Hmm, I didn’t see the poll showing much of anything conclusive. Some people cared, some people didn’t. Some were disappointed she withdrew, some were happy. Most saw it as some type of setback, blah, blah, blah.
It was just another brick in the wall…
The more info that came out about Miers the more the mainstream liberals were silently hoping she would slip in. I can see why Harry Reid was pissed when she withdrew.
Now after this debacle and the hubub surrounding Plamegate you gotta think Bush is gonna try and rally the troops around a hardcore conservative nominee. The entire conservative intelligentsia (liberals insert joke here) expressed themselves very clearly these past few weeks, I can’t see a scenario where this does not end up in filibuster land.
[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
The more info that came out about Miers the more the mainstream liberals were silently hoping she would slip in. I can see why Harry Reid was pissed when she withdrew.
Now after this debacle and the hubub surrounding Plamegate you gotta think Bush is gonna try and rally the troops around a hardcore conservative nominee. The entire conservative intelligentsia (liberals insert joke here) expressed themselves very clearly these past few weeks, I can’t see a scenario where this does not end up in filibuster land.[/quote]
I think you are absolutely right. I hope that the gang of 7 is listening. The conservative base does not want a liberal leaning judge.
McCain et al, had better think long and hard about blocking a nuclear option if it is presented - more than just a judge’s job will be at stake, as this is getting very close to primary time. Although I think Arlan “why am I even sitting on this side of the aisle” Spector is safe this go round. But piss off the base by kissing the left’s ass, and I think there will be hell to pay.
[quote]jayhawk1 wrote:
The more info that came out about Miers the more the mainstream liberals were silently hoping she would slip in. I can see why Harry Reid was pissed when she withdrew.
Now after this debacle and the hubub surrounding Plamegate you gotta think Bush is gonna try and rally the troops around a hardcore conservative nominee. The entire conservative intelligentsia (liberals insert joke here) expressed themselves very clearly these past few weeks, I can’t see a scenario where this does not end up in filibuster land.[/quote]
I think you are absolutely correct about the first part.
I hope we do not get into the horrible mess a filibuster would bring so I hope you are wrong about the second part.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I hope we do not get into the horrible mess a filibuster would bring so I hope you are wrong about the second part.[/quote]
It’s coming. A filibuster showdown is inevitable. The left still hasn;t admitted to losing power. They will try it sooner or later.
I would just as soon get it over with so we can take that particular club out of their bag.
Th left wants everyone to think that the right is in shambles, and totally disorganized. I think the opposite is true. The base has spoken, and I think you will see the right galvanize as a result of the base crying out and demanding to be heard.
Hmm, here’s a question…
Is the “base” the majority of republican voters?
Is the “base” the majority of voters within the nation?
Should the “base” be able to dictate policy?
Okay, let’s avoid some of the obvious baloney, I’m not complaining about the election results, I’m not complaining about who has power, I’m not complaining about anything.
I’m curious, how much should a splinter group (admittedly a large splinter group) dictate the national decision making process?
Also, because people love Bush for sticking up to HIS beliefs, what if his beliefs are not in line with a splinter group of his own party. Should he stick to HIS guns anyway, or is it only good when he sticks to HIS guns when they are in line with the views of his base (i.e. you personally).
I think these are some interesting philosophical questions… for the right to consider.
Again, I’m not complaining, just trying to get some on the right to talk about the difference between appreciating qualities or decisions when they reflect your viewpoint and doing so when they don’t. Alternately, about the meaning of democracy and the wielding of power and whether or not it really matters that the views of the majority are always followed.
It isn’t as straight forward as people like to proclaim all the time. Disagreements within a party seem like a great way to highlight hypocracy and sheepism.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, here’s a question…
Is the “base” the majority of republican voters?[/quote]
I believe so
The majority of the voters may agree with the base but that does not make them part of the base. I know that sounds like a buzzword - but I am at a loss as to how to describe the everyday, regular joe party member that donates his money, and votes. It is the same guy that has had liberal rhetoric crambed down his throat since the Nixon years, and is ready to make his voice heard.
You use the word “dictate” - no one dictates anything in this country except activist judges and bureaucracies. Everything else is subject to being voted in, or out. If a large enough number of one’s constituancy cries out loud enough and long enough, then it is in the best interest of the elected official to listen. But that is how things work. I think the Miers withdrawal was a perfect example of politicians listening to those they represent, and changing their course of action.
Show me where this has happened with the current administration. A USSC nominee withdrew their nomination. It wasn’t part of the decision making process. It is not a rare occurance.
I rmember in 1993 when Pres. Slickster passed the huge tax increase. Folks around here wrote letters, made phone calls, held town meetings - all in aneffort to stop the tax increase. The politicians didn’t listen to the people - particularly the demnocrat incumbents. They were pretty much all run out of town and replaced with republicans. At lease that ws the case in the House. But was that dictating policy? Or was that participation in the political process?
Dictate is a very strong word.
First off - what you witnessed with the Miers ordeal was not a splinter group, using the little derogatory snipes that you do makes you sound way less neutral than you are trying to pass yourself as.
With that said - Bush announced in 2004 that he would stake his presidency on making a stand in Iraq. That is standing up for what he believes in. Listening to the constiuancy when they have concerns over the qualifications, and beliefs of a potential Supreme Court Justice is hardly the same thing.
It’s politics, vroom. Everything is straight forward - and nothing is straight forward.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Not the radical, or religous right, but the real heart and soul of the conservative movement - everyday republicans that were scared that she would be a turncoat.
The real heart and soul of the conservative movement is the religious right. These are the people that can be brought out in droves to reliably vote republican…[/quote]
If i was a republican i would be sh!tting myself now, isn’t church attendance decreasing every year? My pastor said it was decreasing by 1.5% a year. W/ population growth and shrinking #'s of religous it doesnt look good for the GOP especially considering the multiplying growth in hispanics.
My prediction is that in as little as 15 or 20 years the republican party will be very different: either more moderate in political stance than it already is or not able to be popular enough to win a presidential elelection.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
If i was a republican i would be sh!tting myself now, isn’t church attendance decreasing every year? My pastor said it was decreasing by 1.5% a year. W/ population growth and shrinking #'s of religous it doesnt look good for the GOP especially considering the multiplying growth in hispanics.
My prediction is that in as little as 15 or 20 years the republican party will be very different: either more moderate in political stance than it already is or not able to be popular enough to win a presidential elelection.[/quote]
Tell me what in the world church attendance has to do with the Republican party - or the reiligous right for that matter. I am a christian. I believe in pretty much everything that the church going public believes in - but I haven’t been in over a year. Neither my faith, nor my political views have changed.
It’s not the right you see running into churches every presidential election cycle and stumping in the church - that is the democrats.
Please continue to make assumptions like this. I certainly hope that the DeanNC is listening. The conservative movement is 20 years old, and has grown stronger every year. Unless the left does something to stop the bleeding - the right will continue to add to its numbers.
Rainjack, thanks for taking the time to give me a decent reply.
Honestly, just as my language sets you off, yours does the same to me, so try not to be too quick to judge anything by it.
Voting people out after their tenure is certainly not dictating policy. I did however see some rather strident right wing talking going on about the Miers nomination.
I know she “withdrew”, but you at least have to admit she would not have “voluntarily” withdrawn if she had not met such violent rejection and perhaps not if Bush wasn’t already dealing with a host of other problems.
Hmm, you may not be able to write down anything approaching agreement with that, but I think most observers would be inclined to recognize that the other ongoing events had an affect.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
If i was a republican i would be sh!tting myself now, isn’t church attendance decreasing every year? My pastor said it was decreasing by 1.5% a year. W/ population growth and shrinking #'s of religous it doesnt look good for the GOP especially considering the multiplying growth in hispanics.
My prediction is that in as little as 15 or 20 years the republican party will be very different: either more moderate in political stance than it already is or not able to be popular enough to win a presidential elelection.
Tell me what in the world church attendance has to do with the Republican party - or the reiligous right for that matter. I am a christian. I believe in pretty much everything that the church going public believes in - but I haven’t been in over a year. Neither my faith, nor my political views have changed.
It’s not the right you see running into churches every presidential election cycle and stumping in the church - that is the democrats.
Please continue to make assumptions like this. I certainly hope that the DeanNC is listening. The conservative movement is 20 years old, and has grown stronger every year. Unless the left does something to stop the bleeding - the right will continue to add to its numbers.
[/quote]
Ok thats a very good point that it has grown stronger lately… but the demographics just won’t cut it for the GOP. let me revise my prediction…I think it will get stronger for the next 10 or 15 years or so but that will be a high point. We all know that the so called religous right form up one of the GOP’s safe bases of political support.
While the link between church attendence and serious christians is indirect at best i think it would be reasonable to assume that as you have a declining church attendence you will have a declining number of christians. Like it or not, more and more hispanics are pouring into our country and having several kids. Its a fact of life , another fact of life is that they almost uniformly vote democrat w/ the exception of cubans.
C’mon RJ you cant just sit there and say that these two things are going to have no effect on voting trends? Still not convinced? Whats more as America becomes more and more of a international country which we have always been but given the globalization trend going on its getting more prounounced; its better feeding grounds for Dems, i have a hard time beleiving that a family fresh off the boat is going to vote GOP.
And one more thing, given the current age of the baby boomers ( if they were born in 1945 that makes them 60 today) they are reaching their golden years. This huge block of old people are basically dying off and whats left are younger people which would possibly have a small tendency to vote more dem than GOP.
Anywya thats my case. Take it or leave it my brother but im an independent and just as an example i’ve argued w/ vroom several times but its all in fun in cyberspace and politics.
oh and rj apparantly this whole idea that evangelical christians being a base in the GOP is news to you i decided to supply some links not only to back up my claims but also to inform. It would be a laborous task to hunt down some actual data saying in the 1970’s versus 2000 how many evangelical christians voted for who but here are some articles by about GOP people, by a religous think -tank and a newspaper enjoy :
Washington post Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rp-vote010999.htm
This link is an article from a guy that is representing a southern baptist association. Its actually pretty intresting it traces the history of the conservative movement like you mentioned , saying that it basically became apparant w/ reagan. Here’s the link:
This is intresting article about some forward looking GOP members that want to tame the religous right in the GOP in order to keep winning elections down the road:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n27_v10/ai_15544298
RJ : you certainly don’t require it but im trying to make it as easy to figure out as i can. Im one of the nicer arguers on this website i just think im right