You mean they nominate the candidate the media tell them to nominate.The party members, not the leaders, nominate almost every single candidate who runs for office.
There is a very simple reason why Ron Paul-type candidates are almost never nominated (let alone elected): That isn't what the American people want. The American people obviously want larger government.
So you are saying the US Constitution is basically worthless. Those currently in power can do whatever they please because.... well, whatever they want to do is more important than the US Constitution.
Sounds like a stupid idea to me, but then what would an outsider know. :roll:
.
You mean they nominate the candidate the media tell them to nominate.
The US citizens is too busy watching Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Survivor, etc to educate themselves about something as trivial as the leaders of the country. Its so much easier to just go with what the pundits or, even better, Jon Stewart says. :roll:
.
The party members, not the leaders, nominate almost every single candidate who runs for office.
There is a very simple reason why Ron Paul-type candidates are almost never nominated (let alone elected): That isn't what the American people want. The American people obviously want larger government.
You can't recall the 2000 primary season in New York, when Al D'Amato ordered the conservative Rrepublican to stand down so some liberal weenie Republican could run unopposed to have a better shot (yeah right) at defeating the Red Queen Carpetbagger.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Oh, certainly, the state political machines had no say in getting GW Bush nominated in 2000, right, over all the other candidates, right?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Do grow up, okay?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The reason Paul didn't get nominated was the He's A Dweeb Effect. That, and the media refused to give credence to his ideas, they being far too interested in Guilliani (liberal) and Romney (liberal) and McCain (liberal).
"Democracy lasts until citizens realize they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury. Collapse follows due to loose fiscal policy..."
Whatever the origins of that statement (and I know they've been disputed), it seems all too depressingly accurate.
I have this really bad feeling that we're going to have to take this trend to its extreme conclusion, and suffer the dire consequences, before the electorate learns better.
G.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the soul-searching the republican party is doing, after its losses last election.
What do you think republicans need to focus on, in order to win back its appeal?
Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.
Social Conservatism - opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues.
National Defense - increase military spending and recruitment, more aggressive international policies.
Nationalism - oppose multiculturalism, english as an official language, more immigration control.
The conservative Republican in question was under no legal obligation to step down,
GW Bush won the nomination because he received more votes than the other Republican candidates.
Do go **** yourself and die of AIDS, okay?
The media actually gave him far more attention than his vote percentage deserved...and he still came nowhere close to winning. And if you'll recall, Mike Huckabee came reasonably close to winning the primary despite receiving almost no media coverage until the last couple weeks before the voting began.
And if you're just going to whine that the media isn't fair, my advice is to get over it. Start your own 24/7 cable news channel that sings the praises of Ron Paul or Lyndon LaRouche or Alan Keyes or whatever other nutcase you want. If their ideas are truly as popular as you think, then you should have millions of viewers.
I think that only happens in countries where the population is highly uneducated about roots of problems.
However, if you look at Europe and their modest grow with many of their conservative leadership, democracies could easily correct from too much wealth distribution.
get rid of people such as ann coulter, rush limbaugh, and dick cheney who are helping to alienate moderate voters. Right now the Republican Party seems like a 'clique group.' There's a lot of name calling and not a lot of working together to get this country fixed.
We could use something dynamic. Newt did it with a contract with America. I would suggest strict term limits on the Congresscritters. Couple that with a strict conservative agenda. I am a believer that we have a strong voting public on our side, but they haven't had anybody to vote for. This administration will help get out our voters, as they self-destruct.
The United States is one of those countries.
The roots of today's problems can be traced to Wilson, the sapling was watered by FDR, the mature tree was fertilized by LBJ, and the fruits are being gathered by today's Democrat leaders.
They socialist leadership causing slow to negative growth in Europe.
I agree. We haven't had a conservative candidate since Reagan. We also need to paint our own picture of ourselves. We've been real good at standing back and letting the MSM define the republican party. And there have been enough RINOs like Specter, Snow and Collins to lend credence to the MSMs definition. We have to take back our brand and market it.
Screw this big tent stuff. What do we need a tent for. A tent of any size implies boundaries. Why do we want to limit ourselves? Let's emphasize low taxes, low government and strong defense. Let's start to follow the Constitution again. We have enough serious problems right now that all the social issues rank near the bottom of importance in most polls. So let's just leave them alone. If questioned about the social stuff, the answer should be that that's up to the states to decide.
You could almost call Bill Clinton conservative because he reduced both spending per/gdp and not to mention his surplus. Not even Reagan did that because of his (smart) increased military spending.
But Bill didn't support a strong military like Reagan of course. Smart move after the Cold War had ended though.
Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.
The Gingrich Congress kept Clinton in check. That's why he didn't do much damage other than when he had his pants down.
The surplus was primarily due to the dot com bubble and we know what happened to that (I still own my JDSUniphase stock).
Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.
The Gingrich Congress kept Clinton in check. That's why he didn't do much damage other than when he had his pants down.
The surplus was primarily due to the dot com bubble and we know what happened to that (I still own my JDSUniphase stock).
Clinton's dismantling of the military was not a smart move. It helped give us 9/11.
You could almost call Bill Clinton conservative because he reduced both spending per/gdp and not to mention his surplus. Not even Reagan did that because of his (smart) increased military spending.
But Bill didn't support a strong military like Reagan of course. Smart move after the Cold War had ended though.
How exactly would a stronger military have prevented 19 guys from hijacking planes which took off from American airports?
Social Conservatism, (which at this time 22% of the poll thinks the GOP should focus more on,) is the MAIN reason, IMO, that the GOP has been kicked to the curb by mainstream America.
They need to leave morals up to the church and quit trying to stick their party's noses in people's personal lives.
Twenty-two percent couldn't get a dog catcher elected (unless five or more candidates are in the running.:mrgreen
Also, all to often, those pundits (and their supporters of the government getting into the business of morals,) are often so crude and offensive when presenting their views to the majority of folks who simply disagree with them, that they do their party more harm than good. It's not always their stance on any particular issue but more their approach. You can be as right as rain but once you're branded a prick, ain't nobody gonna care if you are right or wrong.
Some people place no value on just being "cool." And that's their right. But they shouldn't whine because most folks prefer not to buddy up with a-holes. They can keep "purifing" the party (achtung!!) and go Limbaugh nuts if they want too. But it ain't gonna score 'em any points.
There was a time when being a republican was cool. I so long for days past.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?