To: HitmanLV
I really do get it. No, you don't. You are supporting the same suicidal strategy of trying to "move to the middle" that has caused the very destruction of the GOP to begin with.
Depending on the political climate, the voters can come to the conclusion to tell conservatives to take a hike. Its not impossible, it has happened before and will happen again.
Part of the GOP's loss in the mid-terms was due to historical trends. Nobody likes to see one party in control of government. (albeit, technically there is a one-party, they're just divided by halves) But most of their loss was that they abandoned the winning conservative principles that have made them successful.
Plenty of people dont care much about taxes. Plenty of people reject what you call traditional values. There are even plenty of people who are against a strong defense.
That's just bunk. People are concerned about taxes and the cost of government. People deep down are concerned about the unchecked growth in entitlement spending and boondoggles in other federal programs.
If FR crafted a policy platform, it would strongly appeal to as many people as one crafted by DU. That is to say, not many people.
FR is not a political party, so your comparison is specious. Now if the GOP crafted a true conservative platform like they did in 1994, people would overwhelmingly support it.
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
My point is that what passes for the conventional wisdom on FR is rejected my many, many people. And that an amalgam of the typical Freeper’s values would appeal to probably not much more than 1-2% of the population.
What’s the historical trend in 2008? I think that a traditional GOP candidate tops out at around 200 EVs. Nothing much has changed with the GOP since election 2006. Most of the country thinks the GOP sucks. In some cases they are right. The good news is that they seem to be accepting hat the dems suck, too.
I don’t see how any of that necessarily helps us.
52 posted on
06/01/2007 5:56:09 PM PDT by
HitmanLV
("Lord, give me chastity and temperance, but not now." - St. Augustine)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist; HitmanLV
Originally posted by
Extremely Extreme Extremist:
"Part of the GOP's loss in the mid-terms was due to historical trends. Nobody likes to see one party in control of government. (albeit, technically there is a one-party, they're just divided by halves)..."
That's strange. Historically the "American people" have been in favor of a single party dominating all three of the elected branches of the Federal government - the Presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. How can I say that? Well the historical record says that around 63% of the time since 1789 a single political party has been put in charge of the entire Federal government. So why do people keep insisting that the 'American People' do not wish one party in charge? Never heard this bitching about 'single party' control under FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter or Clinton, did you... Hmmmn, I sense a pattern here... could it be they were all Democrats? Ah, that explains it.
There have been five major political parties in the history of the United States, the Federalists, the Democratic-Republicans, the Democrats, the Whigs and the Republicans. Each of these major parties has in at least one Congress controlled the House, Senate and Presidency concurrently. This is what has defined them as major parties...
Party Control of Presidency, House and Senate
1789 to 2007
Congress |
Years_Term |
President |
Presidential Party |
House Majority Party |
Senate Majority Party |
The Big Tri-Fecta |
1st |
1789-1791 |
Washington |
No Party |
Administration |
Administration |
* |
2nd |
1791-1793 |
Washington |
No Party |
Administration |
Administration |
* |
3rd |
1793-1795 |
Washington |
No Party |
Opposition |
Administration |
|
4th |
1795-1797 |
Washington |
No Party |
Opposition |
Administration |
|
5th |
1797-1799 |
Adams(2) |
Federalist |
Dem-Reps |
Federalist |
|
6th |
1799-1801 |
Adams(2) |
Federalist |
Federalist |
Federalist |
* |
7th |
1801-1803 |
Jefferson |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
8th |
1803-1805 |
Jefferson |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
9th |
1805-1807 |
Jefferson |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
10th |
1807-1809 |
Jefferson |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
11th |
1809-1811 |
Madison |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
12th |
1811-1813 |
Madison |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
13th |
1814-1815 |
Madison |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
14th |
1815-1817 |
Madison |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
15th |
1817-1819 |
Monroe |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
16th |
1819-1821 |
Monroe |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
17th |
1821-1823 |
Monroe |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
18th |
1823-1825 |
Monroe |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
19th |
1825-1827 |
Adams(6) |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
20th |
1827-1829 |
Adams(6) |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
Dem-Reps |
* |
21st |
1829-1831 |
Jackson |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
22nd |
1831-1833 |
Jackson |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
23rd |
1834-1835 |
Jackson |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Whig |
|
24th |
1835-1837 |
Jackson |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
25th |
1837-1839 |
Van-Buren |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
26th |
1839-1841 |
Van-Buren |
Democrat |
Whig |
Democrat |
|
27th |
1841-1843 |
Harrison(9)/Tyler |
Whig |
Whig |
Whig |
* |
28th |
1843-1845 |
Tyler |
Whig |
Democrat |
Whig |
|
29th |
1845-1847 |
Polk |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
30th |
1847-1849 |
Polk |
Democrat |
Whig |
Democrat |
|
31st |
1849-1851 |
Taylor/Filmore |
Whig |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
32nd |
1851-1853 |
Filmore |
Whig |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
33rd |
1853-1855 |
Pierce |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
34th |
1855-1857 |
Pierce |
Democrat |
Republican |
Democrat |
|
35th |
1857-1859 |
Buchanan |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
36th |
1859-1861 |
Buchanan |
Democrat |
Republican |
Democrat |
|
37th |
1861-1863 |
Lincoln |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
38th |
1863-1865 |
Lincoln |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
39th |
1865-1867 |
Lincoln/Johnson(17) |
Republican* |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
40th |
1867-1869 |
Johnson(17) |
Republican* |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
41st |
1869-1871 |
Grant |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
42nd |
1871-1873 |
Grant |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
43rd |
1873-1875 |
Grant |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
44th |
1875-1877 |
Grant |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
45th |
1877-1879 |
Hayes |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
46th |
1879-1881 |
Hayes |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
47th |
1881-1883 |
Garfield/Arthur |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
48th |
1883-1885 |
Arthur |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
49th |
1885-1887 |
Cleveland(22) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
50th |
1887-1889 |
Cleveland(22) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
51st |
1889-1891 |
Harrison(23) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
52nd |
1891-1893 |
Harrison(23) |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
53rd |
1893-1895 |
Cleveland(24) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
54th |
1895-1897 |
Cleveland(24) |
Democrat |
Republican |
Republican |
|
55th |
1897-1899 |
McKinley |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
56th |
1899-1901 |
McKinley |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
57th |
1901-1903 |
McKinley/Roosevelt(26) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
58th |
1903-1905 |
Roosevelt(26) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
59th |
1905-1907 |
Roosevelt(26) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
60th |
1907-1909 |
Roosevelt(26) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
61st |
1909-1911 |
Taft |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
62nd |
1911-1913 |
Taft |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
63rd |
1913-1915 |
Wilson |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
64th |
1915-1917 |
Wilson |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
65th |
1917-1919 |
Wilson |
Democrat |
Republican |
Democrat |
|
66th |
1919-1921 |
Wilson |
Democrat |
Republican |
Republican |
|
67th |
1921-1923 |
Harding/Coolidge |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
68th |
1923-1925 |
Coolidge |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
69th |
1925-1927 |
Coolidge |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
70th |
1927-1929 |
Coolidge |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
71st |
1929-1931 |
Hoover |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
72nd |
1931-1933 |
Hoover |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
73rd |
1933-1935 |
Roosevelt(32) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
74th |
1935-1937 |
Roosevelt(32) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
75th |
1937-1939 |
Roosevelt(32) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
76th |
1939-1941 |
Roosevelt(32) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
77th |
1941-1943 |
Roosevelt(32) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
78th |
1943-1945 |
Roosevelt(32) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
79th |
1945-1947 |
Roosevelt(32)/Truman |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
80th |
1947-1949 |
Truman |
Democrat |
Republican |
Democrat |
|
81st |
1949-1951 |
Truman |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
82nd |
1951-1953 |
Truman |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
83rd |
1953-1955 |
Eisenhower |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
84th |
1955-1957 |
Eisenhower |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
85th |
1957-1959 |
Eisenhower |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
86th |
1959-1961 |
Eisenhower |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
87th |
1961-1963 |
Kennedy |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
88th |
1963-1965 |
Kennedy/Johnson(36) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
89th |
1965-1967 |
Johnson(36) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
90th |
1967-1969 |
Johnson(36) |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
91st |
1969-1971 |
Nixon |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
92nd |
1971-1973 |
Nixon |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
93rd |
1973-1975 |
Nixon/Ford |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
94th |
1975-1977 |
Ford |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
95th |
1977-1979 |
Carter |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
96th |
1979-1981 |
Carter |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
97th |
1981-1983 |
Reagan |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
98th |
1983-1985 |
Reagan |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
99th |
1985-1987 |
Reagan |
Republican |
Democrat |
Republican |
|
100th |
1987-1989 |
Reagan |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
101st |
1989-1991 |
Bush(41) |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
102nd |
1991-1993 |
Bush(41) |
Republican |
Democrat |
Democrat |
|
103rd |
1993-1995 |
Clinton |
Democrat |
Democrat |
Democrat |
* |
104th |
1995-1997 |
Clinton |
Democrat |
Republican |
Republican |
|
105th |
1997-1999 |
Clinton |
Democrat |
Republican |
Republican |
|
106th |
1999-2001 |
Clinton |
Democrat |
Republican |
Republican |
|
107th |
2001-2003 |
Bush(43) |
Republican |
Republican |
Rep/Dem |
*/no |
108th |
2003-2005 |
Bush(43) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
107th |
2005-2007 |
Bush(43) |
Republican |
Republican |
Republican |
* |
Hope this clarifies,
dvwjr
64 posted on
06/01/2007 6:04:02 PM PDT by
dvwjr
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
But most of their loss was that they abandoned the winning conservative principles that have made them successful. In poker, there are times (not uncommon, in fact) when it would be sensible to raise, or sensible to fold, but completely irrational to call. To call the bet might seem a "compromise" between raising and folding, and in some sense it is, but that doesn't mean that it isn't less sensible than either of the more "extreme" alternatives.
Likewise, Democrat-lite might seem a nice safe "compromise" position for a politician, but it is often the least defensible. As an example, suppose that the Democrats introduce a $100,000,000/year program that the Republicans know full well is a bad idea. Consider two scenarios:
- The Democrats force through the program for $100,000,000/year despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans, who make abundantly clear that they believe it's a bad idea.
- The Republicans offer to go along with the program for $50,000,000/year.
In the long run, which scenario will be better for the taxpayer?
In the former scenario, when the program fails, Republicans will be able to suggest that the program always was, and still remained, a bad idea and should be scrapped; the Democrats will shoulder all the blame.
In the latter scenario, Republicans will not be able to say the program had always been a bad idea since they had supported it. The Democrats will be able to argue that the program would have worked if the Republicans hadn't robbed it of the necessary funding. The Republicans will shoulder most of the blame for the program's funding, which will be increased to $100,000,000 for the next year. When that still fails, funding will be increased to $150,000,000 for the year after that, and even more for subsequent years.
I'm not saying it's necessary to take an absolute hard line on everything, but RINOs often undermine conservatives while simultaneously drawing blame to them.
116 posted on
06/01/2007 6:44:25 PM PDT by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Now if the GOP crafted a true conservative platform like they did in 1994, people would overwhelmingly support it.Hi "Extremely Extreme Extremist",
I believe that is absolutely true- "Contract with America 2". Add in a firm opposition to illegal aliens and a firm backing of border enforcement, WOT, Patriotism and Sovereignty and that is a serious ticket.
And strange bedfellows to be sure, but I can't imagine the Unions are supporting this amnesty any more than we are...
Too bad we don't have a party we can trust to keep their word.
-Bruce
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson