Republicans have "screwed up" since Reagan

[Ordie]

GOP chairman doubts Republicans can retake House
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
(01-05) 18:20 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

GOP Chairman Michael Steele thinks Republicans have "screwed up" for the most part in the years since Ronald Reagan was president. And, he adds in an interview on the heels of his new book's release, Republicans won't win back the House in fall elections and might not be ready to lead even if they do.

That forecast of failure sparked a pushback Tuesday at the GOP's own National Republican Congressional Committee, whose aim is to elect Republicans, and delight at its counterpart, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Winning back the House would be difficult for Republicans, who are in a 256-178 minority with one vacancy. Steele's book, "Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda," released Monday by Regnery Publishing, offers his blueprint for the party's resurgence. Several of the steps he proposes play off sticking to GOP principles.

Asked Monday by talk-show host Sean Hannity if Republicans can regain the House in November, Steele said, "Not this year." He added: "I don't know yet, because I don't know all the candidates yet. We still have some vacancies that need to get filled, but then the question we need to ask ourselves is, if we do that, are we ready?"

In answer to his own question, Steele said: "I don't know. And that's what I'm assessing and evaluating right now. Those candidates who are looking to run have to be anchored in these principles ... because if they don't, then they'll get to Washington, and they'll start drinking that Potomac River water, and they'll get drunk with power and throw the steps out the window."

NRCC spokesman Ken Spain said in response to Steele's comments that recapturing the majority remains a GOP goal. "Independent political analysts and even liberal columnists have stated that Republicans have a very real shot at taking back the majority in 2010," he said in a statement. "Make no mistake about it, we are playing to win."

The DCCC pointed to Steele's comments as further evidence of a civil war within the GOP and party disarray.

"If the NRCC hasn't convinced the Republican National Committee chairman they can win, it's no wonder that Tea Party activists, Republican small donors and Republican House members are not confident and have failed to invest in the NRCC," said DCCC spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.

In the book, Steele says the first steps for Republicans come in admitting that they have compromised their principles in the past decade.

"We must support Republican officials who assert these principles," he writes. "When elected Republicans vote against Republican principles, the voters must withhold their support — withhold it vigorously and consistently."

Steele focuses much of the book on familiar GOP denunciations of President Barack Obama's overall policies ("a roadmap to failure"), the $787 billion stimulus bill ("a reckless, wasteful, pork-laden spending spree"), liberal views on manmade global warming ("A threat to life on Earth? Depends on whom you ask") and other issues.

To regain the public confidence, Steele says the GOP should, among other things, expose the "reign of error" inherent in liberal policies, contrast conservative and liberal principles, and highlight the damage caused by Obama's policies while explaining conservative solutions.

More surprising, the GOP chairman directly or indirectly criticizes:

_President George H.W. Bush for raising taxes two years after President Ronald Reagan left office, though Steele ignores the fact that Reagan raised taxes too.

_President George W. Bush for not vetoing spending bills during his first five years in office. He calls Bush and other Republicans "enablers for big government" and derides the Bush administration's Troubled Asset Relief Program as "a massive government slush fund."

_Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the party's 2008 presidential nominee, for backing censorship of political speech through the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Steele says the GOP erred in allowing itself to be associated with "a national political speech code."

_Republican lawmakers in general, who allowed spending to rise from 2001 to 2004, went along with TARP and McCain-Feingold, and supported the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

"We must quickly learn our lessons, return to our principles and move on," Steele concludes.

One Republican who escapes Steele's intraparty criticism is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate. Then again, judging from the book's index, Palin is not mentioned at all in what the publisher calls Steele's "call to arms for grassroots America."
Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/05/national/w001124S65.DTL&type=printable

[wildcat]

yep, GOP is a real joke, and seeing we only have 2 parties (the other never get fair treatment), we are screwed.

[brainplay]

yep, GOP is a real joke, and seeing we only have 2 parties (the other never get fair treatment), we are screwed.

The other parties get plenty of fair treatment. But until they put forth candidates that promote values that people cherish while not being moonbats they'll never really have a chance against the Republicans and Democrats. To be honest, now is a darn good chance for a conservative third party to take off.
Not much on the left right now although they've always been moonbats. p-)

[seraosha]

If a viable third party can't get started in the next decade, than I just don't know what else it will take.

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

The other parties get plenty of fair treatment.

You do realize the challenges ballot access laws and winner-take-all system aren't really fair?

Americans need to get over our polarized tendencies and realize that we should create parties that better suit us instead of sacrificing a large percentage of our beliefs.

[GregHJ]

What Republicans don't seem to understand is that it's not that Republicans aren't staying true to their policies, it's that they are, and that is what is screwing up the country. The American people simply don't want what the Republicans are selling. Now this is not just a partisan rip on the Republicans, I have problems with the Democrats too.

Republicans have never managed to reduce the size of the government, they've just "parked it on the side." All Reagan did was cut services to the poor and middle class and used the funds to increase the size of the military to its largest extent in history. Also, Reagan's idea that cutting taxes actually encourages job growth and increases revenues is such b.s. and an idea that the Republicans need to abandon.

I've never understood the Republican Party's opposition to taxes. There's nothing wrong with taxes or even high taxes. As long as they pay for necessary services to the people and aren't exorbitant I really don't see the problem.

[seraosha]

.

I've never understood the Republican Party's opposition to taxes. There's nothing wrong with taxes or even high taxes. As long as they pay for necessary services to the people and aren't exorbitant I really don't see the problem.

Your definition of "neccesary services" doesn't mean the same thing to me, and that's the point...why am I paying for some sluts third abortion and her heroin needles? I'd rather see my money go for a few 40mm grenades to blow away some Taliban, thanks.

[GregHJ]

The other parties get plenty of fair treatment. But until they put forth candidates that promote values that people cherish while not being moonbats they'll never really have a chance against the Republicans and Democrats. To be honest, now is a darn good chance for a conservative third party to take off.
Not much on the left right now although they've always been moonbats. p-)

Actually, the way party finance laws have been crafted makes it extremely difficult for third parties to raise money necessary for campaigns. They simply can't compete on a financial level with the two parties we have. I wouldn't say the liberal ones are moonbats. The Green Party does have some really good ideas. I don't see the problem with environmental protection and lessening the power of corporations. I like the Libertarian Party too though. While I don't agree with his economic policies, Ron Paul actually has the single best environmental policy I've ever seen. It's actually quite ingenious. But I do agree that we need a third or even maybe a fourth party to balance things out.

[Atlantic Friend]

If a viable third party can't get started in the next decade, than I just don't know what else it will take.

A financial base to contend with the GOP and Democrats. I'm sure there are many new Conservatives ideas that are swirled around, but it's pretty hard to compete in national elections with the slush funds and donors network that the other two have put together.

[GregHJ]

Your definition of "neccesary services" doesn't mean the same thing to me, and that's the point...why am I paying for some sluts third abortion and her heroin needles? I'd rather see my money go for a few 40mm grenades to blow away some Taliban, thanks.

Well, you know, said "slut" may not have had to have gotten an abortion if we paid higher taxes in order to give the poor better educational and health related services in order to help bring them out of poverty.

[seraosha]

Well, you know, said "slut" may not have had to have gotten an abortion if we paid higher taxes in order to give the poor better educational and health related services in order to help bring them out of poverty.

That doesn't reflect reality...the money for education hasn't prevented pregnancies, nor has it slowed down STDs. And the "American poor" (which is entirely different from say, Haitian poor or Nicaraguan poor) has access to health and social related services that encourages self-defeating behavior. Good luck breaking 3 generations of welfare recipients slavery to a system that actively encourages crime and a culture of violence.

I agree that we need a real conservative third party, one that honestly embraces "smaller government" and doesn't just pay lipservice, likewise "states rights" and less overseas involvement where our national interests are not clear. Jeez, I'd just as soon as bring everyone home from Europe and Japan and let the local economies fend for themselves, but we seem to be too entrenched.

[Hilbert]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are a joke.

[seraosha]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are a joke.

Whose laughing?

[Chiptox]

The republicans did well in the mid-90's with Gingrich. Contract with America was a large success for them. It cut spending, reformed many programs, and balanced the budget, all things that have large popular appeal today. They went off the rails during Lewinsky-gate and have been off-roading ever since.

Naturally those who do not support the concept of a Laffer Curve and many Keyneseian economists wouldn't be in favor of that type of reform. But they probably would never be republican supporters anyways.

[brainplay]

;4675427']You do realize the challenges ballot access laws and winner-take-all system aren't really fair?

Oh? What do you define as fair?


What Republicans don't seem to understand is that it's not that Republicans aren't staying true to their policies, it's that they are, and that is what is screwing up the country. The American people simply don't want what the Republicans are selling.

Incorrect. The Republican party has been moving more to the center while taking up "popular" liberal stances to try and pick up independent voters while alienating their original base. This hedging of bets has not been going well for them. Pushing McCain as their presidential candidate in order to "not be like Bush" is a perfect example of winning at all costs.


Republicans have never managed to reduce the size of the government, they've just "parked it on the side." All Reagan did was cut services to the poor and middle class and used the funds to increase the size of the military to its largest extent in history. Also, Reagan's idea that cutting taxes actually encourages job growth and increases revenues is such b.s. and an idea that the Republicans need to abandon.

The service was a welfare reform. This was further perpetuated by Pres. Clinton afterwards. At the time we were also living through the Cold War which in the end we won. During that time the idea of hundreds of T-72's rolling across Europe and nuclear war was taken very very seriously. Much like some of us never got to experience the Cuban missile crisis I think you're failing to understand what happened during that period. Not only does it encourage job growth but revenue gained by the Treasury increased (by a small margin) when it was enacted. That's fact. The same concept is being forwarded by Pres. Obama now although he's trying to tailor it to middle and lower class only.


I've never understood the Republican Party's opposition to taxes. There's nothing wrong with taxes or even high taxes. As long as they pay for necessary services to the people and aren't exorbitant I really don't see the problem.

Higher taxes remove disposable income from all classes. The services returned are not necessarily in the interest of the middle or upper class. (having actually worked providing services, free medicare, and financial aid/welfare to "the poor" I have very little sympathy for them. A large portion would serve their fellow man as solyent green than the waste of space they really are). There is a limit and sometimes it is necessary to raise them. George Bush Sr. had to raise them when market confidence was low and people stopped spending thus degrading the effects. But solely relying on taxes to fill Treasury coffers is a quick way to stagnate an economy. I point to many European nations whose economies could be significantly more robust if not for the extremely high taxes that keep businesses away vs. other European nations who make special exceptions for taxes to attract foreign investment.

[Hollis]

Both D's and R's are not monolithic nor do they have any real central control over members.

Here on a local level a person can run on either ticket regardless of their political views. Both parties have their fringe nut cases that try to control what little there is to control.

Want to see some comics in action, set on a platform committee for either party. Each side have their own petty bureaucrats who will come up with a platform that is death for most candidates to run on.

In the past, the Republicans will bleed themselves behind close doors and when the doors open, act like nothing happened. The Democrats will bleed themselves in public, which they are getting better at in not doing.

The distance between the local party and national party is probably as far as local government is to national government. Often they appear to operate in two different worlds.

Best way to change the parties, You get involved and run for office. Because the majority of American are not involved, we get those who will get involve and they normally do not represent any of us.

[Jobu]

Well, you know, said "slut" may not have had to have gotten an abortion if we paid higher taxes in order to give the poor better educational and health related services in order to help bring them out of poverty.

We already pay more for education and health care than just about everyone else.

Try to come up with a better argument please.

[Dominique]

Whose laughing?

Congress, as the joke is on us.

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

Oh? What do you define as fair?

Well for one, the Winner-take-all system is clearly unfair as it wastes a person's vote,
and usually promotes tactical voting.

As for the ballot - do either Republicans or Democrats have to sign a petition or pay fees to enter elections?

[Hollis]

;4676333']Well for one, the Winner-take-all system is clearly unfair as it wastes a person's vote,
and usually promotes tactical voting.

As for the ballot - do either Republicans or Democrats have to sign a petition or pay fees to enter elections?


Here in Oregon, for many positions a person needs to file a petition to run with a certain number of signature by other voters. The number of signature are not high or difficult to obtain. Neither parties have control over who runs. In the primaries only the voters decides. There might be a fee in some jurisdictions.

So a R could run for a D's position.


Only place where Winner takes all is in the Presidential election for electoral votes and it is the only unique election in the states, where it is the only national election. All other elections are on the state level or lesser jurisdiction. The reasoning for this is actually good, though, it is amazing, the number of voters who are clueless as to why it is this way.

People can only vote in elections where that person will represent them. If a voter is not in the candidate's representative district, then can not vote in that election.

[seraosha]

People can only vote in elections where that person will represent them. If a voter is not in the candidate's representative district, then can not vote in that election.

Unless you are in Chicago.

[Red_Fern]

Sadly, there's no real difference between the parties, in my opinion. You've got crooks and a*sholes on both sides. I think America's ripe for a third party.

[brainplay]

;4676333']Well for one, the Winner-take-all system is clearly unfair as it wastes a person's vote,
and usually promotes tactical voting.

As for the ballot - do either Republicans or Democrats have to sign a petition or pay fees to enter elections?

I'm unsure how you find this "unfair". If your dog in the race loses, they lose. There are no wasted votes. What would deem "fair" in your opinion?

Petition? No. Fees. Yes. The petition is in place to make sure your party will have enough support to justify allowing the use of public funds which can be a substantial amount of cash.

I remember when Ralph Nader ran on a Green Party ticket. We could have had a third party there if they hadn't have chosen him as a candidate. Even if regulations were totally revamped a third or fourth party is going to have to establish themselves first before the public will vote for them. Lots of grassroots organization and smaller seats needed for recognition. You just can't grab some unknown group or person and throw them up front and expect people to vote for a no name, no experience, individual...unless you're the Democrat party p-)

Problems with third parties is that they are fickle and don't have the leadership or base support to sustain themselves.

[TheSteve]

The other parties get plenty of fair treatment. But until they put forth candidates that promote values that people cherish while not being moonbats they'll never really have a chance against the Republicans and Democrats. To be honest, now is a darn good chance for a conservative third party to take off.
Not much on the left right now although they've always been moonbats. p-)
Fair treatment? We live in a two-party state, its very very difficult for independent or third parties to get elected on the national level. Values that people cherish? People don't know about them because they aren't given air time. Without a ton of money, its nearly impossible to get your parties voice heard.

The SMDP (Single Member District Plurality) system, or "winner takes all", is hard to overcome. Unless a third party candidate gets over 50% in a district its impossible to get a voice in government. On top of this, gerrymandering doesn't help anything, 90% of congressional districts are uncontested.

And the presidential election is pretty much sealed to Democrats and Republicans. Each state has different laws for ballot access, but some states require obscene amounts of signatures to get onto the ballot. And of course there's the Commission on Democratic Debates, which has barred any candidate that polls under 15% (I believe that's the rule, enacted after the 1992 election with Ross Perot). How the hell does a third party candidate get over 15% without taking part of national debates? Its a catch-22.

Regardless of politics, I recommend Crashing the Party, by Ralph Nader. It highlights some of the biggest problems facing third party and independent candidates in this country. Sorry for getting off topic a bit, I feel the restriction on third parties in this country really undermines our democracy.

[Clockwinder]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are a joke.
And both houses are populated by clowns. The political scene in the USA is a farce. Driven and propelled by self interest and lobbyists and ego. Fueled by "donations" and "contributions". Party affiliations are by convenience, not conviction. An inflated sense of their own importance makes them dangerous. I'd like to see the whole lot of them thrown out and start again.

[[ KOOSHAB ]]

I'm unsure how you find this "unfair". If your dog in the race loses, they lose. There are no wasted votes. What would deem "fair" in your opinion?

Elections should not be dog races, at least not for the parliament, as if you make it into a winner take all system - all you need is a slight majority to take full representation of a state rather than having percentage representation which is more efficient and fair in that it gives seats according to the number of votes each party gains.


Petition? No. Fees. Yes. The petition is in place to make sure your party will have enough support to justify allowing the use of public funds which can be a substantial amount of cash.

Again, why don't either Republican or Democrats have to sign Petitions?
This is still selective towards the two-major parties.


Problems with third parties is that they are fickle and don't have the leadership or base support to sustain themselves.

I simply think it's because of polarization that third parties rarely gain attention.

[skyrock]

Parties are of zealots, by zealots and for zealots. This is why middle-of-road type swinging people won't have their own party.

[Hollis]

Unless you are in Chicago.


No kidding, In the East, party is very much in control from what I was told. My wife was about 27 when she was the county chairperson for our party. She went back east and people thought, "WOW at 27 she must be very very talented". Truth was, she was the only person to try for the job.

I gather election laws vary across the states, assuming for local and state elections only.

[SilentType]

Since Reagan?

No, I wouldn't say since Reagan.

The Republican Controlled Congress in the mid to late 1990s balanced the budget and reformed welfare greatly. The "Contract with America" was rock solid and highly sound overall, which I think most who aren't completely biased would agree with.

So called "compassionate conservatives" in 2000 began to hijack the party and we ended up in a slow decline until 2006 in terms of real fiscal conservatism. The polarizing effect of the 2008 election that eliminated many of those "compassionate conservatives" has definitely taken the party back to its roots as a whole. The real test though will be how they perform once they take back the Congress after the November election, which at this point is almost a certainty.

[wildcat]

Regan back (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/zombie_reagan_raised_from_grave)

[brainplay]

Fair treatment? We live in a two-party state, its very very difficult for independent or third parties to get elected on the national level. Values that people cherish? People don't know about them because they aren't given air time. Without a ton of money, its nearly impossible to get your parties voice heard.

So because they don't have the resources or the popularity its unfair? I've pointed out some candidates who've made some very real attempts at a third party. I've also pointed out how fickle they are. Heck, we just had a third party candidate here in Texas who started the ball rolling. He promptly dropped it when he didn't win thus leaving that party to wither and die.

Third party failure of leadership is not our fault and frankly leaves alot to be desired if a candidate backs such a party. We already have enough problems with the two most popular now. Why add more disfunction.


Elections should not be dog races, at least not for the parliament, as if you make it into a winner take all system - all you need is a slight majority to take full representation of a state rather than having percentage representation which is more efficient and fair in that it gives seats according to the number of votes each party gains.

Not only is that method not efficient, but it does not provide an equal and fair representation of the districts involved. Your analogy is also very much wrong as demonstrated by the majority Democrat Congress the US currently has and the problems it has despite technically having enough seats to not care if they exist.


Again, why don't either Republican or Democrats have to sign Petitions?
This is still selective towards the two-major parties.

This is handled by the total votes of the previous election. If the party sustained enough to be viable then they do not need a petition for the next election. The "green party" under Nader could have continued to evolve and not worry about this. The Libertarian Party is gaining influence. But it is associated with a Conservative style party and more often labeled as extreme. If the Republican party shifts more to the center or if a fourth more liberal party like the Greens re-emerges to balance it out then you'll see some real shifts in politics.

We're getting way off topic here....:|

[paulmessen]

IMHO, Which ever party the current president belongs to will always be wrong until another party steps into power, in which they will take on the burden of being blamed for everything. However to say that the GOP has screwed up since Reagen is just plain wrong. The party itself has done good things, however they have let the extremist(Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, **** Chenney ect.) be the face of the party which has ultimately turned away the moderates(read swing votes) in past years.

[Russianlynxy]

IMHO, Which ever party the current president belongs to will always be wrong until another party steps into power, in which they will take on the burden of being blamed for everything. However to say that the GOP has screwed up since Reagen is just plain wrong. The party itself has done good things, however they have let the extremist(Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, **** Chenney ect.) be the face of the party which has ultimately turned away the moderates(read swing votes) in past years.

Bill O'Reilly is just some joker/idiot off Television. I believe he has no actual political weight. But yes, since the people watch Television they paint their own picture of the conservatives through his representation.

[SoftLion]

Bill O'Reilly is just some joker/idiot off Television. I believe he has no actual political weight. But yes, since the people watch Television they paint their own picture of the conservatives through his representation.

Bill O'Reilly is intelligent, knows exactly what he is doing, and has built nearly an empire out of his body of work. Whether you are a fan or not has nothing to do with it. He is, by no means, an idiot, and as you mentioned, certainly carries political weight. The question is whether he is an asset or a liability for Republicans, as in he and people like Rush Limbaugh are favorite picture-hangers for Democrats to paint all Republicans with a broad brush.

[Hollis]

Bill O'Reilly is intelligent, knows exactly what he is doing, and has built nearly an empire out of his body of work. Whether you are a fan or not has nothing to do with it. He is, by no means, an idiot, and as you mentioned, certainly carries political weight. The question is whether he is an asset or a liability for Republicans, as in he and people like Rush Limbaugh are favorite picture-hangers for Democrats to paint all Republicans with a broad brush.


Well said. IMHO Bill is a asset to himself first, then Fox Network.

[Russianlynxy]

Bill O'Reilly is intelligent, knows exactly what he is doing, and has built nearly an empire out of his body of work. Whether you are a fan or not has nothing to do with it. He is, by no means, an idiot, and as you mentioned, certainly carries political weight. The question is whether he is an asset or a liability for Republicans, as in he and people like Rush Limbaugh are favorite picture-hangers for Democrats to paint all Republicans with a broad brush.

yes because throwing hissy-fits on TV and making an angry face/telling people to shut up on TV is an appropriate way of carrying a conversation. I'm sure there are plenty of republicans who do not want a public representation like that.

Not that I have great knowledge in this area, since i don't live there. But I understand that the face of conservatism and patriotism is not synonymous to obnoxiousness.

[SoftLion]

yes because throwing hissy-fits on TV and making an angry face/telling people to shut up on TV is an appropriate way of carrying a conversation. I'm sure there are plenty of republicans who do not want a public representation like that.

You are missing the point. How about this: is there an TV commentator that generates ratings and discourse on the Democratic side similar to Bill O'Reilly? First thing you need to do is to take off your political hat, and put on another.

EDIT - This:


IMHO Bill is a asset to himself first, then Fox Network.

[paulmessen]

You are missing the point. How about this: is there an TV commentator that generates ratings and discourse on the Democratic side similar to Bill O'Reilly? First thing you need to do is to take off your political hat, and put on another.

EDIT - This:

Personally, I don't think that Glenn Beck and the likes actually beleive most of what they are saying(the ridiculous things atleast), however the ignorant people do, and the the controversy from what they say alone cause higher ratings and books sales which equal profit. If these people weren't reasonable intelligent people they would not have got where they are today. Though the ridiculous things that they preach affect voters plain and simple, maybe not enough to throw an election but do enough to make a difference.

[Russianlynxy]

First thing you need to do is to take off your political hat, and put on another.

EDIT - This:
Don't have one. I live in another country :) I've youtubed some of his shows though (especially during August 2008 war), and seen nothing pragmatic or reasonable only arrogant hoo-rah type discussion.

[paulmessen]

I must say the one thing that annoys me about politicians in America is that they let their religion influence their policy. I firmly believe in separation of church and state(this coming from a catholic!). If our great states of America pledge to be tolerant of all people and religions, as well as nonbiased, then we cannot make laws and policies based upon Christianity. It is one thing to pledge allegiance under god(as it is tradition), though it is a completely different thing to submit or vote for or against a law, because of the bible. Look at how volatile religious based governments are in other places. When it comes to the law, it is better to rule with common since then the common religion.