Is this some sort of stupid meme or is submitter a 'tard?

That's all well and good, but shouldn't we hope that a Republican can save the GOP? No one listens to these crazy third parties.

/preview is your friend.

Some see the glass as half empty. This tard sees it as half full.


I don't care. I just came to fill my cup to the top.

Trajan's Call'Em: WTF is a "repoblican," anyway?

Maybe subby can point us to his wobsite, or perhaps his blag.

He adds that the war in Iraq remains highly unpopular even among many conservatives. "Americans simply don't like long wars," he says.

He's clearly intelligent and wise. Of course, Iraqi civilians think long wars are a hoot.

Hate when they change the typos in the headline.

Oh and I just rread the article.

Haley Barbour? It's dumbfarks like him that put the GOP where it is today.

I ask him if there are any future Ronald Reagans out there in the states. He mentions Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Jim Douglas and, of course, Sarah Palin.

yah, clearly he is TOTALLY thinking outside of the box here.
WOOT palin 2012

/actually, the rest of the article was not all that bad, he only choked at the end, he didnt want to disown palin.

Thanks mods.

ThatGuyGreg: Trajan's Call'Em: WTF is a "repoblican," anyway?

Maybe subby can point us to his wobsite, or perhaps his blag.

And Greg, I would like to subscribe to your nawsletter.

/Calming down.

cretinbob: Haley Barbour? It's dumbfarks like him that put the GOP where it is today.

1) maybe tru, but at least he is trying to be honest
2) the voters put the GOP where they are right now, they elected tards, and got what they voted for

/anyone else notice how great a jorb the GOP did at banning abortion for the pro-lifers? good jorb there, keep voting for them

cretinbob: Hate when they change the typos in the headline.

Oh and I just rread the article.

Haley Barbour? It's dumbfarks like him that put the GOP where it is today.

This. He's one of the architects of the strategy that became less and less effective over time until it led to the assbeating the GOP took in '08.

And there's this in the article:

I ask him if there are any future Ronald Reagans out there in the states. He mentions Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Jim Douglas and, of course, Sarah Palin. "This has to be a bottom-up rebuilding process," he says. "Republican solutions are going to flow from the states, not from Washington."

If someone in the GOP does not stand up and say, "Look, this stupid biatch Palin is going to lead us into a whipping that makes '08 look like a squeaker if we go batshiat crazy and nominate her," they have no chance. This Palin thing is a cancer growing on them, and they're too scared to admit it. Instead, they run stale lines like "Oh, libs are scared of Sarah," when every "lib" I know rubs their hands together with glee at the prospect of seeing what an utter trainwreck a Palin presidential run would be.

jake_lex: If someone in the GOP does not stand up and say, "Look, this stupid biatch Palin is going to lead us into a whipping that makes '08 look like a squeaker if we go batshiat crazy and nominate her," they have no chance. This Palin thing is a cancer growing on them, and they're too scared to admit it. Instead, they run stale lines like "Oh, libs are scared of Sarah," when every "lib" I know rubs their hands together with glee at the prospect of seeing what an utter trainwreck a Palin presidential run would be.

I've been backing off this assessment a bit. Remember, idiots get elected all the time. They just have to be well polished on a variety of talking points, learn to talk to both moderates and hard liners out of both sides of their face, and have a well run machine behind them. She had none of these in '08, but this stuff isn't that hard to put together in 4 or 8 years. As far as people not forgetting her performance, I wouldn't rule that out either.

I would prefer the Republicans put up a competent moderate because things can happen and we need competence ahead of our individual ideologies.

cretinbob: Hate when they change the typos in the headline.

Oh and I just rread the article.

Haley Barbour? It's dumbfarks like him that put the GOP where it is today.

It is part of the rebranding strategy. Even as Neocons try to distance themselves with the policies that they promoted, there are quite a good many in the GOP leadership who are going to try to pretend that they were all for small government, while either lobbying or being lobbied for increased interference in the markets and in domestic and foreign policy.

He IS right that so called Moderates are the key to the GOP regaining any ground at all. In a lot of cases, those folks aren't "Moderates" or even "Progressives" they are simply Conservatives who never went for the new fangled flavors of Conservatism that captured the party's fancy with lots of cash and under the table support.

The party needs to reject the radicals who have brought the party to the brink of ruin. Conservatives and radicals are not comfy bed fellows, and in trying to justify the policies that these radicals have advocated, we've lost a great deal of ground.

"I am a small government, rational regulation, low tax, free market capitalist. And I'm going to be one even if I'm the last one!"

Isn't that what every Republican has been for the last 26 years? Leading to the ultimate small government, no regulation, tax cutting, free marketeer that we have enjoyed now for 8 years?

The only problem with this is that it's just sound bite politics. People like to hear "lower taxes" and all that other fluff but when that means they can't afford to send their kids to state college or when the bridges are collapsing or we can't deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies Americans don't say "man I wish I had a tax cut!" They want the government to fix it.

Republicans of the post-war period and even up to the Nixon era recognized this and won elections because of it.

But hey, you know, hold on to those old failed ideas and when you're the last one left holding on to them could you do the rest of us a favor and please turn out the lights? -- we're trying to save a little energy.

hubiestubert: The party needs to reject the radicals who have brought the party to the brink of ruin.

Those radicals ARE the Republican Party. Face it, the single best person to represent the Republican Party we see today is Sarah Palin. She exemplifies everything that the GOP is.

BigDumbGuy: Is this some sort of stupid meme or is submitter a 'tard?

Are you living up to your name or are you still whiny that you lost?

If Haley Barbour is the sane, rational, reality-based leader of the party, you're farkedfarkedfarked.

TheOther: If Haley Barbour is the sane, rational, reality-based leader of the party, you're farkedfarkedfarked.

ThisThisThis.

"I am a small government, rational regulation, low tax, free market capitalist. And I'm going to be one even if I'm the last one!" Mr. Barbour declares.

The Republican party has had no use for wild-eyed radicals like this for the last 70 years or so. Why should they pay any attention now?

They didn't get where they are today by being "sane, rational and based in reality."

That was certainly true after George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990 and then in the 2006 bloodbath, when Republicans were punished for their reckless overspending.

I thought they were punished for the war and corruption, and their reckless overspending simply negated their old fallback position: America needs Republicans to prevent Democratic overspending.

My problem is that I just don't trust the Republican party. They turned socialist on me and just don't seem to give a damn anymore about what rank and file 'little people' think. And I don't see how the Republicans could even begin to convince me to trust them ever again.

Weaver95: My problem is that I just don't trust the Republican party. They turned socialist on me and just don't seem to give a damn anymore about what rank and file 'little people' think. And I don't see how the Republicans could even begin to convince me to trust them ever again.

"I am a small government, rational regulation, low tax, free market capitalist. And I'm going to be one even if I'm the last one!" Mr. Barbour declares.

Then you are the last one.

lulz

DRTFA, but let me guess: embrace ignorance, deify Sarah Palin, and continue to blame everything on thuh libruhls?

Weaver95: My problem is that I just don't trust the Republican party. They turned socialist on me and just don't seem to give a damn anymore about what rank and file 'little people' think. And I don't see how the Republicans could even begin to convince me to trust them ever again.

That is interesting. My personal disgust with them came during the nineties when I realized they were basically the party of racist, religious, nutjobs.

FTFA: "The party, he says, must figure out how ... to reach out and touch 20-somethings."

Lol.

It wasn't a bad article though. He admits Bush's foreign policy and domestic spending were disasters. That's a good first step.

I thought that was a reasonable sounding piece but he ignored the elephant in the room of theocratic fundamentalism and the fact young people often believe Christ wasn't only about hating the gays and giving tax cuts to the rich.

Those young people are also more likely to hispanic or other minoritys the GOP aften demonizes.

A party that kept the good aspects of the Republican, at least stated if not acted on, ideology would be a wonderful thing.

One dominant party inevitably leads to corruption and complacency.

Weaver95: My problem is that I just don't trust the Republican party. They turned socialist on me and just don't seem to give a damn anymore about what rank and file 'little people' think. And I don't see how the Republicans could even begin to convince me to trust them ever again.

The socialism isn't the problem. It was the active dismantling of civil rights and the massing of both federal power and most importantly executive power. This combined with making the US into a pro-torture state and giving China, Russia, the EU and Iran all the excuses it needed to decouple itself from the power of America in the coming decades will spell disaster. It used to be "well, at least America's got the money" no more. And we are dragging everyone down with us. And they know it and are openly calling for dropping the dollar and such.

If America has a decline in the next century that isn't catastrophic or disaster-related, I fully expect the full blame to be on the spark that the Bush Administration lit.

FTA: In the end, he advises, Republicans can only win if they rediscover the power and voter appeal of innovative and reform-minded solutions to the nation's ills. "If we're going to have a party that gets the White House back before we fall totally into socialism..."

The GOP has gone full retard and apparently once you go full retard, you don't come back. They apparently believe their own BS.

>> If America has a decline in the next century

We're having it right now.

Just like the one the repubs gave us back in 1929.

Look who had almost total control of the government back then too (repubs).

It's what they do when they get in the drivers seat.

I ask him if there are any future Ronald Reagans out there in the states. He mentions Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Jim Douglas and, of course, Sarah Palin.

The Emperor has no clothes.

PC LOAD LETTER: The socialism isn't the problem. It was the active dismantling of civil rights and the massing of both federal power and most importantly executive power.

Yeah, but that's not a Republican only issue. Plenty of Democrats signed up for the Patriot act and Homeland Security goodness. Neither party really sees much of a problem with spying on US citizens.

But this is a discussion thread specifically regarding the problems with the Republican party. I already don't trust either party when it comes to personal freedom, but I specifically distrust the Republicans when it comes to matters of fiscal policy because they blatantly lied to me about what their beliefs are on the matter. It was in the party platform - no bailouts for anyone anywhere at any time. And Bush (and every other Republican office holder) ignored that plank of the platform.

How am I supposed to trust the Republicans when they lie like that? There isn't even any wiggle room. It was a blatant, in your face lie. And on the few times I've managed to corner someone about it, the response always some variation on 'yeah, so what? we lied. get over it.'

I just don't see how any Republican party official expects me to trust them after that incident.

Weaver95: My problem is that I just don't trust the Republican party. They turned socialist on me and just don't seem to give a damn anymore about what rank and file 'little people' think. And I don't see how the Republicans could even begin to convince me to trust them ever again.

The republican party have never given a crap about you or the "little people". They use gays, flag-burning, racial resentment, and Militant nationalism passed off as patriotism to con 'little people' into voting for them and then do nothing about these issues except play on people's emotions to vote for the party. Small government? What the hell is that? We are a large industrial (at least for now) country, not some small agrarian society of 250 years ago. Free market capitalist? Hah. That's just happy talk for greedheads working the system for all they can get.

/for balance, I regard the democrats as well meaning, but incompetent boobs.

Jsc810: I ask him if there are any future Ronald Reagans out there in the states. He mentions Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Jim Douglas and, of course, Sarah Palin.

The Emperor has no clothes.

I'm glad someone else picked up on that. I find Jindal to be just as terrifying as Palin.

If I was looking for assurances that the GOP still has no clue what's going on and what to do about it, this is it.

"Social conservatives?" Jesus Christ, man, the wheels are coming off. You're proposing to fix the nation's problems by waving a Bible around? Most of his concern seems focused on the welfare of the party, and much less on the nation. And he proposes purging the party of dissidents -- which would naturally lead to lack of introspection, meaning an increasing blindness to reality. That's not the kind of leadership we need, now or ever.

FTA: the GOP had become a regional party of the South, that the conservatives were devoid of ideas, and that the era of Reaganism was over.

The only part of all that which made sense, but they were referring to 1992, not 2008. Somehow the GOP thinks all of that still isn't the case.

It's bizarre that the rightwingers are so against stem cell research and cloning as it's the biggest wet dream of the GOP to have clones of Ronald Reagan.

Weaver95: PC LOAD LETTER: The socialism isn't the problem. It was the active dismantling of civil rights and the massing of both federal power and most importantly executive power.

Yeah, but that's not a Republican only issue. Plenty of Democrats signed up for the Patriot act and Homeland Security goodness. Neither party really sees much of a problem with spying on US citizens.

But this is a discussion thread specifically regarding the problems with the Republican party. I already don't trust either party when it comes to personal freedom, but I specifically distrust the Republicans when it comes to matters of fiscal policy because they blatantly lied to me about what their beliefs are on the matter. It was in the party platform - no bailouts for anyone anywhere at any time. And Bush (and every other Republican office holder) ignored that plank of the platform.

How am I supposed to trust the Republicans when they lie like that? There isn't even any wiggle room. It was a blatant, in your face lie. And on the few times I've managed to corner someone about it, the response always some variation on 'yeah, so what? we lied. get over it.'

I just don't see how any Republican party official expects me to trust them after that incident.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention the democrats were spineless when it came time to stand on principles.

/Needs new party

Befuddled: FTA: the GOP had become a regional party of the South, that the conservatives were devoid of ideas, and that the era of Reaganism was over.

The only part of all that which made sense, but they were referring to 1992, not 2008. Somehow the GOP thinks all of that still isn't the case.

It's bizarre that the rightwingers are so against stem cell research and cloning as it's the biggest wet dream of the GOP to have clones of Ronald Reagan.

It's not just stem cell research either. there is some pretty hefty evidence that cannabis can be processed into a cheap and *extremely* effective antibiotic treatment. this stuff kills MRSA infections in days and could easily save thousands of lives just here in the US alone. But soon as you mention 'cannabis' you get some puckered asshole who screams about 'war on drugs' and 'no medical use for weed'.

Weaver95: PC LOAD LETTER: The socialism isn't the problem. It was the active dismantling of civil rights and the massing of both federal power and most importantly executive power.

Yeah, but that's not a Republican only issue. Plenty of Democrats signed up for the Patriot act and Homeland Security goodness. Neither party really sees much of a problem with spying on US citizens.

But this is a discussion thread specifically regarding the problems with the Republican party. I already don't trust either party when it comes to personal freedom, but I specifically distrust the Republicans when it comes to matters of fiscal policy because they blatantly lied to me about what their beliefs are on the matter. It was in the party platform - no bailouts for anyone anywhere at any time. And Bush (and every other Republican office holder) ignored that plank of the platform.

How am I supposed to trust the Republicans when they lie like that? There isn't even any wiggle room. It was a blatant, in your face lie. And on the few times I've managed to corner someone about it, the response always some variation on 'yeah, so what? we lied. get over it.'

I just don't see how any Republican party official expects me to trust them after that incident.

The Democrats have a great opportunity to get it right. I think Obama, specifically, has what it takes to do so. I have no faith in Reid and Pelosi whatsoever. I think any failure in the next 8 years is going to be very much on their shoulders. I am not thrilled with Daschle being in the cabinet. He did JACK SHIAT when Bush was gaining power.

The only one who ran who opposed Bush? RON PAUL!!11

3rd party sure would be nice. But they are limited to fruitcakes, nutjobs and those like Barr who is actually sane, but whose party is mostly fruitcakes and nutjobs.

The structure is there, but then it all falls apart when he comes up with names. Jindal and Palin, dude, we're ready to gleefully tear Exorcism Boy and Caribou Barbie apart all over again if you put them up.

Really, Barbour was right about having four years to figure out the youth vote before you lose those voters forever. Stats back him up on that. The problem is, who are you going to get? This is the problem McCain had in his VP search: there are no good options. The best options were:

*A governor who was on watch when a bridge collapsed in the very city the RNC held court in
*A guy of a religion widely mocked outside of Utah
*A guy who performed an exorcism
*A guy who ran on the other party's ticket eight years prior
*An unknown from Alaska who just happens to look like an SNL goddess that has publicly stated support for the opposition

And these were the BEST options.

Yes, they need to find someone in four years. Problem is, they got nothing as far as people in the public eye. Barbour's pretty much going to have to do it himself.

As long as the Regressive Party continues with the same failed policies of Reagan pseudo-conservatism, they will remain only attractive to the far-right wing lunatic fringe that lacks an elementary school understanding of economic, foreign, and domestic policy.

timmy_the_tooth: Leading to the ultimate small government, no regulation, tax cutting, free marketeer that we have enjoyed now for 8 years?

Yeah. That's exactly what Bush is. STFU and DIAF

PC LOAD LETTER: 3rd party sure would be nice. But they are limited to fruitcakes, nutjobs and those like Barr who is actually sane, but whose party is mostly fruitcakes and nutjobs.

No, what they lack is 3 things:

1. organization
2. focus
3. funding.

however - they're working on the first 2 items. And if things continue to deterioriate at the national level, #3 should also solve itself.

Sarah Palin needs to run in 2012, so those godless suburbs and cities and be punished for their elitism.

/Palin 2012
//rural superiority will reign again

FTFA: aren't the big spending Republicans who act like Democrats -- people like Ted Stevens of Alaska

Nonononononono. Don't you dare try to pass that shiatbag off to us.

No, wait, on second thought, they have two good options: Snowe and Collins.

Who are never ever going to win the primary in the current GOP climate.

Weaver95: PC LOAD LETTER: 3rd party sure would be nice. But they are limited to fruitcakes, nutjobs and those like Barr who is actually sane, but whose party is mostly fruitcakes and nutjobs.

No, what they lack is 3 things:

1. organization
2. focus
3. funding.

however - they're working on the first 2 items. And if things continue to deterioriate at the national level, #3 should also solve itself.

The first is probably most important in the long run: get folks in power from the party. That's the long/slow but more stable route to take to power. If you have an ultra-charismatic 3rd-party leader swept into power and just Ds and Rs in Congress, it won't work out. They will just speak the bandwagon to get re-elected, but they will filter the plans through D and R eyes. The only way Nader (gah!) would get his stuff done is by having Greens control congress, for example.

FTFA: "If we're going to have a party that gets the White House back before we fall totally into socialism, we need to persuade voters that our market-based solutions work, and government mostly doesn't."

Really... seriously? For the love of FSM, is there one Republican right now that isn't a jingoistic retard who just spews talking point after talking point like a Wurlitzer.

PC LOAD LETTER: The first is probably most important in the long run: get folks in power from the party. That's the long/slow but more stable route to take to power. If you have an ultra-charismatic 3rd-party leader swept into power and just Ds and Rs in Congress, it won't work out. They will just speak the bandwagon to get re-elected, but they will filter the plans through D and R eyes. The only way Nader (gah!) would get his stuff done is by having Greens control congress, for example.

If the libertarians can make inroads at the state/local level then they will being to threaten the Republican/Democrat deadlock. And right now, the Republicans are very vulnerable.

actually, all the Libertarians have to do is keep splitting the vote and costing Republicans control. If that happens enough times and in enough places, then the Republicans will eventually lose enough control and support to just implode on their own.

Weaver95: PC LOAD LETTER: 3rd party sure would be nice. But they are limited to fruitcakes, nutjobs and those like Barr who is actually sane, but whose party is mostly fruitcakes and nutjobs.

No, what they lack is 3 things:

1. organization
2. focus
3. funding.

however - they're working on the first 2 items. And if things continue to deterioriate at the national level, #3 should also solve itself.


You don't start a nationwide grassroots organization, by *starting* at the national level.

The only type of organization that can *start* at the national level is a top-down, highly-structured vehicle for the support of already-existing power structures.

So... any third party that wants to have any hope of ever scoring above 10% or so in a national election, needs to start at the absolute bottom.

Start with electing folks to town councils, school boards. Work your way up from the town level to the county level after several years, and then after running some counties for a few more years, then you *might* think about running some folks for State Representative or for the State Senate.

After a decade or two, and after spreading to enough states, the new thrird party will have atrack record and enough trained, talented people to have a respectable talent pool to pick among for running members for Congress.

On the other hand... if you simply want to waste time, waste money, and go through the motions with absolutely no chance and no realistic intention of ever winning.... then you'd *start* off by running candidates for President and Vice President when your party hasn't even managed to show a track record of running even a schoolboard somewhere.

So, no.... number 3 ain't gonna solve itself.

General Zang: So, no.... number 3 ain't gonna solve itself.

Sometimes I think you drive 10 miles out of the way specifically to completely misunderstand everything I say JUST so that you can start an argument over something we actually just agreed on.