Should the Republican party silence the moderates or embrace and include them?

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Silence and move farther away from them. You see what McCain did for the republican party.

Thanks for answering!

However, I think that I am going to agree with Tom on this one. The Republican party cannot remain stagnant and unchanging if it is to regain popularity.

I will also agree that the republican party is stagnant and unchanging. My point is that they don't need to move to the middle or left for the sake of change, they need to move towards conservatism (as I described). Not one time have I complimented the current republican party representing us in Washington. They are whiners, the whole lot of them.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What do you think will happen to the more moderate or socially liberal republicans?

I believe that after a few more years of the TAX & SPEND/BAILOUT/TAKEOVER/NATIONALIZING current admin, conservatism will look a lot better to a wide range of voters.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that doesn't happen.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What will happen to the moderate/socially liberal republicans?

I don't have anything to back this up other than it's a hunch of mine. There is a sleeping giant (the majority of registered non-voters that lean towards the conservative side) out there that are sitting back and waiting for the next election. If, a big if, a real conservative comes out in 2012 they will support him/her.

In other words, I think the moderate/socially liberal republicans will be more anxious to move right in the next election with the right candidate.

Isn't that just what happened last year? You can't get much more "conservative" than Sarah Palin and the right wing religious right came out of the woodwork for her. I don't know how much more conservative you could get without putting Rick Warren and Pat Robertson on the ticket.

I like Sarah, but she was vice and the liberal media made mountains out of molehills (attacked her) because they seen the uprising in the republican base. The most unfair biased attacks I've ever seen. Why didn't the network media scrutinize Obama the same way? They could have destroyed him as well.

Well, it's probably because Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Obama. When someone is going to be a heartbeat away from the president, you want them to know basic things (for example...Africa is a continent and not a country). And as I said before, how can the republican party get any more conservative. Who do you want in the white house? You are being really vague.

So since you think Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Barry the Media has the right to attack her and give His Brightness a pass? When Barry or Joe say something stupid it's a gaffe. When ANYONE that doesn't agree with yours or the liberals views gaffe they are stupid and need to be attacked. Right?

The republican party is a lot of things right now, conservative is not one of them. I described in detail what (not who) I think a good conservative candidate would be in this thread and on this page. Please look it up. It's not "vague" at all.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Silence and move farther away from them. You see what McCain did for the republican party.

Thanks for answering!

However, I think that I am going to agree with Tom on this one. The Republican party cannot remain stagnant and unchanging if it is to regain popularity.

I will also agree that the republican party is stagnant and unchanging. My point is that they don't need to move to the middle or left for the sake of change, they need to move towards conservatism (as I described). Not one time have I complimented the current republican party representing us in Washington. They are whiners, the whole lot of them.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What do you think will happen to the more moderate or socially liberal republicans?

I believe that after a few more years of the TAX & SPEND/BAILOUT/TAKEOVER/NATIONALIZING current admin, conservatism will look a lot better to a wide range of voters.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that doesn't happen.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What will happen to the moderate/socially liberal republicans?

I don't have anything to back this up other than it's a hunch of mine. There is a sleeping giant (the majority of registered non-voters that lean towards the conservative side) out there that are sitting back and waiting for the next election. If, a big if, a real conservative comes out in 2012 they will support him/her.

In other words, I think the moderate/socially liberal republicans will be more anxious to move right in the next election with the right candidate.

Isn't that just what happened last year? You can't get much more "conservative" than Sarah Palin and the right wing religious right came out of the woodwork for her. I don't know how much more conservative you could get without putting Rick Warren and Pat Robertson on the ticket.

I like Sarah, but she was vice and the liberal media made mountains out of molehills (attacked her) because they seen the uprising in the republican base. The most unfair biased attacks I've ever seen. Why didn't the network media scrutinize Obama the same way? They could have destroyed him as well.

Well, it's probably because Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Obama. When someone is going to be a heartbeat away from the president, you want them to know basic things (for example...Africa is a continent and not a country). And as I said before, how can the republican party get any more conservative. Who do you want in the white house? You are being really vague.

So since you think Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Barry the Media has the right to attack her and give His Brightness a pass? When Barry or Joe say something stupid it's a gaffe. When ANYONE that doesn't agree with yours or the liberals views gaffe they are stupid and need to be attacked. Right?

The republican party is a lot of things right now, conservative is not one of them. I described in detail what (not who) I think a good conservative candidate would be in this thread and on this page. Please look it up. It's not "vague" at all.

No, not at all. And why do people that dislike President Obama insist on calling him Barry? What's the point of it? I guess I can start calling Sarah Caribou Barbie and Bush, Georgie Porgie Puddin Pie.

And I've seen the media make fun of Obama and Biden plenty of times. The endless cartoons of him in local papers with giant dumbo ears, etc. Biden can barely open his mouth without inserting his foot but the fact is Barack is very calm the majority of the time and thinks about things before he says it. He still screws up from time to time. As we all know, nobody is perfect. The only people I've heard talking about his perfection is the republicans. It's like they want him to blow it big time and embarrass himself and our country in the process. Sarah Palin simply isn't qualified. She showed over and over that she lacked basic knowledge in several subjects. It's not Obama's fault that he has grace under pressure and she obviously doesn't. She's so busy hogging the spotlight all the time the people from Alaska are wondering when she is going to take care of their needs. Most republicans that I know have finally realized that she was a bad idea and probably destroyed McCain's chance of getting in office. Oh well, at least she and her family got a big shopping spree courtesy of the RNC.

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Silence and move farther away from them. You see what McCain did for the republican party.

Thanks for answering!

However, I think that I am going to agree with Tom on this one. The Republican party cannot remain stagnant and unchanging if it is to regain popularity.

I will also agree that the republican party is stagnant and unchanging. My point is that they don't need to move to the middle or left for the sake of change, they need to move towards conservatism (as I described). Not one time have I complimented the current republican party representing us in Washington. They are whiners, the whole lot of them.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What do you think will happen to the more moderate or socially liberal republicans?

I believe that after a few more years of the TAX & SPEND/BAILOUT/TAKEOVER/NATIONALIZING current admin, conservatism will look a lot better to a wide range of voters.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that doesn't happen.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What will happen to the moderate/socially liberal republicans?

I don't have anything to back this up other than it's a hunch of mine. There is a sleeping giant (the majority of registered non-voters that lean towards the conservative side) out there that are sitting back and waiting for the next election. If, a big if, a real conservative comes out in 2012 they will support him/her.

In other words, I think the moderate/socially liberal republicans will be more anxious to move right in the next election with the right candidate.

Isn't that just what happened last year? You can't get much more "conservative" than Sarah Palin and the right wing religious right came out of the woodwork for her. I don't know how much more conservative you could get without putting Rick Warren and Pat Robertson on the ticket.

I like Sarah, but she was vice and the liberal media made mountains out of molehills (attacked her) because they seen the uprising in the republican base. The most unfair biased attacks I've ever seen. Why didn't the network media scrutinize Obama the same way? They could have destroyed him as well.

Well, it's probably because Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Obama. When someone is going to be a heartbeat away from the president, you want them to know basic things (for example...Africa is a continent and not a country). And as I said before, how can the republican party get any more conservative. Who do you want in the white house? You are being really vague.

So since you think Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Barry the Media has the right to attack her and give His Brightness a pass? When Barry or Joe say something stupid it's a gaffe. When ANYONE that doesn't agree with yours or the liberals views gaffe they are stupid and need to be attacked. Right?

The republican party is a lot of things right now, conservative is not one of them. I described in detail what (not who) I think a good conservative candidate would be in this thread and on this page. Please look it up. It's not "vague" at all.

No, not at all. And why do people that dislike President Obama insist on calling him Barry? What's the point of it? I guess I can start calling Sarah Caribou Barbie and Bush, Georgie Porgie Puddin Pie.

And I've seen the media make fun of Obama and Biden plenty of times. The endless cartoons of him in local papers with giant dumbo ears, etc. Biden can barely open his mouth without inserting his foot but the fact is Barack is very calm the majority of the time and thinks about things before he says it. He still screws up from time to time. As we all know, nobody is perfect. The only people I've heard talking about his perfection is the republicans. It's like they want him to blow it big time and embarrass himself and our country in the process. Sarah Palin simply isn't qualified. She showed over and over that she lacked basic knowledge in several subjects. It's not Obama's fault that he has grace under pressure and she obviously doesn't. She's so busy hogging the spotlight all the time the people from Alaska are wondering when she is going to take care of their needs. Most republicans that I know have finally realized that she was a bad idea and probably destroyed McCain's chance of getting in office. Oh well, at least she and her family got a big shopping spree courtesy of the RNC.

There's a big difference in making fun and attacking.

Sarah Palin is a successful Governor with an 85% approval rating. She had to make executive decisions at times in her life. Barry, excuse me, I don't want to shame Barack by calling him a nick name, no other president has been nick named , never had to make an executive decision in his life before becoming president.

Who do you think Barack Hussein Obama is? Is he so much more special than any other person on earth that we can't call him Barry without catching it from liberals? Give me a break! Oh no! I used the H name. Whew, I forgot, it's ok now that the election is over.

Why would a shopping spree sponsored by the RNC bother you at all? Barry and his admin is going on a much bigger one, and it's on your dollar.

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

I couldn't care less what Michelle buys. It was a sarcastic remark aimed at one-sided liberal outlets.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Silence and move farther away from them. You see what McCain did for the republican party.

Thanks for answering!

However, I think that I am going to agree with Tom on this one. The Republican party cannot remain stagnant and unchanging if it is to regain popularity.

I will also agree that the republican party is stagnant and unchanging. My point is that they don't need to move to the middle or left for the sake of change, they need to move towards conservatism (as I described). Not one time have I complimented the current republican party representing us in Washington. They are whiners, the whole lot of them.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What do you think will happen to the more moderate or socially liberal republicans?

I believe that after a few more years of the TAX & SPEND/BAILOUT/TAKEOVER/NATIONALIZING current admin, conservatism will look a lot better to a wide range of voters.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that doesn't happen.

Which voters do you think will be picked up if the party moves toward a more conservative stance?

What will happen to the moderate/socially liberal republicans?

I don't have anything to back this up other than it's a hunch of mine. There is a sleeping giant (the majority of registered non-voters that lean towards the conservative side) out there that are sitting back and waiting for the next election. If, a big if, a real conservative comes out in 2012 they will support him/her.

In other words, I think the moderate/socially liberal republicans will be more anxious to move right in the next election with the right candidate.

Isn't that just what happened last year? You can't get much more "conservative" than Sarah Palin and the right wing religious right came out of the woodwork for her. I don't know how much more conservative you could get without putting Rick Warren and Pat Robertson on the ticket.

I like Sarah, but she was vice and the liberal media made mountains out of molehills (attacked her) because they seen the uprising in the republican base. The most unfair biased attacks I've ever seen. Why didn't the network media scrutinize Obama the same way? They could have destroyed him as well.

Well, it's probably because Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Obama. When someone is going to be a heartbeat away from the president, you want them to know basic things (for example...Africa is a continent and not a country). And as I said before, how can the republican party get any more conservative. Who do you want in the white house? You are being really vague.

So since you think Sarah Palin isn't as bright as Barry the Media has the right to attack her and give His Brightness a pass? When Barry or Joe say something stupid it's a gaffe. When ANYONE that doesn't agree with yours or the liberals views gaffe they are stupid and need to be attacked. Right?

The republican party is a lot of things right now, conservative is not one of them. I described in detail what (not who) I think a good conservative candidate would be in this thread and on this page. Please look it up. It's not "vague" at all.

No, not at all. And why do people that dislike President Obama insist on calling him Barry? What's the point of it? I guess I can start calling Sarah Caribou Barbie and Bush, Georgie Porgie Puddin Pie.

And I've seen the media make fun of Obama and Biden plenty of times. The endless cartoons of him in local papers with giant dumbo ears, etc. Biden can barely open his mouth without inserting his foot but the fact is Barack is very calm the majority of the time and thinks about things before he says it. He still screws up from time to time. As we all know, nobody is perfect. The only people I've heard talking about his perfection is the republicans. It's like they want him to blow it big time and embarrass himself and our country in the process. Sarah Palin simply isn't qualified. She showed over and over that she lacked basic knowledge in several subjects. It's not Obama's fault that he has grace under pressure and she obviously doesn't. She's so busy hogging the spotlight all the time the people from Alaska are wondering when she is going to take care of their needs. Most republicans that I know have finally realized that she was a bad idea and probably destroyed McCain's chance of getting in office. Oh well, at least she and her family got a big shopping spree courtesy of the RNC.

There's a big difference in making fun and attacking.

Sarah Palin is a successful Governor with an 85% approval rating. She had to make executive decisions at times in her life. Barry, excuse me, I don't want to shame Barack by calling him a nick name, no other president has been nick named , never had to make an executive decision in his life before becoming president.

Who do you think Barack Hussein Obama is? Is he so much more special than any other person on earth that we can't call him Barry without catching it from liberals? Give me a break! Oh no! I used the H name. Whew, I forgot, it's ok now that the election is over.

Why would a shopping spree sponsored by the RNC bother you at all? Barry and his admin is going on a much bigger one, and it's on your dollar.

What you are failing to see is that since you like Palin (obviously) you are going to see people making fun as attacks. When Sarah accepted the nomination for VP she and her supporters have to put on theig big girl/boy panties and suck it up. It's a part of the elections. If that woman was going to be one heartbeat away from the oval office, she needs to grow a pair. Do you think Putin and other are going to watch how they treat her because it might hurt her feelings or something? Yeah right. If she can't handle our own media, how's she going to handle tense negotiations? I saw horribly rude attacks against Obama quite often during the election. Pictures of apes with Vote Obama underneath. Fox News did nothing but attack the man 24/7 about every move he made. I guess my advice to people who feel like Palin was attacked need to learn how to take the heat or get out of the kitchen. She created a lot of the drama herself so what did she expect? Now she's hogging the limelight every chance she gets because she loves to have cameras on her as long as the people talking to her let her read her lines and don't ask any hard questions. Barack is hounded by the media constantly about everything. Even where and how he eats. And tonight they made fun of him because he messed up and said something wrong in spanish regarding Cinco de Mayo.

It seems that the "Barry" name is only being used by Rush and those people, not by his supporters. I just thought it was rather childish and pointless. And as far as his full name. So what? Barack Hussein Obama. Whoopee. Hussein is one of the most popular names in the world along with John. Is that supposed to mean he's evil or hiding some secret Muslim agenda?

And you are a republican right? You do donate to your party right? Well, you helped pay for her shopping spree. Yayyy! The thing is, the money that Obama is using that the tax payers are giving him is being used in an attempt to help tax payers. Caribou Barbie just wanted to get a new wardrobe.

PS Sarah's approval rating isn't that high anymore. Many Alaskans are bailing on her because of her new snotty, elite behavior. It's down to 68% so far. Big drop in such a short time. Seems they aren't that happy about troopergate and her other blunders.

It sounds a whole lot like someone is jealous. When jealousy comes in the picture there's no point in trying to discuss it.

For you to say "Barack is hounded by the media constantly about everything" is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on a message board.

I reluctantly give up and honor you with the win. I'm now satisfied that all republicans (including Sarah) are worthless to our country and Barack and his admin are near perfect.

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

It's more interesting that someone would still be worried about the RNC and Sarah's dress but NOT have a comment about Michelle's shoes.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

It's more interesting that someone would still be worried about the RNC and Sarah's dress but NOT have a comment about Michelle's shoes.

That's because I don't really care about either of them. I just find it funny that Mrs. Obama pays for her own shoes and gets dissed for it and Gov. Palin get's hers (and her family's and Levi Johnson's) paid for by the RNC and that's okay.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

It sounds a whole lot like someone is jealous. When jealousy comes in the picture there's no point in trying to discuss it.

For you to say "Barack is hounded by the media constantly about everything" is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on a message board.

I reluctantly give up and honor you with the win. I'm now satisfied that all republicans (including Sarah) are worthless to our country and Barack and his admin are near perfect.

Maybe I should clarify something. The jealous statement was not aimed at you personally. It is aimed at the democrat party.

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

It's more interesting that someone would still be worried about the RNC and Sarah's dress but NOT have a comment about Michelle's shoes.

That's because I don't really care about either of them. I just find it funny that Mrs. Obama pays for her own shoes and gets dissed for it and Gov. Palin get's hers (and her family's and Levi Johnson's) paid for by the RNC and that's okay.

Sorry. when you said "And you are a republican right? You do donate to your party right? Well, you helped pay for her shopping spree. Yayyy! The thing is, the money that Obama is using that the tax payers are giving him is being used in an attempt to help tax payers. Caribou Barbie just wanted to get a new wardrobe"...I thought you cared.

OK, let's stop the childish bickering. We are beginning to sound like the brother and sister in the back seat. You know...MOMMY! She's touching me!

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

It's more interesting that someone would still be worried about the RNC and Sarah's dress but NOT have a comment about Michelle's shoes.

That's because I don't really care about either of them. I just find it funny that Mrs. Obama pays for her own shoes and gets dissed for it and Gov. Palin gets hers (and her family's and Levi Johnson's) paid for by the RNC and that's okay.

Sorry. when you said "And you are a republican right? You do donate to your party right? Well, you helped pay for her shopping spree. Yayyy! The thing is, the money that Obama is using that the tax payers are giving him is being used in an attempt to help tax payers. Caribou Barbie just wanted to get a new wardrobe"...I thought you cared.
OK, let's stop the childish bickering. We are beginning to sound like the brother and sister in the back seat. You know...MOMMY! She's touching me!

Who are you responding to? I didn't say the bolded.

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

It's more interesting that someone would still be worried about the RNC and Sarah's dress but NOT have a comment about Michelle's shoes.

That's because I don't really care about either of them. I just find it funny that Mrs. Obama pays for her own shoes and gets dissed for it and Gov. Palin gets hers (and her family's and Levi Johnson's) paid for by the RNC and that's okay.

Sorry. when you said "And you are a republican right? You do donate to your party right? Well, you helped pay for her shopping spree. Yayyy! The thing is, the money that Obama is using that the tax payers are giving him is being used in an attempt to help tax payers. Caribou Barbie just wanted to get a new wardrobe"...I thought you cared.
OK, let's stop the childish bickering. We are beginning to sound like the brother and sister in the back seat. You know...MOMMY! She's touching me!

Who are you responding to? I didn't say the bolded.

Awkward. Got you mixed up with gringa. Sorry.

Good to know we're staying on topic here.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

It's interesting that you defend Gov. Palin's shopping spree on teh RNC buck and diss Michelle Obama's personal purchase of tennis shoes in another thread.

It's more interesting that someone would still be worried about the RNC and Sarah's dress but NOT have a comment about Michelle's shoes.

That's because I don't really care about either of them. I just find it funny that Mrs. Obama pays for her own shoes and gets dissed for it and Gov. Palin get's hers (and her family's and Levi Johnson's) paid for by the RNC and that's okay.

Sorry. when you said "And you are a republican right? You do donate to your party right? Well, you helped pay for her shopping spree. Yayyy! The thing is, the money that Obama is using that the tax payers are giving him is being used in an attempt to help tax payers. Caribou Barbie just wanted to get a new wardrobe"...I thought you cared.

OK, let's stop the childish bickering. We are beginning to sound like the brother and sister in the back seat. You know...MOMMY! She's touching me!

Umm ok.