• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pardon Me, But I Believe '10 Comes Before '12

Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
179
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With Sarah Palin having bid adieu to the Governor's Office in the Land of the Midnight Sun, speculation runs rampant about the erstwhile beauty queen's future. In addition to the standard cadre of rancorous reporters and polemic pundits, political pachyderms from the Republican National Committee (RNC) on down have been unable to resist the almost siren-like allure that the moose-hunting matriarch of the Palin clan commands. From book contracts and speaking tours to a television talk show, the centerfold of Playboy and a possible run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the plethora of possibilities presented Palin fascinate throngs across the political spectrum. The problem for Republicans, though, is saucy Sarah has become a distraction from the real and pressing work at hand - preparing for the 2010 midterm election.

Speculating about who will be a major party's presidential nominee is natural enough in political and media circles - particularly for a party wandering in the political wilderness, looking for a leader to challenge a president whose personal popularity remains enviably high. The problem, however, is focusing on the '12 presidential race overlooks the importance of the '10 midterm election. Next year's election is critical for the Grand Old Party for a number of reasons. Among them are.........

- 0 and 2 in the last two election cycles, the Republicans desperately need a win. Not only have the Republicans lost the last two cycles, the Democrats have won in convincing fashion. The fact is neither '06 nor '08 were even close. This in turn has lent credibility to questions over the Party's national viability. Pundits ponderously debate whether or not it has become intellectually bankrupt and teeters on the verge of being relegated to a declining regional force. Another loss would only add fuel to the fire and greatly impede it's ability to attract new voters, recruit credible candidates and raise campaign and party contributions.

While many GOP diehards take solace in the historical trend of the party controlling the White House loosing seats in Congress during midterms, they would be well-advised to remain cognizant of the 2007 meeting of lowly Appalachian State verses the mythical might of Michigan. Overlooking the Division I Mountaineers for more formidable foes later in the season, the Top 25 Wolverines were dealt a humiliating upset that still leaves the maize and blue clad faithful shaking their heads in disbelief.

The lesson - don't take anything for granted; focus on the game - or election - at hand, not the one farther down the schedule.

- On the state level, the legislators and governors elected next year will draw the district lines for not only the '12 election cycle, but the next decade. Political ground warfare is fought in the trenches of legislative and congressional districts. Having the ability to draw the lines of those districts to favor your party is, as Mastercard likes to say, priceless. This power literally allows a party to lay the foundation for future electoral success. Accordingly, one of the concrete steps both the RNC and Mrs. Palin can take to increase the Party's prospects for success in '12 is to assiduously support Republican candidates on the state level next year. Successfully planted seeds in '10 will be the roots that bear electoral fruits for years to come.

- The results of next year's election will greatly influence the makeup of the '12 Republican presidential field. If Obama repeats George W. Bush's freshman midterm success of not only defending, but adding seats in Congress next year, the resulting political momentum may well deter candidates who might have otherwise run if they had the base of a Republican victory from which to launch their quest for the White House.

In '08, Obama raised unprecedented amounts of money for both the primary and general election campaigns. After four years in the White House, his constituencies will see their futures as being inextricably vested in returning him to the Oval Office. Accordingly, they will seek to provide him with a more than ample war chest to easily repel his eventual Republican challenger. If the Democrats succeed in putting the Republicans down 0 for 3 next year, the momentum propelling Obama into '12 will create a sense of inevitability to the defense of his incumbency. The end result will be a bandwagon effect that magnetically attracts both voters and campaign contributions. Should the Republicans face this daunting set of circumstances in '12, many potential contenders for the Party's nomination may well choose to forgo being the sacrificial lamb and bide their time till '16.

Conversely, should '10 turnout to be a ballot box bloodbath for Democrats, some Republicans who might otherwise have remained in the stands will jump into the center ring. Accordingly, to attempt to seriously handicap the horse race for the Party's nomination before anyone has even ponied up to the starting gate is the height of folly. Not only that, it is a distraction Republicans can ill-afford at this point.

Nonetheless, for those fearless political gamblers out there, the inside track clearly belongs to.....

Focus, faithful readers. Focus, discipline and good ole fashioned political elbow grease - integral elements to electoral success.

Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if Republicans have 20/20 political vision or are in critical need of corrective lenses to address a crippling case of hyperopia.
 
Last edited:
Thanked for college football reference, and other good points. :2razz:
 
Well how is this for a football analogy. The Republican team continually seeks to only recruit in areas that are white, southern, and not growing. They are either ignoring or turning away Hispanic and African American recruits in large numbers, as well as Arab Americans. The pool of potential recruits of Hispanic, Arab American, and African American is growing faster than the pool of Southern white recruits. Demographically soon the Republicans will only have a tiny little patch of land to recruit from.

Just today The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization made notice to members that no Republicans bothered to show up. Ignoring all the anti-immigrant hyperbole that is sure to be commented, fact remains that there is a sizable and growing population of Hispanics fully legal and naturalized to vote. I understand this hits at the base emotions of most Republicans today, the fear of the future. But it is what it is, and unless the Republicans change their platform very soon they will not constitute enough to warrant being including in Presidential debates. Electing as the head of the Young Republicans a racist is not a step in the right direction, nor is supporting the birther movement.
 
Well how is this for a football analogy. The Republican team continually seeks to only recruit in areas that are white, southern, and not growing. They are either ignoring or turning away Hispanic and African American recruits in large numbers, as well as Arab Americans. The pool of potential recruits of Hispanic, Arab American, and African American is growing faster than the pool of Southern white recruits. Demographically soon the Republicans will only have a tiny little patch of land to recruit from.

That's a pretty bad analogy, because college football teams don't do that.
 
Well how is this for a football analogy. The Republican team continually seeks to only recruit in areas that are white, southern, and not growing. They are either ignoring or turning away Hispanic and African American recruits in large numbers, as well as Arab Americans. The pool of potential recruits of Hispanic, Arab American, and African American is growing faster than the pool of Southern white recruits. Demographically soon the Republicans will only have a tiny little patch of land to recruit from.

Just today The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization made notice to members that no Republicans bothered to show up. Ignoring all the anti-immigrant hyperbole that is sure to be commented, fact remains that there is a sizable and growing population of Hispanics fully legal and naturalized to vote. I understand this hits at the base emotions of most Republicans today, the fear of the future. But it is what it is, and unless the Republicans change their platform very soon they will not constitute enough to warrant being including in Presidential debates. Electing as the head of the Young Republicans a racist is not a step in the right direction, nor is supporting the birther movement.

A few points and questions.....

First, Crippler is spot on; your analogy is horrible. Your statement gives the impression that Arabs, Blacks and Hispanics are beating down the proverbial doors of the GOP to get in and the Party is turning them away. While the Party's policy positions and prioritization of issues may drive off potential minority members, it is by no means denying them membership or rejecting them out of hand. There's a significant distinction between the two that your statement blurs.

I'd also point out that contrary to your statement, many grass roots members and prominent Republican office holders, like Sen. John McCain and former President George W. Bush, have long advocated engaging both the Black and Hispanic communities. While McCain's percentage of the minority vote was understandably down last fall, Bush actually gained ground with Hispanic voters between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Is there significant room for improvement in the dialogue between Republicans and minorities - of course. However, to say that all Republicans are afraid of or reject minorities is disingenuous and painting with an exceedingly broad brush. I might also point out that the RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, is black, just in case you were unaware of that. So much for rejecting minorities out of hand.

As for your statement regarding La Raza, what exactly are you referring to? What event failed to attract any Republicans?

While I'm not familiar with the basis for your claim that the Young Republicans have elected a racist as their president, I would point out that the Party doesn't "support the birther movement". While there may be many "birthers" who are registered Republicans, the Party has not to my knowledge made any statement nor taken any action that would indicate it supports their claims and beliefs. While there are admittedly lunatics on the fringe of the right wing, I'd dare say they are no more representative of or supported by the Republican Party than those on the left are by the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
A few points and questions.....

First, Crippler is spot on; your analogy is horrible. Your statement gives the impression that Arabs, Blacks and Hispanics are beating down the proverbial doors of the GOP to get in and the Party is turning them away. While the Party's policy positions and prioritization of issues may drive off potential minority members, it is by no means denying them membership or rejecting them out of hand. There's a significant distinction between the two that your statement blurs.

I'd also point out that contrary to your statement, many grass roots members and prominent Republican office holders, like Sen. John McCain and former President George W. Bush, have long advocated engaging both the Black and Hispanic communities. While McCain's percentage of the minority vote was understandably down last fall, Bush actually gained ground with Hispanic voters between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Is there significant room for improvement in the dialogue between Republicans and minorities - of course. However, to say that all Republicans are afraid of or reject minorities is disingenuous and painting with an exceedingly broad brush. I might also point out that the RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, is black, just in case you were unaware of that. So much for rejecting minorities out of hand.

As for your statement regarding La Raza, what exactly are you referring to? What event failed to attract any Republicans?

While I'm not familiar with the basis for your claim that the Young Republicans have elected a racist as their president, I would point out that the Party doesn't "support the birther movement". While there may be many "birthers" who are registered Republicans, the Party has not to my knowledge made any statement nor taken any action that would indicate it supports their claims and beliefs. While there are admittedly lunatics on the fringe of the right wing, I'd dare say they are no more representative of or supported by the Republican Party than those on the left are by the Democrats.

The only college I can think of off the top of my head, that would prevent you from playing there based on racial background would be a college like Grambling.

Oops!!:2razz:
 
Football teams in the 50's did. ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was about the same time that Democrats opposed the expansion of voting rights to Blacks and rejected the civil rights movement out of hand. Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, not all Democrats felt this way, of course. However, that was the generally accepted position among the mainstream of the Party at the time, I would propose.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was about the same time that Democrats opposed the expansion of voting rights to Blacks and rejected the civil rights movement out of hand. Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, not all Democrats felt this way, of course. However, that was the generally accepted position among the mainstream of the Party at the time, I would propose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Modern Democrats and the 1950 Democrats are somewhat different, right? And the Civil War era Slave States were all Conservative as well.....
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Modern Democrats and the 1950 Democrats are somewhat different, right? And the Civil War era Slave States were all Conservative as well.....

I was merely expanding on your reference to the 1950s.

And yes, the slave states were composed of what could be referred to as Conservatives. I would point out, though, that those Conservatives were members of the then state rights-oriented Democratic Party. In contrast, the Republicans of the day were the more liberal, pro-federal government group. My, how times have changed......
 
I was merely expanding on your reference to the 1950s.

And yes, the slave states were composed of what could be referred to as Conservatives. I would point out, though, that those Conservatives were members of the then state rights-oriented Democratic Party. In contrast, the Republicans of the day were the more liberal, pro-federal government group. My, how times have changed......

I wasn't being partisan about it though...

The Conservatives...labels aside....
 
And the Anti-federalists got left out in the cold. :(

I don't know about that, Tuck. There is still some strong Anti-federalist sentiment to be found in the Conservative ranks and the Republican Party. It may not be as impassioned and consistent as in the past, but it's there. I would, however, say that Obama and Madame Speaker Pelosi are inspiring more and more of it on a daily basis, though. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom