New boss same as the old boss. I really hope I am wrong though and they turn out to be sane conservatives with real ideas.
Content is king, it will take serious policy change for the GOP to get anywhere.
Josak, you are asking for a lot asking for real ideas out of Washington. The GOP will need to make some major changes just to stay in the game.
This needs to be said...
There have been no new ideas out of Washington. Barack Obama did not bring any new ideas.
Yes he did. You forget about higher taxes, free mandatory birth control, gays in the Military, women in combat, sharing the wealth, etc., etc.
How can you say he didn't bring new ideas to Washington? The fact that most of us didn't like his ideas means nothing.
In what way could you not say the same thing about Obama? Be real.
Why make it so easy for Hilliary? Have we learned nothing?
That would be running a McCain or a Romney again.
Who do you suggest?
Jon Huntsman was the only grown up in the room with Ron Paul as a good second choice. I also thought that Gary Johnson was a good choice. If the GOP thinks that parading Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush across the stage and think that America is not going to see through the thinly disguised veil of catering to the hispanic vote they can expect more of the same results as this past election.
No I don't like either of those either but I want to be able to tell the difference between my candidate and the ones we are running against.
How about an actual Conservative? Huntsman and Paul are neither. Rand is closer than Ron although Rand is libertarian, I will take that.
How did that work out this past election? You are making my point exactly. America resoundly rejected the right and put Obama back in. He appealed to the left and secured the hispanic vote that sent him over the top above Romney. Unless the GOP learns where the electorate is or can gerrymander the vote to sway towards them, Hillary will be elected. The country wants to be in the middle and the GOP is being taken over by the extreme right. Romney was the would be conservative that was a chameleon everybody saw as really to the right. I agree that there has to be a degree of conservatism in the mix but unfortunately going for all conservative and no compromise is why we are where we are now.
Huntsman made sense and Paul was right for real change.
Huntsman made a lot of sense! Too bad the far right rejected him. The GOP needs to get off the social conservative wagon and stick more to fiscal issues. With the state of our economy, gays getting married, the legalization of pot, etc. should be the last things people are worried about. Personally, I support both the things I mentioned, but even if I didn't, I'd place my concerns on the back burner until the economy, jobless rate, and other financial issues were solved. BUT...I'm not a politician. Thank goodness!
Well maybe our problem is we have two parties and that make them feel there should be a difference so people can tell.
When you talk about Huntsman I get the feeling you want someone who will agree with the Democrat party. So let's do away with the Republican party altogether and just have one party and select someone from there.
No, I actually voted for Romney - because of fiscal issues. The GOP needs to take the pulse of America. Most people I know don't give a hoot if gays get married or not, and that includes every Republican I know. I'm saying the Rs need to draw a contrast between the way they would handle things like big spending and deficit spending versus how a D would handle them. Fiscal issues should be the focus - not whether John and Sam or Suzie and Jane want to get married, whether a gay man should be allowed to serve in the military, or whether people can legally smoke pot. When they talk about such social issues, they're losing sight of the all-too-important fiscal problems we're facing.
Oh, and as far as "agreeing with the Democratic party," I want a politician who WILL agree with the Ds when the Ds are right, instead of disagreeing just because they're the opposing team.
No....what the problem is many are like me and think if they want to get married..whatever..I am not going to ulcerate over it.Liberals scream about it all day long and because I don't it is characterized as not caring. It's BS.
Is that what your leaders are really supposed to spend their time being concerned about?
Have you heard North Korea lately?
Have you heard Iran lately?
Gay marriage should not be an issue we think is top of mind for a President or a candidate.
It's their business and whoever is in the White House has other business.
You just said the same thing I did. We have bigger fish to fry!
People not having equal rights in this country, being discriminated against under the law will always be the biggest problem we face until it is fixed, the foundation stone of any country has to be a solid set of values and liberties.
North Korea and Iran both deny their citizens basic rights too, it's about time we stopped.
Also Seriously neither Iran nor NK is any real threat to the US, any attack by either would spell their certain doom.
I should have been clearer. My "bigger fish" didn't include Iran or NK. I'm more concerned with the financial health of the US - as a whole and for individual citizens. Our decifit is too big, too many people are jobless, too many people are homeless, and too many are hungry. Iran and NK are not at the top of my worry list. I'm not saying, however, that they don't concern me at all. Certain death is not always a deterrent for some groups.
I agree that we have one group who spout off as being different from each other until the check clears and the vote is bought.
The two party system is what strangeled the country and they are not about to loosen the noose.
And as to the D's being right I will agree with them when they aren't trying to steer the population of the planet with their ideology.....which hasn't worked anywhere else....especially the fiscal end......ask Greece.
What's your point? That one cancels out the other with ideology? The ideology is the same. All the slimebags want to do is make money. Don't you get it? That is where the whole system has been steered for the last 200 years when we got professional politicians to supposedly represent us. As long as you play into their game of us and them, they win. Have you noticed nothing changes. Gas prices are just as volatile as they were in the 70's even with the subsities. Farmers were and now corporations are paid to not grow certain crops. The wars are never ending while the military industrial complex expands every year. The jerrymandering of the vote is the same as when it was instituted loosely in 1812. If you want to continue the bickering about party idelogy and who is right and who is wrong and who you think will represent your interests you better first get a healthy bank account so you can put some skin in the game to further your agenda. Otherwise just sit back and watch nothing happen.
I just think you hvae to look at what people want to have happen.
Just like the looking for candidates that will just agree with everything. If that's all he or she is gonna do why bother?
Looking at what you want to have happen and getting it done are impossible with the broken system we now have. Money is the vehicle by which everything is based. We need to take the money out of the equation to get true representation.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform are our only hope. As long as we bicker over the samantics of ideology without fixing the system why bother as you say.
Hey I will make a deal with you and you can take this to the bank.
Go through and talk to all the liberals on here who spend all day long making certain they protray those of us who don't agree with them as murderous lunatic savages and you have a deal. I will shut up about them.
But the next thing likely to happen i one of them will reply to this and tell me to stop behaving that way.
You cannot win. But you cannot allow them to either.
I can talk to either side until I turn blue in the face and even if I sway them to either side nothing will change. The two party system is at the heart of the issue. The professional politicians do what they want to further their agenda and the rest be damned. Just look at who contributes to their campaigns to see that they have no allegience to anybody but themself.
Your argument nips at the tail of the problem and not the head where the problem is. People have opinions and the politicians know that as long as they keep the sheeple wrapped up in it they can act in autonomy.
Term limits, publicly finnced campaigns and lobby reform is our only hope. Take the money out of the equation if you want real change.
Mitt Romney was and is
N O T
a conservative. Can we all GET THAT?
Who knows what he is. He wore so many hats and spouted so much rhetoric there was no telling. His 47% line resoundly slammed his butt as a conservative. This was a statement he thought was in confidentiality but was his undoing.
I don't blame you for not liking him as most of the party did not want him either. But with the likes of Perry, Santorum and Bachman the conservatives got hitched up to that religious right bandwagon and Romney became the golden boy.
Like I said Romney was such a chameleon.
Oh, please. Romney is as Conservative (and slimy) as they come. Just because he was caught saying what every Conservative really believes doesn't mean you have the right to try to claim he's not yours.
You have never known a Conservative.
Romney started socialized medicine in his state.
AAAACCKKK! Not Conservative.
What would an "actual conservative" be? Huntsman was by far the best your party had to offer.
Or because he actually had experience working across the aisle, business experience and had spent years working in China, therefore he had foreign policy experience as well. Should he have gone to Bible college instead?
no but since Democrats never work across the aisle it's like I said.
He agreed with everything.
I think I understand now why were so polarized as a country.
Let me see if I can explain this for you. You don't understand.
I am sitting here with a Liberal trying to tell me what kind of Conservative we need to have to run for President.
Now.....I can go with your pick, When time comes and he is the nominee you are going to call him everything you can possibly think of and describe the social and fiscal Armageddon he will bring about......am i not right?
Let us pick our own nominee ok?
Actually, no. I just listed reasons why he would make a great candidate. Maybe if the GOP would moderate a tad they could win a majority of all voters instead of just voters in South Carolina and Oklahoma.
Why is it only Conservatives who need to change?
Why can't the left moderate a little bit? See your whole viewpoint is there would be a utopia here if not for conservatives.
Little one sided?
Perhaps you didn't say that literally but it is the basis of your whole argument.
No I didn't. I was merely pointing out how Huntsman would have been good for the GOP. You don't need to be a Bible scholar to be a good conservative candidate.
Have to agree with Cody, Huntsman is the closest thing to an electable candidate the GOP has, he isn't an extremist and due to his overseas stationing etc. he actually understands what the world is and how it should be dealt with unlike the usual conservative view of attempting to intimidate or bomb the world into submission thus causing massive backlash.
Why do we need a conservative as President? Is it fair to everyone else that we have a leader who is predisposed to hold only one side of any argument. It is like going in front of a biased judge. No matter what the case involves there is only one answer in his mind. That is what you get with a leader who is dedicated to one view. If we were all the same I would say that is a no brainer but we are a nation of many differences and compromise is what unites us. You can see what biased thinking has us in now.
So the folks holding the power now aren't biased?
Why is it only Conservatives are supposed to compromise?
You should really have a long talk with Harry Reid because he is apparently a Republican Conservative and doesn't know it because he won't compromise.
You really have only one way of looking at things. The reason why we have what we have in the White House is in response to the nonsense you keep blathering about. If you try to swing the vote one way what you have is a backlash as we now have. No agreement, no compromise and no government. If you stepped back you could see that. Instead you cry about what we have instead of how we can make it better. Your only thought process is that it MUST be your way or it will fail. We have to live together but as long as you put all your effort in one ideology this is what you will have to live with. How is that working out for you?
Tell me what must be compromised on. I mean you have all the answers........
Rhamson is right. You should try opening your mind a little.
Just look who is invited to speak at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference): Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, a bunch of rigid ideologues. And look who is conspicuously absent: Chris Christie, the most popular Republican in the country, a guy who had the integrity to work with Obama to get something done for his people.
Talk about conservatives recommitting to irrelevance....
So who is supposed to speak at a Conservative gathering?
See it keeps going down the road that we have to hammer our thoughts into Conservative heads because they, after all, are the sole thing wrong with this world. It smacks of the whole there are enlightened people(on the left only...imagine..)we must listen too.
They pulled that stunt at the White House on a group of Catholic Bishops.
Compromise cannot be a one-way street but that is exactly what I am getting here.
No, you keep saying that the right wing way is the only way! There is no compromise from you.
I have not said that John.
I have asked people what they want me to compromise about which is apparently the wrong question.
What will the left compromise on?
Tit for tat..pro quid pro Clarice...
The following comment is pretty typical of your attitude and sentiment -
"Go through and talk to all the liberals on here who spend all day long making certain they protray those of us who don't agree with them as murderous lunatic savages and you have a deal. I will shut up about them."
I for one have never portrayed anybody I disagree with as a murderous lunatic savage.
No John you have not said that.
Therefore logic should assure that I did not mean you.
Logic should also tell you I meant others and there are plenty here who harbor some emtions pretty close to that.
Then why say "all the liberals" why not "some liberals" (not to mention some right wingers who are equally bad).
I'm so used to being referred to as a murderous savage that I hardly notice any more.
Perhaps you aren't as liberal as you think.
Why not some Conservatives and not all Conservatives.
Many here think a Conservative thought is the purest evil.
Well by my definition (and the European definition) though I may have liberal attitudes I'm not actually a liberal at all.
But I made no mention of "all" conservatives. To do so would be hypercritical of me, I know some conservatives who are very decent people, give you the shirt off their back even.
Obviously we cannot continue in an objective open discussion. I wish you well with your thoughts and perpective. I haven't much hope that it will help anything.
I'm not hopeful that these candidates will be any better than the old. The sooner we reject politics the better, in my opinion. Government is a hive of corruption that few can use for real good.
Great idea, but how the heck do we do that? Even though we did it by voting, we were actually hiring these guys and gals to represent us. If we just hired some new people, what would stop it from reverting to a pit of corruption again? Term limits, less pay, and no retirement plan would be a start in the right direction.
Government is nothing like hiring someone. When you hire someone, they are legally obligated to fulfil their contract. When you vote in a politician, they only have to do as much to keep their electorate happy, or as the case may be, mildly dissatisfied. They can violate all their promises if they darn well want to, who is to stop them? When their term finishes, all their party needs to do is persuade you that they have some new, better people who will do it right this time, even if the previous 9 or 10 were the same, and despite the fact that they're bought by the same people. It's a fraudulent system.
All we need to do is stop cooperating with it. Stop paying taxes, stop signing up for the military - refuse to associate with the government just as you would refuse to associate with a business if it had committed the same crimes.
We would have to all agree to stop paying taxes... the whole nation on the same page. - wouldn't that be so cool to actually take back some power?
The only half-decent Republican alive today is probably Jon Huntsman. And even then, he's only half-decent.
We need to find a necromancer and pay him to revive Teddy Roosevelt, just so he can beat the shite out of the current Republican party.
The problem is that we haven't had a truly conservative republican in years and years. Who was the last fiscal conservative? Good luck figuring that one out. We have had social conservatives, but nobody has been both a fiscal and social conservative in quite a long time. Both parties have spent us into the hole, though the POTUS has really stepped up that game.
Fiscal Conservatives are far less dangerous and far less abominable than social Conservatives. Why would you ever want someone who's both?!
We don't get fiscal conservatives, and at this point, I wonder if America would be willing to lose or trim the budget as much as is necessary.
How would we ever know? Do you realize what a drop in the bucket the sequestration was?
Have you seen the wailing and gnashing of teeth and from the left over it?
Have you heard the disinformation about it?
You even had James Carville out there saying it was no big deal and he was just simply ignored over fear fear fear fear fear!
Oh but they will happily cut defense!
Yes, what are you defending against? You are a virtually impregnable continent and yet you spend two and a half times as much on your armed forces as the next nine largest defence forces combined!
I pretty much agree. I want a fiscal conservative who's a liberal-moderate on (most) social issues.
Not a single viable leader in the whole bunch.
Still not ready to graduate from the kiddie table of American politics I see...
What do you believe constitutes a "viable leader"?
Have you ever held a position of leadership Cody?
Have you ever supervised people?
Not a single "Tea Party" candidate..
And yes, I have. Its fun. Of course, you actually have to know things instead of just talking and making lame memes.
When you have worn a uniform with three stripes or more on it get back to me.
My Little League jersey had stripes on it. One of my work uniforms did too.
So, shall we continue our discussion?
Hey, your avatar is wearing stripes, too. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
by Alternative Prime19 months ago
Prosecuting malicious conservative republican politicians in congress for attempting to Shut Down OUR Tax-Payer-Funded United States Government is long over due ~ If there are no consequences for their irrationally...
by My Esoteric6 weeks ago
During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison made the following point during debate on the length of Senator's terms:"In framing a system which we wish to last the ages, we should not lose sight of the...
by crankalicious5 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Credence23 years ago
So what about the future of the conservatives as currently represented by the GOP?I see three factions from among the conservatives right now, Can they coalesce around one standard bearer by 2016?1. The pragmatists,...
by Credence23 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.