Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Republicans not named Bush


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Republicans not named Bush Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 9:37:15 AM   
toservez


Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline 		I have been watching the election coverage now for much too long. One of the themes I have seen is the talk that the Democrats that were elected were moderate Democrats and that they will not go along with a strong liberal agenda.

What I have not seen though is any discussion as to how the Republicans in Congress will act. Now many already have brought up balancing the budget and have been surprisingly light on Dem bashing, which might be a small miracle, but I was wondering if you will see them shift in their own policies because of the election.

Maybe way too much false hope, but I would think with Bush being a lame duck and the election basically being a vote against him that the Republicans in Congress would retreat toward the middle and that would be more on the mind of people then what will the Democrats will do.




_____________________________

I am sorry I do not fit Webster's defintion of a slave but thankfully my Master is not Webster.

"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned." - H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 9:41:26 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		If the Republicans start calling the democrats shitweasels right after the elections, that is gonna stick as sour grapes in peoples craw, but with George up there beating the drums, they are going to have to come out of the closet again, and rally the eeha for awhile maybe in a couple months and for a year or so, but when the elections start getting play again, they are going to have to rail and chop at the dems again but confiscate any pictures of them hanging out with Bush.

Ron   

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to toservez)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 10:27:48 AM   
peterK50


Posts: 433
Joined: 1/12/2006
Status: offline 		The talk on conservative radio today [wednesday] is scarey. The Republicans were "stabbed in the back" by the moderates who did not support the President. Conservatives need to become more conservative & less involved in "compromise of their principles". Looks bleak.

_____________________________

Religion Is About Seeking Knowledge, Not Knowing All The Answers.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 11:26:24 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		sounds like a cult to me.   hmm, i wasnt alive during mccarthism, and i was a lousy student.

funny how sour winners are now sour loosers. 

ill send rush some pills. maybe that will help....


(in reply to peterK50)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 11:26:56 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: peterK50

The talk on conservative radio today [wednesday] is scarey. The Republicans were "stabbed in the back" by the moderates who did not support the President. Conservatives need to become more conservative & less involved in "compromise of their principles". Looks bleak.


Peter, what I noticed on the political news last night was three different things.
Of course number one was the War.
It's time to wrap it up.
Number two was that they said a lot of moderates want to stop all this wreckless overspending by borrowing against the future.
The third thing was this out of control "immigration" and that unsecured border with Mexico.

Bush wasn't paying attention to any of those things and The People slapped him in the face for it!
Not only wasn't Bush paying attention to Democrats he wasn't paying attention to Republicans and obviously they stayed home from the Polls in large numbers.
And then there's the Independents like myself and there are a lot of us out here.

(in reply to peterK50)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 11:40:36 AM   
toservez


Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: peterK50

The talk on conservative radio today [wednesday] is scarey. The Republicans were "stabbed in the back" by the moderates who did not support the President. Conservatives need to become more conservative & less involved in "compromise of their principles". Looks bleak.


That is so scary. I may dissagree with many of their positions and despise their tatics but they have the right to their beliefs and to vote on them. What is so scary is how much denial they must have to have that opinion and how people of the extreme nature come up with justifications.

It does not take a advanced degree in political science to know that most of the gains made by the Democrats were in the non bright red or blue states but the states that are a mixture. This was not about bases coming out to vote, but the middle feeling abandon more by the Republicans then the Democrats. It was an "enough of this crap" vote.

I only hope they think this two years from now. They will get killed even more.


_____________________________

I am sorry I do not fit Webster's defintion of a slave but thankfully my Master is not Webster.

"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned." - H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama

(in reply to peterK50)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/8/2006 12:24:13 PM   
happypervert


Posts: 2203
Joined: 5/11/2004
From: Scranton, PA
Status: offline
quote:

The talk on conservative radio today [wednesday] is scarey. The Republicans were "stabbed in the back" by the moderates who did not support the President. Conservatives need to become more conservative & less involved in "compromise of their principles". Looks bleak.

You mean, it looks bleak for them. If they all shift to the right that will only serve to make them even more annoying to the independents who will then vote for Democrats who will be quite happy to stake their ground in the middle while trying to keep the far left under control.

So I'm all for it! I say let the conservatives talk about nothing else but the agenda of the far right such as having "intelligent design" in textbooks while they serve as living proof that it is wrong.


< Message edited by happypervert -- 11/8/2006 12:26:52 PM >

_____________________________

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it if you live." . . . Mark Twain

(in reply to peterK50)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/11/2006 7:54:54 AM   
Manawyddan


Posts: 701
Joined: 1/2/2005
From: Petaluma (Northern California)
Status: offline 		I agree with hp. Let them cut their own throats.

But I think the mass media analysis of the elction is off. A lot of the Dems elected were actually progressives, on the left side of the party. It still may have been more a rejection of the Bushies than anything overtly pro-Dem, but certainly folks weren't scared off by what they were saying.

Also ... the Rep base IS fragmenting ... a third of white evangelicals voted for Democrats!

_____________________________

_______________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor"
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
_______________________________________________

(in reply to happypervert)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/11/2006 9:17:01 AM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

I agree with hp. Let them cut their own throats.

But I think the mass media analysis of the elction is off. A lot of the Dems elected were actually progressives, on the left side of the party. It still may have been more a rejection of the Bushies than anything overtly pro-Dem, but certainly folks weren't scared off by what they were saying.

Also ... the Rep base IS fragmenting ... a third of white evangelicals voted for Democrats!


Hello A/all,

The single largest voting bloc in the Republican party are pentacostal evangelical religious groups.  These comprise 40% of their party, and Monkeyboy is one of them.

I am not sure I would agree that it is an issue of the more centrist Republicans voting Democrat, because the schism in the party is religious, not political.

I think what happened was the fiscally conservative, anti big government, possibly extremist Republicans have watched Monkeyboy spend the national surplus like a teenager with Daddy's credit card and create greater levels of incompetent big Government (DHS, for example) than most of the presidents of the last 30 years.

The Republicans who voted with the Democrats were trying to send a message that the Republican party needs to return to what they believe are the party's core values.

Just me, could be wrong, etc.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Manawyddan)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/11/2006 11:01:12 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		One thing that the Dems shouldn't try is to push any "leftist" stuff on the floor.
That'll just turn The People against them and it will be a short two years!
Get us out of the war, protect our borders and stop spending money that we don't have.
Plenty of spending can be cut!
Look at the State Dept alone, another huge govt. dept that doesn't need to be anywhere near as big as it is.

(in reply to toservez)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/11/2006 11:05:38 AM   
sissifytoserve


Posts: 1016
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		I notice AL -CIA-Da conveniently showed up right after the elections...to scare the population back into fear.

Booga booga.

Iwonder if the repugs are going to try and capitalize on it?

_____________________________

A great mind must be androgynous
Samuel Coleridge

The uniting of the feminine and the masculine is the highest form of human development Carl Jung

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/11/2006 3:51:23 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		I read in the newspaper that less than 20% of the registered voters showed up to vote. The change in the congress was only big enough to change the majority by a very thin margin.
I see no significant change.
thompson

(in reply to sissifytoserve)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/19/2006 7:19:18 AM   
Manawyddan


Posts: 701
Joined: 1/2/2005
From: Petaluma (Northern California)
Status: offline 		Midterm elections typically have low turnout, nothing unusual about this time.

Although in a way, we wound up with the opposite of my ideal setup. Leaving aside third parties and assuming we just are faced with the big two, I would rather have:

A Democratic President
Republican majorites in the House and the Senate ... by exactly one vote.

Still, the Reps have behaved so atrociously these last 12 years, I am thrilled to see them get their wrists slapped.

_____________________________

_______________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor"
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
_______________________________________________

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/19/2006 8:40:48 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Manawyddan

Midterm elections typically have low turnout, nothing unusual about this time.

Although in a way, we wound up with the opposite of my ideal setup. Leaving aside third parties and assuming we just are faced with the big two, I would rather have:

A Democratic President
Republican majorites in the House and the Senate ... by exactly one vote.

Still, the Reps have behaved so atrociously these last 12 years, I am thrilled to see them get their wrists slapped.


This is what happens when the politicians don't fuckin * L-I-S-T-E-N* to The People.

(in reply to Manawyddan)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/19/2006 12:39:51 PM   
saskslave


Posts: 69
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline 		You have to chuckle at how deluded some Democrats are as they hail this "historic victory" in the 6th year of a 2-term President.  I even saw an op-ed by Michael Moore in the LA Times where he claims that this mid-term election win means it is the end of conservatism.  Good grief!  

This is common for a 2-term President, indeed it is a historical pattern.  Even the legendary Ronald Reagan lost a couple of seats in the Senate, and a few in the House--just 2 years after winning 49 of 50 states.  Few, if any, Republicans (politicians excepted) predicted they would hold the House, and some thought they might, might, hold the Senate.

Many of the Democrat wins were moderates.  The guy from Montana; Casey is against killing innocent babies; Harold Ford from Tennessee--a moderate/conservative Dem; Virginia's Jim Webb used to be a Republican--another moderate/conservative Dem.  If the Democrats had run the extremist-type that control the top echelon of the party, they would have never won the Senate.  The majority of the public rejects these perpetually-seething "progressive" liberals. 

With the far-left's Nancy Pelosi getting voted down regarding John Murtha, is this the beginning of the civil war - between the hard-left liberals (Pelosi etal) and the moderate/conservative Dems - in the party?  

(in reply to toservez)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/20/2006 6:06:39 AM   
zigg


Posts: 7
Joined: 11/11/2004
Status: offline 		I think this was a vote against the war in Iraq. Many people had that on their minds and rejected the republicans. I dont believe they were supporting the democrats as much as saying these guys need to go and this democrat is the only other choice I have.

Bush is in trouble with the conservatives as well because with a republican congress  he had an opportunity to cut back on govt spending. Instead of doing that hes been spending money as fast as he can. Really was a wasted opportunity and many republicans including myself are simply pissed.

(in reply to saskslave)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Republicans not named Bush - 11/20/2006 9:33:31 AM   
toservez


Posts: 1733
Joined: 9/7/2006
From: All over now in Minnesota
Status: offline 		Republicans = fiscally conservative is a joke to people of my age. Every Republican President has run up the debt that I have known and the only Dem president had a surplus. At some point a fact is a fact. Republicans are not small government and fiscally responsible period and to think people might vote for them just because they think they are is troubling to me. By 2008 we will have had a Republican in the White House 20 of the last 28 years. Facts speak for themselves.





_____________________________

I am sorry I do not fit Webster's defintion of a slave but thankfully my Master is not Webster.

"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned." - H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama

(in reply to zigg)
Profile   Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Republicans not named Bush Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094