I didn't realize you directed what people should say!

Most members here are intelligent enough to realize that no one "directs what people should say." What I was pointing out was that it makes little sense for you to say one thing when you mean something else, and that such communication is ineffective.

That, apparently, doesn't make any difference to you.

Their hope or your denial. I haven't figured out which one yet.

__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic." - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton April 28th, 2003

Carolina Politics Online

HOPE AND CHANGE

I see nothing more balanced about the Democrat Party than I see in the GOP.

__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic." - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton April 28th, 2003

Carolina Politics Online

HOPE AND CHANGE

I would argue that the agenda of the Democratic party has been intentionally misrepresented. Historically, the Democrats have always concerend themselves with a domestic agenda, whereas the Republican agenda has been more about expansion: exapansion of the domestic markets through consolidation and expansion of the abilites of business for more arbitrary control. The Repubilcan agenda with repect to foreign policy, since the Civil War, has necessarily been about the expansion of influence through market capital - entire govenrments have been influenced and swayed by this type of agenda: wars have started as well.

The democrats conversely don't concern themselves with that kind of influence but have prefered to view the world outside our borders as full of people just like ourselves surving against the same influences: which when measured is historically accurate, and therefore Democrats have consistantly appealed to people rather than industry. The democratic domestic agenda has been to improve the standard of living in this country: hense labor unions, equal rights. women's rights etc. Because of the pluralist attraction, all sorts of sub-agendas espoused by alledged "scoial groups": beginning with the Communist philosophy in the 20's have attached themselves as barnacles on the democratic ship.

Since the Republican platform abhors social programs, they attract groups who are more receptive to - I'll say it again: social Darwinism.

Since the Democratic agenda and its supporters are more diverse, and therefore more openended, the right has historically applied all manor of subversive and sedicious labels to it, based on nothing that has ever been shown to be accurate.

The Republicans on the other hand have always been more exclusionary and have a rather isolated platform surrounding the causes I outlined above. And to further their agenda politically, the Republican practice has always been one of measuring patriotism against the Democratic supporters.

So yes, the Dems in my view are far more ballanced and thus they attract the larger body of support: particularly today.

I think the vast majority is still conservative, despite what some would lead us to believe. This includes social conservatism as well. How else would you explain the fact that Prop 8 passed in one of the most progressive states in the union?

Why did the GOP lose so badly? In large part due to the Iraq war quagmire and the fact that the GOP spent like Dems. So they cut taxes and spent a lot. That is only 50% conservative. What does 50% count as a grade? F. So we have two big issues, Iraq and spending.

McCain was a Rep so he was instantly equated to Bush. He was also not someone that very many conservatives were excited about. When he won the GOP I lost my enthusiasm.

So, in closing, it's not that the country is going more liberal. It's just that the conservatives didn't put forth a strong candidate and we were in dowtrend due to the aformentioned reasons I have stated. I won't go as far to say that the GOP will take control of the house and senate but the dems definitely lose some seats in 2010. They will not have the super majority that have now. The tide turning

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

While 40% of the people say they are conservative only slightly more than 20% identify with the Republican Party.

That tells me we are primed and ready for a 3rd party or a new opposition party. My prediction is that the Libertarian Party will either become a major player in the near future or the Republican party will be totally transformed into something similar to the Libertarians. The logic is, even republicans no longer believe their party represents true conservatism.

As the late great Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill said "All Politics is local".
But local politics are played on a shifting national field. Demographically the country is trending left and has been centuries, that's the major trend, there are minor trends when the country retreats to the right as a backlash, but those rightward trends are not sustainable for long periods against the major trend towards progressive politics.
Strong local candidates win regardless of party affiliation, close races get bumped one way or the other by the national trend. Currently the minor trend and the major trend is to the left.
In 2010 those Democrats who won close races in what had been Republican strongholds may face significant challenges, but they will also have the weight of incumbency on their side, which is not inconsiderable.
If the economy is recovering, unemployment falling, home prices stabilizing and even rising, the national playing field will again show a leftward tilt.
And in 2010, the percentage of the electorate composed of white males, the GOP's most reliable voting block, will be the smaller, the non-white voting blocks larger, and GOP hot button issues like the battle against gay marriage will have lost potency.
In the Senate races, there will be 18 Democratic seats and 18 Republican seats up for grabs, 34 of which were decided in 2004, and two special elections to fill unfinished terms.
These are mostly safe seats, with a few that could be batted one way or the other by the mood prevailing in November of 2010, which will be heavily influenced by the performance of the economy in the summer of 2010.
But just projecting trends it looks like very little will change in 2010.
Beyond that, the GOP white male base will be even smaller in 2012, smaller still in 2014 and smaller still in 2016. So unless the GOP starts making inroads into minority voting blocks any hope of a GOP comeback looks remote.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Noa,
I have no disagreements with your analysis of the GOP right now, but we all know, "History is never static"! If you look back at elections in just the past 30 years, you will see the pattern of a party moving from power to defeat and back again over and over. It would be comical if it were not so serious. I believe the reason for the swing is voter's dissatisfaction with WHATEVER party is in power, primarily because we put unrealistic expectations upon our leaders. When they don't meet our impossible agenda, the folks in the middle swing to other side and put that party in power. The Democrats that are currently in power will be no exception.
I am not Nostradamus, but I believe the downfall of the current regime in both the White House and the Congress will begin with another successful terrorist attack, probably with either a nuclear device or a dirty bomb. The thought of that happening sickens me, but I believe that our current leaders are sending messages to our enemies that we are weak, non-vigilant, and have dropped our guard. The President has learned some hard lessons already about the dangers we face. All one has to do is look at his changing stance on the "torture" pictures. Sadly, I don't think it is enough. Let's hope this never happens, but irregardless of another attack, the Dems will not be in power in 8 years and they may actually lose the White House in 4.
Nice to talk to someone from the "other" side who is sane, rational, and respectful. Too many mean spirited people on both sides!

You certainly make a compelling argument, but as a libertarian I see little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, or rather the Republicrats, the best description for them all.

Regardless of who has been charge, personal freedoms and liberties have declined, the Constitutional limits imposed on the Federal government have eroded, we've gone further and further into debt, and the elected members of government have become more and more self serving and powerful.

I don't see either party changing these things and I doubt they will until they start to lose to a completely different party, which I don't envision in the foreseeable future.

__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic." - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton April 28th, 2003

Carolina Politics Online

HOPE AND CHANGE

Because a brilliant disinformation campaign targeted idiots and convinced 30% of the populace that W, Darth Cheney and their GOP cronies attacked the WTC. And 95% of blacks voted for the black guy. Plain and simple.

It was a combination of those two factors. Disinformation and racism.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Don't forget the mind control rays, and Obama's magical powers as the AntiChrist.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Seems you are making the same mistake as most Reps do and sadly also quite a few non-Reps.

Being conservative has nothing to do with a party association.
In fact, less than half of the Reps are conservative, thee majority is just out of date and/or bloodyminded.

The majority of the real conservatives are leaning Liberal or Dem.

Which does not mean, they follow parties blindly.
Conservatives in general are swing voters. They vote for the candidates they believe to uphold moral and fiscal values and will serve the country best.

Seen from the outside you had just four real conservative Presidents since WWII:

Ike, Kennedy, Carter and Bush the older.

The rest were no more than opportunists.

Those putting a halo on Reagan are blind to see, that he was the one starting the mess were in now by blind and incompetent de-regulation.

For the short period that measure brought profit we all are now paying the price.
Last time it took 20 odd years and a world war to get out of the mess, this time it will take a lot longer.

And, re the marked part of your post, you´d still have Obama for he is closer to being a conservative than the mad-hatter McCain.

O is still not my choice, but of those who did run for presidency this time he was IMO the least evil.

Now, not states are changing from red to blue or vice versa. What really happens is, that more voters are beginning to think and turn from party cattle to REAL conservative views.

After Kennedy, REAL conservative values were abandoned and replaced by sheer greed.
Carter and Bush I both tried to stop the greed and repair the damage done by it.
But greed and ignorance kicked both of them out after only one term to replace them with incompetent greed supporters.

As to your last sentence:
Your dead wrong there.
The USA AND the world will have to return to the VALUES (not to confuse with politics) of the early sixties to be able to solve the present problems.

And I don´t give a f..k which party does it as long as it´s done.

__________________
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse
of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.
The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner
as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion,
or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." - Ludwig von Mises

I´ve marked the part of your post were you were (nearly) right.
Had you written "the non conservative policies" you would have been on the mark.

__________________
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse
of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.
The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner
as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion,
or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." - Ludwig von Mises

Good post.
But you forgot to mention the left wing as well.

As I see it, we are humans.
Trying to be Ikarus will always end in a crash.

We don´t need wings, neither right nor left.
For us it is better to have our feet planted firmly on the ground were they belong.
At least that´s the conservative ( as opposed to the extreme GOP/DEM ) view.

__________________
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse
of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.
The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner
as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion,
or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." - Ludwig von Mises