The Republican Party: Going Going Gone!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 7:20 PM GMT
    Here are today's headlines at The Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com):

    -> "McCain: Losing in a way that threatens to take entire Republican Party down with him"

    -> "Former Bush Speechwriter Frum, knocks McCain"

    -> "Former Bush Advisor: Why a staunch conservative like me endorsed Obama"

    -> "Ex-Bush Official backs Obama's Foreign Policy"

    -> "Senior Republicans warn of GOP Civil War"

    -> "Alaska's largest newspaper endorses Obama"

    -> "McCain could lose his home state"


    They are all good reading . . . that said, make sure you read what the Anchorage Daily News wrote.

    B787
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 7:24 PM GMT
    That Huffington Post link merely launched this same RJ page.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 7:31 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidThat Huffington Post link merely launched the same RJ page.


    Thanks for that headsup--not sure why that is happening. I tried to fix it a few different ways and settled for its current composition. Sorry 'bout that.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 7:34 PM GMT
    Try this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/biden-slammed-during-flor_n_137830.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 7:39 PM GMT
    BTW, thanks for that video. Biden has been largely overlooked in the campaign, because of all the attention on Palin. And I myself was worried that Biden would suffer from his notorious foot-in-mouth disease.

    But in this interview he comes across as articulate, knowledgeable, calm, and very Vice-Presidential, and indeed, Presidential. Unlike Palin, who looks & sounds like a cheerleader, with just about as much depth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 10:23 PM GMT

    Here's a great music video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iojPaw8yX0

    Enjoy!

    B787
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 10:28 PM GMT

    Also, today at the Denver rally, Obama drew a crowd in excess of 100,000 !!!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/26/obama-draws-100000-at-den_n_137951.html

    I guess magic does exist when you believe in it! icon_biggrin.gif

    B787
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 10:35 PM GMT
    "Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

    They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

    The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

    Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day. ... "

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    "Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

    He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

    "Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process." "

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 26, 2008 11:12 PM GMT
    Caslon7000 said"Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

    They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

    The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

    Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day. ... "



    Maybe Obama will have the same impact on the political landscape as Reagan did in 1980 (still one of the more unfortunate changes in political leadership in light of what happened with the AIDS crisis the very next year). But Obama is coming to power in a far more vulnerable position. The world's worse economic crisis since the Great Depression will make any moves that Obama wants to make very difficult to do, even with a Democratic congress. The economics will not likely support it until 2010 at the earliest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 4:46 AM GMT
    I do wonder if Reagan was as hated as Obama is right now?

    I was too young to remember to be honest. I felt Reagan was a great president for the time.

    Do I want Obama to be a bad president

    ah no.

    I still won't vote for him because of the way he feels he needs to heavily tax the people who invest in businesses.

    True I get more back in an Obama tax plan, and while my job will actually be more in demand under Obama, I see higher unemployment under Obama because the rich will invest less which will plunge the stock market and causing more layoffs.

    I think the government needs to lay off being the investor with tax revenue. Leave that to those that have the money to invest and let those that try to start up a business do their jobs of convincing the public to use their products.

    I think the Republican party will survive and use this to fuel the fire to move forward and create a better party to serve the people. They have a tougher skin to endure the crap that seems to get hauled on them by everyone here and abroad that has had to say something disparaging about Bush or some Republican they don't like. Heaven forbid a joke or question be made about a Democrat.

    Personally though I think the human spirit will endure this and despite who is in office things will correct themselves and we will continue to be a great country.
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Oct 27, 2008 5:06 AM GMT
    Zoxuss saidI do wonder if Regan was as hated as Obama is right now?

    I was too young to remember to be honest. I felt Regan was a great president for the time.

    Do I want Obama to be a bad president

    ah no.

    I still won't vote for him because of the way he feels he needs to heavily tax the people who invest in businesses.

    True I get more back in an Obama tax plan, and while my job will actually be more in demand under Obama, I see higher unemployment under Obama because the rich will invest less which will plunge the stock market and causing more layoffs.

    I think the government needs to lay off being the investor with tax revenue. Leave that to those that have the money to invest and let those that try to start up a business do their jobs of convincing the public to use their products.

    I think the Republican party will survive and use this to fuel the fire to move forward and create a better party to serve the people. They have a tougher skin to endure the crap that seems to get hauled on them by everyone here and abroad that has had to say something disparaging about Bush or some Republican they don't like. Heaven forbid a joke or question be made about a Democrat.

    Personally though I think the human spirit will endure this and despite who is in office things will correct themselves and we will continue to be a great country.


    Zox, I respect you, but if you loved the guy so much you should know it was Reagan, not Regan. Ronald WIlson Reagan. Donald Regan was Treasury Secretary under Reagan.

    The Republican party will of course survive if things turn out as pollsters are suggesting is possible (I'm still in a wait and see mode.). But the Republican party need to find themselves again. They can't sell out the conservative cause at the sake of ineptitude again, whether at George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. If they stand for fiscal conservatism, they need to mean it. And they need to decide whether they are the "big tent" of if it's just a slogan. Because they've done nothing for the middle class, the working class, or minorities the last year.

    As for your take on taxes, maybe you haven't read the Economist recently. They did a survey of economists last month, and a majority of them said Obama's plan made more sense. McCain's actions after our recent economic crisis has not only been called erratic by the Obama campaign, but maybe you haven't read all the conservatives jumping ship from McCain because of his lack of leadership. Even they fear he will run the country as he's run his campaign.


  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 27, 2008 10:44 AM GMT
    For those of you who are exulting the presidency of Ronnie
    Take a look at your 401K and put a tulip on his grave and say thank you
    Because HE is the starter of the republican less is better gov't
    Less oversight of corporations and the stockmarkets
    Less money for schools and public works projects

    He might be long dead but we are living his legacy Right Now

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 12:54 PM GMT
    EricLA said


    Zox, I respect you, but if you loved the guy so much you should know it was Reagan, not Regan. Ronald WIlson Reagan. Donald Regan was Treasury Secretary under Reagan.

    The Republican party will of course survive if things turn out as pollsters are suggesting is possible (I'm still in a wait and see mode.). But the Republican party need to find themselves again. They can't sell out the conservative cause at the sake of ineptitude again, whether at George W. Bush or Sarah Palin. If they stand for fiscal conservatism, they need to mean it. And they need to decide whether they are the "big tent" of if it's just a slogan. Because they've done nothing for the middle class, the working class, or minorities the last year.

    As for your take on taxes, maybe you haven't read the Economist recently. They did a survey of economists last month, and a majority of them said Obama's plan made more sense. McCain's actions after our recent economic crisis has not only been called erratic by the Obama campaign, but maybe you haven't read all the conservatives jumping ship from McCain because of his lack of leadership. Even they fear he will run the country as he's run his campaign.




    I made the change in the wording. I was very tired when I wrote it. Thank you for not flaming. Is it economists that make under $250,000? I want those that have money to invest and give to charity to do so. So I can't vote for Obama because he plans on increasing his taxes on the rich.

    If Obama doesn't plan to tax the rich I would vote for him. That is the only way I would vote for him. Personally I think everyone should pay the same percentage as the rich does in taxes to get a clear idea how much of their income goes to Washington. Then maybe we would rethink who we vote into office next go around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 1:03 PM GMT
    He, maybe it is me, but the economy was doing pretty good until about two years ago. What happened two years ago? Oh yeah, the Democrats took over the legislative powers by taking over the House and the Senate? I don't remember a crash of anything two years ago? But two years in power? Damn, seems like everthing fell apart? Coincidence? Did they cause it, or did they just not notice the problems?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 1:05 PM GMT
    OBAMA, PELOSI and REID!!!!! Yahooo!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 1:14 PM GMT
    Hey, if a survey of economists says that Obama is right, I will support them 100% percent. Because we all know that the majority is always right!!! I always support majortities!!! Cause they are always right, usually!! Sometimes!! Probably! Hopefully?

    I am sure some googler can find a time when economists were dead wrong, but not me! I go with the masses! Majority? I agree with you on whatever, except for gay marriage. Then I agree with the minority!

    But just that once!!!! Otherwise, majority!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 1:24 PM GMT
    For guys like me, neither Democrat nor Republican, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the next four years are gonna be FUN FUN FUN!!!!

    I CAN'T WAIT!!!!! Good times good times!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 1:28 PM GMT
    A majority of people educated in the field of economics is a bit different from a majority acting out of religious and moral belief, doncha think? That's like comparing evolutionary biology to creationism.

    I can't imagine what could be more demonstrably a failure than the notion of trickle-down economics. We tried it. It doesn't work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
    I agree. Good point. Would you say that a majority of, say, scientists, that all agree the same way should have validity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 3:45 PM GMT
    It worked. Clinton screwed it up.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Oct 27, 2008 4:00 PM GMT
    The problems with the Republican Party, as it appeals to middle America, is not their government policies, but their bed-ridden relationship with fundamental "Christians" who mix too much religion into politics. Sooner or later, the same courting politicians get exposed of their hypocrisy and after so many scandals in succession of each other, middle Americans get turned off more at the religion than at the government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 4:01 PM GMT
    A majority of people educated in the field of economics is a bit different from a majority acting out of religious and moral belief, doncha think? That's like comparing evolutionary biology to creationism.


    HMMMMM.... a majority in...science?

    Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.

    We invite interested readers to vist our new website: Climate Debate Daily. — D.D.



    There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

    To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

    Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

    —PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

    [end]

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 4:02 PM GMT
    Your right. Is not a science. But even if it was, it could be wrong.

    JW
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Oct 27, 2008 4:09 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa said I myself was worried that Biden would suffer from his notorious foot-in-mouth disease.



    Does he not????? icon_rolleyes.gif