their conduct as president is to ignore reality as well as current public opinion. Obama is without question a hyper-failure on all fronts, domestically and internationally. This would make your partisan views as equally non-starter material as mine.

As far as the opinion polls, the only ones that count are at the ballot box, which by the way the pollsters were off by double digits I might add, which only leads me to question the veracity of the opinion polls showing Bush with such low approval ratings in the first place. It helps to have a media that fawns over your every move as Obama does, whereas Bush was constantly demonized by the press.

 

Seriously? You're using Bush to justify a Republican success? ???

Um.... no.

Remember Colin Powell? Remember torture? Remember Alberto Gonzales?

Um.... no. He screwed 'em both up rather badly.

Um.... no. He was giving unwanted backrubs to foreign leaders on international television.

Um... no. Unless you're talking about the Patriot Act, NDAA, and AUMF.

Um.... no. Bush destroyed our economy, and then stole from the People to fix it.

It's really not a good idea to use to justify any kind of Republican "success".

Bush was a complete scumbag, and a temporary political anomaly whose time has gone. Thank God and count your blessings.

Bush was not a nice man. Republicans should not glorify Dumbya, it's completely counterproductive.

- - - Updated - - -

No, your party got trounced, and it wouldn't have mattered in the least if the other party cheated or not.

You clowns are pretty bitter in defeat, aintcha?

 

If the GOP were to ask me, I would suggest they quit trying to compete with the leftists by being liberals-lite. But, I wonder what the Democrats are going to do about the communists in their party?

 

More hyper-partisan claptrap. Your hysterical raving is really of no consequence.

I wasn't not any ballot, nor was I connected to anyone's campaign. As a matter of record, on these boards, I had long predicted that the GOP would take control of both branches of Congress in '14, and will retain control of the House after '16.

So far, I have been spot-on.

That certainly sounds like one of those lies you mewl about since the vast majority of voters don't know me, nor have they authorized you to speak for them.

To determine the electorate's opinions, I look to objective, public surveys. They consistently confirm the current, unimpressive regard for the President, only slightly better than his predecessor's at this stage of his tenure.

I suspect that you did not make that up all by yourself, but you might want to take it to heart, nonetheless.

 

Yes, but, he made the comparison first, not me. Bush was a successful president by any standard, and by comparison, a great president compared to Obama.

Yes, I remember the above.

Colin Powell was a successful Secretary of State. He was the first African American Secretary of State. This is a great accomplishment of Bush and the GOP which is demonstrative of our long history of Civil Rights and racial firsts. I don't consider his appointment a scandal.

If you are talking about his speech to the UN regarding WMD's, I shouldn't need to remind you that the NYT's confirmed that the Bush Administration's assertions regarding Iraq's WMD's proved to be true for the most part.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq

Oh, gee, it was so scandalous. Bush lied about WMD's and people died, only it turns out he didn't lie. Nevermind.

I remember democrats decrying torture with regard to some enhanced interrogation techniques. Yawn. I have little sympathy for terrorists who should have received a firing squad instead of Eric Holder's firm to represent them. Keep in mind, this so called torture has been conducted on US serviceman in the special operations of our military for decades. I don't remember anyone wanted to go back and accuse every president since LBJ of torture.

Alberto Gonzales was also another first. Appointing the first Hispanic to the Attorney Generals office could hardly be considered scandalous.

Is this the scandal you are referring to? Once again a non-scandal since Clinton fired all the attorneys in the Justice Department so that he could fill them all with his political hack friends.

You forgot to mention the Valerie Plame non-scandal.

I'll disagree.

Obama bows to Muslim dictators, takes selfies that embarrass his wife at funerals, and dresses like a Maoist on a trip to China. Our enemies don't fear us and our allies don't trust us. His foibles are so numerous they could fill a book, which I have no intention of writing one a this time.

No, I wasn't talking about those but you can throw them in there as well.

Once again, I'll disagree.

Why not? It's true.

Well now you are just name-calling. Try to stay substantive.

I'm not glorifying him. But he is a very nice man.

 

Apparently, since the public's estimation of him was worse -albeit only slightly - than for the President at this stage of his tenure.

Yes, Bush's nosedived to an abysmal level by the time he absconded from office, but whether Obama follows that trajectory is a matter only time can tell. If the economy continues to improve from the depths that Bush had left it in, that's unlikely, but who knows? It's certainly possible. - Or, if Obama were to instigate another fraudulently-pretexted, two trillion dollar nation building fiasco somewhere, I expect that would virtually guarantee it.

Individuals are free to poll themselves and come up with an enormous range of personal opinions, for whatever they're worth, and they do - but it's necessary to consult public surveys for an objective, relative assessment.

That does not insure accuracy by any means, but it's the best measure of the electorate's perspective.

 

By any standard except the consensus of Americans, at least. Even most Repubs regard him as a mediocrity, and his being kept in campaign quarantine by all GOP office seekers ever since is ample confirmation of the regard in which he has been held within the Party.

Will Obama's fate be Bush's or Clinton's? Somewhere in between, most likely.



.

 

I don't think you can win a war against an idea once it's taken root in the party and the TP has certainly done that. The idea of smaller government and ever lower taxes will never fade with the base. The establishment couldn't win without them so they have no choice but to play to some of their less wacko policies to garner their support.

 

Gee, listening to you, one would think that the idea of limited government and the right to own property started with the Tea Party instead of those wacky founding fathers. Perhaps you missed it, or are too young to remember Ronald Reagan, a former President of the United States, who campaigned on promises of lower taxes and less government. Before we had the 16th Amendment, we pretty much had lower taxes (zero) and smaller government, so yeah, it took a while for it to get out of control before people were really crying out for a role back in taxes and bloated federal bureaucracies.

I guess that means that the idea of ever increasing tax burdens and intrusive federalism will never fade within the democrat party's base using your logic. That explains why the democrats have to appeal to the wacko leftist fringe with the retarded policies they've been pushing just to garner their support.

 

The Tea Party has been "muzzled and leashed" by the GOP Leadership.

Look at the situation-

ZERO Tea Party primary challenges to incumbent Republican Senators succeeded....yet all those incumbents were re-elected. So the TP posed zero threat to them...and in fact, come Election Day...voted for the "RINOs".

The Speaker of the House calls the Tea Party "knuckleheads"....he defetaed a primary rival, was re-elected and will be re-elected Speaker.

Mitch McConnell promised to...and did..."crush the Tea Party"....he defeated his primary rival, got re-elected, and will be the Senate Majority Leader.

The main "hero" of the Tea Party in the Senate...Ted Cruz...is being ignored by the Leadershp and fellow Republicans on his call for a "total repeal" of Obamacare.


So....looking at all that? What's the "power and influence" of the Tea Party?

 

And he cut taxes.....but increased spending and increased the size of Government.

(BTW, if you are a Reagan apologist, here's where you credit him for the tax cuts....but blame the spending and the creation of the Dept. of Veterans' Affairs on Democrats)

 

Yeah, well democrats ran congress, but it would have been nice to see Reagan veto a few more budgets to get spending under control. Reagan needs no apologies. He was the greatest president since Lincoln.

 

So why is it that Reagan gets credit for the tax cuts and Congress gets no credit for them?

But Reagan gets no BLAME for the spending and Congress gets all the blame for the spending?

When both were passed by Congress and signed by Reagan?

And "nice if Reagan had done such-and-such" is no excuse. WHY DIDN'T he veto any spending bills?

BTW, you also can't defend him on "cutting Government"....he rain in 1980 on "getting rid of the Dept.s of Energy and Education"....and instead?

He created a BRAND NEW Cabinet-level Department...Veteran's Affairs. (A move I agree with...but clearly contradicts any idea of Reagan as a "Government reducer", doesn't it?)

And what of his other actions in the White House?

Nominating pro-Roe Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.....conservative or liberal?

Talking "tough" about the Soviets....but still signing a missile treaty (INF) with them....conservative or liberal?

Cutting taxes...and then raising them 11 times.....conservative or liberal?

Talking "tough" about Iran in the 1980 Election.....helping them to get weapons via Ollie North.....conservative or....what???

Signing an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants....conservative or liberal? (BTW, here's where you try "The Democrats FOOLED Reagan on that immigration bill"...and say The Gipper was a doddering old man who could be easily tricked....despite supporting amnesty all the way back to the 1984 Debate (see Signature Line below))

There's the MYTH of the Reagan Years...then there is the actual history.

BTW...don't even TRY to claim Reagan was a conservative when he was Governor of California.....guess who signed THE most liberal pre-Roe abortion law in the country?

 

Gee, you seem to think we consider Reagan a God. No, he was just a great president. You know the answers to all the questions, just playing dumb with me to provoke me into arguing over minor crap, and ignoring the greatest accomplishment is typical left wing propaganda and revisionism. Not interested in playing that game.

 

Really, an ever increasing tax burden?

Why don't we have an increase in the tax burden till we pay the debt burden the supply side whacko's in the conservative party put us..... starting with 3 trillion debt Reagan started and which the Bushes expanded.

You do know Reagan raised taxes a couple few times don't you Patrot?

Sure you do.

So.... once we pay down the conservatives debt, we can cut taxes.

It's call being responsible and accountable and the conservatives are neither.

 

Reagan also raised taxes. More than a few times.

But conservatives ignore that bit of history lest it put a liberal tax and spend patina on their shiny Reagan statue.