The problem with your rhetoric is that there are some people who need to be cared for and that there are some people who are victims. Until the Republicans start to also speak for them I will vote with the other party.

 

If by my rhetoric, you mean me agreeing with you, than yes, I agree with you on the bolded.

 

I have never heard Republicans speak against either of the bolded parties.

More than 60% of the American public view abortion as acceptable in some circumstances.

 

As long as this is the ONLY plank for some the Republicans will continue to lose. You cannot look only at this personal decision and ignore all of the poverty and hunger and oppression that takes place and expect to have a viable chance of emerging in the political process.

 

My understanding is that Bush sent more money to Africa to combat the bolded than any American in history. Have you applauded him on that effort and have the Democrats given him credit in that regard?

I just heard that Obama's stimulus plan has 50 million in it for the National Endowment for the Arts as well as several million for coupons for digital TV converters.

 

How will either of those help stimulate the economy?

 

Two months ago my dad said he had to buy some of those converters. I told him to wait it out that Obama or some other liberal senator would provide free ones through the government for low income people.

 

We, as a society, would hate to ask them to budget and forgo things like cigarettes, beer and tattoos and save for them.

 

Sure enough there it is.

 

And before anyone jumps on my case about generalizing, it won't help that I have had students who said "Can't wait for my check to come in from the government to get a new tatoo." And sure enough they have a new tatoo shortly after the first of the month.

 

Seems like they weren't hungry, in poverty or starving too bad or they would have forgone the tattoos for food.

In an article about Bunning's reelection bid and the danger of not being reelected, I found this.

 

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/674095.html

 

Senate Republicans face a difficult re-election picture in 2010. Already three key Republicans, Florida's Mel Martinez, Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Kit Bond of Missouri, have announced they will not seek re-election.

 

Republicans must keep all of the 41 seats they currently hold to retain the ability to filibuster legislation they do not deem favorable, Sabato said.

 

Add in Bunning and if the Republicans cannot hold these 4 seats and don't pick up any, they are down to 37 seats and no fillibuster power.

Two months ago my dad said he had to buy some of those converters. I told him to wait it out that Obama or some other liberal senator would provide free ones through the government for low income people.

 

We, as a society, would hate to ask them to budget and forgo things like cigarettes, beer and tattoos and save for them.

 

Sure enough there it is.

 

And before anyone jumps on my case about generalizing, it won't help that I have had students who said "Can't wait for my check to come in from the government to get a new tatoo." And sure enough they have a new tatoo shortly after the first of the month.

 

Seems like they weren't hungry, in poverty or starving too bad or they would have forgone the tattoos for food.

 

If your father had the money to buy them why did you tell him to wait to get one?

If your father had the money to buy them why did you tell him to wait to get one?

 

Retired and on fixed income.

Knew that the Dems would swoop in and give those on fixed incomes a way to get them.

Since he has never voted for anyone besides a Democrat, he might as well get the benefit of helping put them into office.

My understanding is that Bush sent more money to Africa to combat the bolded than any American in history. Have you applauded him on that effort and have the Democrats given him credit in that regard?

 

Can I answer?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18048.html

 

For many longtime RNC members, Barbour, who served as chairman from 1993 to 1997, remains the very model of a modern party chief, comfortable operating in smoke-filled rooms and in front of video cameras, at ease with every member of the committee. For newer members, too, he’s a shining reminder of the good old days, when Republicans had a vibrant organization and a robust message.

Two years ago, the Republican Party was written off. Now it has risen like a phoenix and thought (much like what we do in the sports forums at the end of the season) bring back up the prediction of the Republican's demise thread back up.

 

Please disregard my parts of the discussion of abortion as it is not germane to the state of the Republican party today.

 

If you would like to discuss it, please feel free to bring it up in another thread.

Precarious would be the word I would use to descripe the Republicans status. If they think they were voted in because people are in their corner, they're wrong. People voted against Obama and incumbents and since there were more incumbent Democrats, Republicans won. American voters are looking for someone, anyone, to step up and take charge of the economy. Everything else right now is fluff.

Precarious would be the word I would use to descripe the Republicans status. If they think they were voted in because people are in their corner, they're wrong. People voted against Obama and incumbents and since there were more incumbent Democrats, Republicans won. American voters are looking for someone, anyone, to step up and take charge of the economy. Everything else right now is fluff.

 

Not going to search for it but not sure the incumbant point is totally accurate. I remember reading shortly after the race that most Republican incumbents one. I think I remember that only 1-2 incumbent Republicans lost.

 

I will agree with the last two sentences. Voters are looking for someone to lead as much as issues. GW misread his "mandate" in 2006. Obama and the Democrats misread their "mandate" in 2008. Republicans would be well served to not repeat past mistakes.

Two years ago, the Republican Party was written off. Now it has risen like a phoenix and thought (much like what we do in the sports forums at the end of the season) bring back up the prediction of the Republican's demise thread back up.

 

Please disregard my parts of the discussion of abortion as it is not germane to the state of the Republican party today.

 

If you would like to discuss it, please feel free to bring it up in another thread.

 

I think it's a good idea to bring things like this back up and revisit them. I still stand by my original assessment of the Republicans. Yes, they just won a mountain of House seats, but I don't believe they convinced the American people that Republican ideas were better, that they even had ideas outside of the kneejerk disagreement with Obama, or that they had learned something from their losses in '06 and '08. They won this cycle because they were the party that wasn't the Democratic party.

 

The "Tea Party" was certainly an x-factor that no one could have predicted, but what did it do? Outside of a couple of established Republicans who were beat in primaries, it didn't really change the fundamental ideas of the Republican party. Certainly, they've gotten louder about taxes and spending, but the only serious plan I've seen for reducing spending from a Republican (Paul Ryan) is on a shelf somewhere gathering dust. There were a lot of new faces in Republican politics, but many were the likes of Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and Rand Paul, with Sarah Palin becoming the face of the movement. They've essentially doubled down on the things I talked about in the original post.

 

In short, I don't think they've changed anything that I identified as troublesome in the original assessment. When the economy comes back to life, and with it Obama's popularity, what are they going to do?