Posted on 01/23/2007 8:01:14 AM PST by Valin
They are dangerously close to becoming the Bob Michaels type of gee, will they ask me to go golfing with them If I am nice to them Country Club Republicans.
With their support the war waining, lack of leadership in the house, and Martinez as head of the RNC, I see things getting much worse before they get any better. The only leadership that many that post here would agree with would be McConnell in the Senate and the President.
I see the GOP repeating 1964 through 1980 all over again and I hope it doesn't take that long. The next Goldwater, mark my words, Newt. we will wonder in the desert (politically) until another Reagan like figure appears.
Those in the Revolution of 1994 who are still "true believers" are few and far between. Newt personally has way too much baggage, both personal and political, to hope for the presidency. All the other so-called leaders, as you point out, are either leading the wrong thing or aren't leaders at all.
Sadly, there are several media realities as well: a "leader" today must have a certain Hollywood charisma. Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, even Washington would never have stood a chance today.
The point of my post was that many are followers, and their positions rapidly shift behind a truly great leader. I just haven't seen the right one yet.
As for the Dems, no, they didn't hold a monolithic view over the last 12 years. In fact, quite the contrary, the Clinton/Gore wing were originally the Dem. Leadership Conference's choices, and that whole idea was based on "appearing to be centrist" or "moderate." Clinton often pulled it off.
That wing has been completely buried and, in the case of Gore, has gravitated heavy left. It would be more accurate to say that the Dems that we NOW see have only been monolithic in the last six years, since Bush won. At that point, they decided to rally around stopping him at every turn. They failed with the WoT and Iraq initially, and it cost them about four years, but their party line---as you correctly point out---did do its damage, repeated as a mantra over that time.
That said, I think they have a massive fundamental weakness which is that deep down they HATE AMERICA and that hate slips out quite easily. It won't take much for the right Republicans to shatter their image, but it will take the right Republicans and I don't see that person or those persons on the horizon right now.
"I agree. My thought has been that at best we are 10-14 years away from having power again. What scares me is if the country and it's foundations stand even that length of time."
Hmmm. I find that a little bit of a negative assessment, especially considering the caliber of presidential candidates running for 2008.
"Even 10 years means a totally new Supreme Court that slants way left. This election cycle destroyed our party more than what happened to the Dem's under the win because of Newt's Contract with America."
Not necessarily. There's still a good chance that President Bush will get to replace a liberal's seat on SCOTUS before his term expires in 2009. And - don't forget - the conservative wing of SCOTUS is now much younger than the liberal wing. In fact, 3 justices (Alito, Roberts and Thomas) are well under the age of 60, meaning it's very conceivable - and indeed likely - that they'll still be in power in 10 years. Even Scalia would be only about 80 at that time (young when you consider where Stevens stands).
Sometimes conservatives extremely negative assessment of the future of our country is not such a special read.
A very perceptive -- and meaningful -- observation.
As was your comment about "purges" -- these things take time. This was clearly a case of the 1994 "Republican Revolution" running out of steam -- spent because, given a lack of leadership, the Republicans forgot what it was that brung them.
It will (and should) take time for the party to examine itself and regain conviction as to its principles and direction. And, once it has rediscovered its core principles, a leader like Newt needs to emerge.
I don't believe this can be done in two years. I just hope it doesn't take forty-two...
And I hope that, in the interim, the GOP is strong enough on defense that the Democrats don't get to play out their nihilist fantasy.
Yeah, it does look bleak for the next 10 years.
On one side of the aisle are a bunch of sons a' bitches; on the other side of the aisle are a bunch of bastards---but at this point they all look the same.
If Republicans cut and run on victory in Iraq/Afghanistan they are IED deadmeat.
Before the election there was a WA state freeper who was very upset with Mike McGavick. McGavick, who was running against Maria Cantwell for Senate, had called for firing Rumsfeld and that was the final straw and that freeper wasn't going to vote for him.
I bet that freeper (can't remember who, too bad cause I'd love to ping him) is even more upset than you.
What amazes me is that all of the leaders in power, all of them both democrat and republican, from the president to the house to the senate, can't figure out, with a staff of probably 500,000+, how to win a war with barbarians! Further, what amazes me is that the rest of the world, many nations with which we do business, watch and condemn each false step that the US makes to defeat the barbarians that affect not only us but also them too. And then, there is that loveable, and very functional, body known as the United Nations that has a handle on everything (that is of value)...........
What makes you think we are not winning?
The only way we do not win is if we choose not to win.
Then came the 'keeping the peace' phase of the reconstruction of Iraq. Here we are not doing too well.....
Hugh Hewitt has long acted as if belittling those don't follow his lead is a winning strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.