To Republicans: Are you dissatisfied with direction of your party?

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Excerpts from an article that shows the author's dissatisfaction with the direction of the Republican party. The article made me wonder if there were other long-time Republicans who are dissatisfied with the direction of their party.

(edit) I cut out only the following to illustrate my question. The actual article has a lot more and is an interesting read regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

The behavior among elected Republicans and the dimwitted TV pundits who are whipping America into an absolute frenzy is the worst thing about this bill and has led me to question my long-standing affiliation with the Republican Party. For a moment, I thought it was me; that maybe I had changed and lost touch with Republicanism.
.
But the current “platform”—if you can call it that—lists only six ideals. The power of the individual, voluntary giving, limited government, low taxes, less regulation and national strength. That’s what it says, but what it practices is hate, because hate sells when the chips are down.
.
There is nothing grand about this old party that preys only on the enmity of the populous. There is nothing admirable or principled about fear mongering. Where are the inspired solutions that made this party great?

I’m calling it. I hereby officially pronounce the Republican Party dead.
http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/03/24/off-the-reservation-republican-party-1856-2010/

I do not think the Republican party is dead, and I'm not posting this to try to rile rabid right-wingers up. I'm just curious. The Republicans in congress are so uniform in how they vote; are their supporters that uniform? I know that there have been times I have been very dissatisfied with the Democrats, and times when I felt more represented by certain Republicans.
 

I have always registered Republican... but it has become more and more difficult to hold my nose while I voted...

I cannot identify with the current crop leading the Republican Party. The GOP does not need another Ronald Reagan, it needs another Barry Goldwater.

I've not left them. They have left me.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
The GOP does not need another Ronald Reagan, it needs another Barry Goldwater.
What qualities did Barry Goldwater possess that makes you see him as the model Republican?

BTW, I am a liberal, but I do believe America needs a balance between the right and the left to operate at its best.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
BTW, I am a liberal, but I do believe America needs a balance between the right and the left to operate at its best.
I always liked the idea that two opposing parties would negotiate with each other and compromise to get some of what they wanted, and giving some of what the other side wanted.

This whole, it's our way or the highway attitude that both sides have now just stinks.

(edit)Re: Goldwater... The Johnson campaign and other critics painted him as a reactionary, while supporters praised his crusades against the federal government, labor unions, and the welfare state. But, by the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life. He would never survive in todays Republican party, or he would spur on a third party, tea party-like candidacy. (info from wiki)
 

SwiftLives

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2001
1,339
240
Charleston, SC
I always liked the idea that two opposing parties would negotiate with each other and compromise to get some of what they wanted, and giving some of what the other side wanted.

This whole, it's our way or the highway attitude that both sides have now just stinks.
Has it ever not been that way?

Seriously. When was the last time opposing political parties and the general populace were not so freakin' polarized?

The Reagan era?
 

rhsgolfer33

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2006
882
1
Short answer: Yes. Lack of fiscal conservatism, homophobia, racism, unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner, Glenn Beck, just to name a few of the things that have recently come up that make me dissatisfied.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
The Reagan era?
That was when it began to get bad.

Short answer: Yes. Lack of fiscal conservatism, homophobia, racism, unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner, Glenn Beck, just to name a few of the things that have recently come up that make me dissatisfied.
They saw fit to use all of these things to their political advantage for short-term gains. That's their problem- they never look at the larger picture or think of how these things will harm them in the future. Karma's a bitch.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,776
totally cool
"Spiraling downward" is in fact a very specific direction.
I was actually thinking something like dissipating like smoke. Spiraling downward could mean that all conservatives are together which I don't think is the case.

I think the Glen Beck/tea party crowd should start their own party headed by Sarah Palin. So the GOP could streamline and take on some more social conscious/ moderate issues.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I was actually thinking something like dissipating like smoke. Spiraling downward could mean that all conservatives are together which I don't think is the case.

I think the Glen Beck/tea party crowd should start their own party headed by Sarah Palin. So the GOP could streamline and take on some more social conscious/ moderate issues.
Look at the Republicans in congress. Do you really see this happening?
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Look at the Republicans in congress. Do you really see this happening?
It won't happen so long as each race only has one winner. If Congress was selected by the percentage of votes cast for each party instead of for individual people, then more than two parties could co-exist.

41% Democrat
39% Republican
11% Tea Party (or whoever)
9% Libertarian (or whoever else)

Something like that would allow more voices to be heard, but won't ever happen. As it is, if the tea party split off, it would cause too much damage to the Republicans' chances. The second both parties lost due to a split of the vote, one or both would be courting the other, and we'd be right back where we started.
 

SwiftLives

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2001
1,339
240
Charleston, SC
It won't happen so long as each race only has one winner. If Congress was selected by the percentage of votes cast for each party instead of for individual people, then more than two parties could co-exist.

41% Democrat
39% Republican
11% Tea Party (or whoever)
9% Libertarian (or whoever else)

Something like that would allow more voices to be heard, but won't ever happen. As it is, if the tea party split off, it would cause too much damage to the Republicans' chances. The second both parties lost due to a split of the vote, one or both would be courting the other, and we'd be right back where we started.
There is an advantage to the parliamentary system. As it stands now, in theory, a political party could win 51% of every vote in every district, and end up with 100% of the seats in the house and senate.

The disadvantage is that the people would pretty much lose direct representation. Say what you will about pork barrel politics, that's how things get done in Washington - and that's how money flows to your district.

-----------------------------------

I've never been able to tell whether Obama is so far ahead of everyone in a chess match that no one can see it, or has fallen so far behind that the game is over and he doesn't realize it.

That being said, I'm starting to think he's pushing the Republicans to the right - and using their "Party of No" mantra against them. Health care reform has some conservative roots with Mitt Romney. Cap and Trade has its roots in the Clean Air Act passed in the early '60s. And now we have the topic of offshore drilling - a major campaign issue in 2008 by the Republicans.

(Quick Wikipeida research above - and yes, it's oversimplified).

But on the other hand, a politician couldn't be that smart.
 

GfPQqmcRKUvP

macrumors 68040
Sep 29, 2005
3,211
373
Terminus
Short answer: Yes. Lack of fiscal conservatism, homophobia, racism, unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner, Glenn Beck, just to name a few of the things that have recently come up that make me dissatisfied.
I agree with the above except I'd add a desire for a christian theocracy on there as what current republicans want.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
I guess you will know in November. The democrats fumbled and now they won't be able to get anything else done after November.
If the Republicans do nothing but block the passage of everything they will pay for it in November. Even if they try, there will still be things that get done.

As much as you might dislike health care reform, how can elected officials honestly say they are representing their constituents by doing nothing on everything else? Wouldn't they do a better job by being reasonable and negotiating on things, and if they can't come to an agreement, then maybe try to prevent passage.

It seems like the Republicans took a "hell no" approach from the beginning instead of ever trying to reasonably negotiate. If they tried and failed, I would respect their opposition. Instead, they said no from the beginning.

(edit) It sounds like they are going to say "hell no" to everything else from here forward without even considering what it is.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
To Republicans: Are you dissatisfied with direction of your party?
No. Quite satisfied. We're far more united that the Democrats, we are reflective of our center right nation citizenry, and we are largely not part of the secular. In policy we are in lockstep against Obamacare, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-state, and pro-NASCAR; we rest on Saturday, worship on Sunday, and like our business private during the week with minimal government involvement. We like Budweiser, steak, the flag, and weekend barbecues. We are committed to conservative leaders and, if the last few state elections are any sign, VA, NJ, and MA, we stand ready to retake the House and Senate at the end of this year, and the retain presidency in 2012 on behalf of America. I am quite happy with our party, the Republican Party, and like my Ford and Chevy, quite satisfied with its direction.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
No. Quite satisfied. We're far more united that the Democrats, we are reflective of our center right nation citizenry, and we are largely not part of the secular. In policy we are in lockstep against Obamacare, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-state, and pro-NASCAR; we rest on Saturday, worship on Sunday, and like our business private during the week with minimal government involvement. We like Budweiser, steak, the flag, and weekend barbecues. We are committed to conservative leaders and, if the last few state elections are any sign, VA, NJ, and MA, we stand ready to retake the House and Senate at the end of this year, and the retain presidency in 2012 on behalf of America. I am quite happy with our party, the Republican Party, and like my Ford and Chevy, quite satisfied with its direction.
So are you saying you want to refuse to allow Atheists into the republican party? Or how about former alcoholics who no longer drink, or vegetarians? And no foreign car owners allowed? What about Chrysler? You didn't mention them, or is the Fiat deal a bit too foreign for the republican party?
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
If the Republicans do nothing but block the passage of everything they will pay for it in November. Even if they try, there will still be things that get done.

As much as you might dislike health care reform, how can elected officials honestly say they are representing their constituents by doing nothing on everything else? Wouldn't they do a better job by being reasonable and negotiating on things, and if they can't come to an agreement, then maybe try to prevent passage.

It seems like the Republicans took a "hell no" approach from the beginning instead of every trying to reasonably negotiate. If they tried and failed, I would respect their opposition. Instead, they said no from the beginning.
Their constituents did not want this type of health reform. Forcing people to buy insurance via a mandate is ridiculous, and I would have no part in it either. You tied a few pieces of candy on the back of a dog turd and expect everyone to eat the whole thing.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
So are you saying you want to refuse to allow Atheists into the republican party? Or how about former alcoholics who no longer drink, or vegetarians? And no foreign car owners allowed? What about Chrysler? You didn't mention them, or is the Fiat deal a bit too foreign for the republican party?
That was a crazy rant on the part of ITN.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,234
quae tangit perit Trump
No. Quite satisfied. We're far more united that the Democrats, we are reflective of our center right nation citizenry, and we are largely not part of the secular. In policy we are in lockstep against Obamacare, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-state, and pro-NASCAR; we rest on Saturday, worship on Sunday, and like our business private during the week with minimal government involvement. We like Budweiser, steak, the flag, and weekend barbecues...
The Republican Party or a Chevy ad? I can't tell.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
Proportional representation really is the only way this type of democracy will ever succeed. My congress-critter is mostly a decent person who holds moderate views, but he is a republican. Because of that simple fact, I cannot support him, because he supports a party that has a failed agenda, and if he votes his conscience over the party line, he will lose the party's support in the next election.

I grew up in a state where the republicans were reasonable people: Mark O. Hatfield, Tom McCall, Bob Packwood, these guys were able to work with democrats instead of treating them as sworn enemies. Times have indeed changed.

Today, I feel like a third to a half the citizens in every district in the country are disenfranchised because they voted for to runner-up and areleft with little direct recourse because there is no discourse, only shouting. We need larger districts with multiple representatives so that more voices can be heard, so that the partys' stranglehold can be broken, so that gerrymandering, for good or ill no longer matters. So that the people trying to destroy the country by driving us into polarized factions can be stopped in their tracks.
 

Gelfin

macrumors 68020
Sep 18, 2001
2,166
4
Denver, CO
I was actually thinking something like dissipating like smoke. Spiraling downward could mean that all conservatives are together which I don't think is the case.
No complaint. Really, your analogy is just as good as mine.

I think the Glen Beck/tea party crowd should start their own party headed by Sarah Palin. So the GOP could streamline and take on some more social conscious/ moderate issues.
The problem is, the Beck/Palin/"Tea Party" crowd is all that's left of the GOP's identity. They grew increasingly addicted to being able to exploit that bloc. They thought they could handle it, that they could experiment with encouraging ignorant resentments, and enjoy the rush of donations and votes it brings, without it affecting their day jobs as supposedly responsible representatives of American society.

Sure, they'd snort a little class resentment for kicks, but they'd never go so far as to encourage racists, anti-government anarchists, tax cheats and religious zealots to undermine the Constitution they swore to uphold just to keep those votes flowing. Then one day they woke up, looked in the mirror, and saw the Tea Party staring back at them. Their addiction consumed them from the inside out and took on a life of its own. They found themselves seeking hits at rallies, hanging out with a*****es carrying signs bearing slogans appropriate to Klan rallies, seditious militia groups and creepy snake-handling churches, because those people had what they craved.

They're about to hit bottom; they just haven't realized it yet. They know something's wrong with where they've ended up, but they don't know who they'd be without that thing that grew out of them, the thing they thought they had under control and now are starting to realize they don't. They've tried to get it back under control, force it back to the point where it was fun and they felt on top of the world, but it's just rearranging deck chairs, because they're trying to accommodate what's killing them. They're paralyzed, floundering, but not yet ready to admit they need help.

And they could go either way. The Tea Party could consume them outright, leaving the Party of Lincoln a hopeless junkie, lying in the gutters of American politics, strung out on hate, or they could finally realize what they've done to themselves and start the long road back to being a party with a positive contribution to make. And let's not kid ourselves that it won't be a struggle for them to figure out who they are again.

What the GOP needs is an intervention: Look, Republicans, we love you, but we can't stand what you've turned yourself into. You're right, some of the things you did in the past were awesome and really changed American society for the better. Even when we don't agree with it, we like conservatism. You make a great sounding board and a valuable critic. At your best, you make us better, but we haven't seen that guy in a long time. We almost don't remember what he's like. Please, for your sake and for America's, get help.