Who Is on the Horizon for the GOP?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The GOP needs the prototypical “Daddy” candidate - solid on national defense, a fiscal “house cleaner” with a no-nonsense reputation for balancing budgets and demanding accountability, and someone who will take on Congress’ excesses with a veto pen.

But…someone who appeals to independents. Doesn’t have to win all of them, but must have enough “common sense” charisma to appeal to individuals who don’t strictly adhere to party lines.[/quote]

They’ve needed that for 30 years.

22

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are in the mix, I kinda wish Rudy Giuliani would run again. I had high hopes for him but I didn’t get the feeling like he was hungry for it. [/quote]

i feel the same about Rudi as you do Palin. Rudi is not presidential material. He barely played 30 seconds of the last game.

23

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now, here’s MY plan, which would never be found acceptable by Washington:

Legislation would be enacted which would automatically twilight (bring to an end) all legislation previously passed, newest legislation being twilighted soonest and oldest legislation later. Specifically, the end date would be as many days after enactment as had passed between original passage and this new bill being passed.

I’m sure that could have been written better.

What I mean is, for example a law that had been passed only 1 year ago, would go out of effect 1 year after this new bill was passed. A law passed 5 years ago would go out of effect 5 years from this bill being passed, and so forth.

If Congress wanted to retain a given law, it would have to specifically re-pass it.

This would apply to regulations also. Again, if regulation is specifically considered to be needed as its twilight date approaches, it could be redone anew. But it would take the specific effort.

Furthermore it would apply to budgets, though with correction for inflation and increase in population.

We had enough laws and regulation for example 10 years ago. (With a few exceptions likely the case.)

The size of the government 10 years ago was surely enough, if corrected for inflation and size of population.

Wouldn’t it be great if government size 5 years from now rolled back to where it was 5 years ago; 10 years from now to where it was 10 years ago; and 25 years from now to where it was 25 years ago? Were we really desperately short of “enough” government at those past times? Of course not.

Myself, I would like that.

[/quote]

Great idea. I would be my salary that we would see net benefit from this. The economy would grow year after year until they started re-regulating. Maybe they would try a twilight on the twilight?

While this woudl be a very good start, there are other areas that need to be adressed. Tort reform, War mongering and nation building, the fed, global warming, etc.

24

[quote]Registered4Grow wrote:
Hi Mufasa,

I am a registered republican and I will be casting my ballot for Ron Paul if he chooses to run again.

With little variation, all of the candidates you’ve mentioned are NOT very conservative. They claim to be fiscal conservatives but (with no exception I’ve seen in voting records) they support the war effort, nation building, patriot act, increased power to the Fed, etc.

Dr. Paul is one of the few republican candidates I’m aware of that is nationally known, AND still stands for any semblance of what the party is supposed to mean (limited government, less spending, etc.) It is a shame that he cannot garner much support in this ONE PARTY system we have nowadays :slight_smile:

Best,
-David[/quote]

ugh

25

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now, here’s MY plan, which would never be found acceptable by Washington: >>>[/quote]

Maybe I’m dense today, but I read that several times and am not following I don’t think.

26

I can’t come up with any names, but my prediction is this:

There will be a lot of Republicans running, but few or no conservatives.

27

I knew I hadn’t written it well… :frowning:

Basically, the plan is that as we move each year forward in time, laws and regulations roll back to a yet earlier date.

Thus, if passed today, in 2010 the budget, laws, and regulations would go back to that of 2008 (though corrected for increase in population and inflation.)

In 2011 they’d go back to what they were in 2007.

Etc.

Now, where Congress specifically thought that a law being twilighted really was needed for the future, they could vote specifically on that law again as a new law. So we would not be forced to get rid of everything if it was still thought good.

But the current practice of laws and regulations endlessly increasing and never being pruned would be at an end.

28

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I can’t come up with any names, but my prediction is this:

There will be a lot of Republicans running, but few or no conservatives.[/quote]

This is a VERY tough, but real, issue for the GOP.

Mufasa

29

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I knew I hadn’t written it well… :frowning:

Basically, the plan is that as we move each year forward in time, laws and regulations roll back to a yet earlier date.

Thus, if passed today, in 2010 the budget, laws, and regulations would go back to that of 2008 (though corrected for increase in population and inflation.)

In 2011 they’d go back to what they were in 2007.

Etc.

Now, where Congress specifically thought that a law being twilighted really was needed for the future, they could vote specifically on that law again as a new law. So we would not be forced to get rid of everything if it was still thought good.

But the current practice of laws and regulations endlessly increasing and never being pruned would be at an end.[/quote]

I think I got ya now, but what’s to stop them from just perpetually revising and recycling their legislation on consistent schedules to avoid anything ever really being twilighted? Unless I still don’t understand.

One thing I’ve wished forever is that we could regulate legislation itself so as to limit the scope and reach of an individual bill to a specific set of parameters.

That is, if a bill is alleged to address the lending practices of national banks (for instance) it shouldn’t also contain provisions to save the habitat of the northwestern pineapple upside down 7 legged beetle.

We have bills right now that are hundreds and even thousands of times longer than the entire Declaration, Constitution and bill of rights that amount to mini omnibus budget packages, but are named in such a way as to give the illusion that they are actually in response to something specific.

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now, here’s MY plan, which would never be found acceptable by Washington:

Legislation would be enacted which would automatically twilight (bring to an end) all legislation previously passed, newest legislation being twilighted soonest and oldest legislation later. Specifically, the end date would be as many days after enactment as had passed between original passage and this new bill being passed.

I’m sure that could have been written better.

What I mean is, for example a law that had been passed only 1 year ago, would go out of effect 1 year after this new bill was passed. A law passed 5 years ago would go out of effect 5 years from this bill being passed, and so forth.

If Congress wanted to retain a given law, it would have to specifically re-pass it.

This would apply to regulations also. Again, if regulation is specifically considered to be needed as its twilight date approaches, it could be redone anew. But it would take the specific effort.

Furthermore it would apply to budgets, though with correction for inflation and increase in population.

We had enough laws and regulation for example 10 years ago. (With a few exceptions likely the case.)

The size of the government 10 years ago was surely enough, if corrected for inflation and size of population.

Wouldn’t it be great if government size 5 years from now rolled back to where it was 5 years ago; 10 years from now to where it was 10 years ago; and 25 years from now to where it was 25 years ago? Were we really desperately short of “enough” government at those past times? Of course not.

Myself, I would like that.
[/quote]

Righhhhtt… because it wouldn’t be a waste of time at all for Congress to have to repass laws against slavery, child labor, voting rights, discrimination…

Let’s do it every year. Sounds like a hell of plan Brownie.

31

There would be nothing to stop them from preserving (via re-passing) any given old law.

But at least it would take effort and conscious decision, as opposed to laws piling on laws and regulations piling on regulations endlessly as is the current situation.

Secondly – now of course I do recognize that nothing like this will happen – there is an effect where people perceive things relative to what is planned or what would be the case if nothing is done. So in other words, right now the expectation is that the FY 2011 budget will be like the FY 2010 but bigger. In fact, if an item in in the 2011 budget is increased over the 2010 budget but not as much as had previously been planned for 2011, that will get called a cut.

Whereas under the plan that I like, utopian as it is, the expectation would be that the 2011 budget would be like the 2008 budget. Whether something was considered “increased” or “cut” would be relative to that standard.

It would set a different baseline to be working from.

On your point of bills being far too broad: Absolutely. That is a horrendous problem.

32

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I can’t come up with any names, but my prediction is this:

There will be a lot of Republicans running, but few or no conservatives.[/quote]

Looks that way.

33

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

ugh[/quote]

Strong argument FightinIrish

34

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

I see where you’re coming from, R4G!

I’ve always liked the candidates like Perot and Paul. They often interject vitality and a no-nonsense approach to our problems.

However, the problem is that they will often get tripped-up in two ways:

  1. It’s one thing to point out what the problems are. It’s quite another to point out exactly how to implement the cure. AND

  2. They will often be “strong” on issues like spending; the budget; etc…but begin to waver on social issues.

One thought is for the GOP to take the basic principals that Dr. Paul advocates, and put them into some workable platform?

I think that its doubtful that would happen.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Good observation Mufasa. I suppose I really, really agree with you on the second point (Ron Paul et. al are not good on social issues) but maybe not so much on the first point (They can point out problems better than fix them).

The reason I say I don’t agree so much on the first point is: two of the biggest problems recently (IMO obviously) only required that NOTHING be done…not some sort of great plan. At least from my viewpoint there was no reason to spend another multi-hundred-billions in Iraq this year or allow the Fed to print of trillions of dollars (of which nobody knows the recipients…yet) in “bailout” and “stimulus” money.

So I guess I think the “workable platform” you asked for could just be NOTHING in alot of cases.

But like you said there is still the other problem of being weak on Social Issues. Great point and that bothers me as well. I guess for me, at this time, I think that it’s okay if Social Issues take a backseat to our pressing financial matters (not that they would necessarily HAVE to!)

Best,
-David

35

I’d vote for bill clinton if allowed

36

Palin’s a non-entity in big-time politics now. All this talk about her having any sort of shot at the Presidency in '12 is just the GOP wizards trying to cover up for the fact that she was a horrendous choice. The GOP has alienated a large segment of its constituency by placating the religious right portion of the Party that has run amok in Washington since the days of Team B and the Halloween Massacre. No matter how she spins it, she can’t handle the pressure of the cutthroat world of national politics. She’s through. She’ll write a book, get an Oprah-like TV show and turn into a caricature of herself.

With Obama trying to spend our way out of this recession, Goldwater-type conservatives (ie smaller govt, fiscal conservatism, expanded personal liberties) have a serious chance to take back control of the GOP. Mike “the world is 6,000 years old and flat” Huckabee would be the worst possible choice. Romney might be a viable candidate, but only if Obama looks really tough to beat. Romney will be a good “fall guy” if Obama appears to be too strong. I still think Jindal might be the real dark horse here, but Ron Paul is as likely to be the Libertarian candidate in '12 as the GOP candidate.

Whoever is the nominee, they’ll have to be a true conservative. These are pivotal times for the GOP. The religious right has controlled the Party to a certain degree for a while now, but the blowout loss in November is a clear indication that it’s time to move away from that segment. The bottom line is that there are less and less white, devout Christians in this country every year and that is the powerbase of the GOP if they continue to pander to the religious right.

In order to keep their powerbase from shrinking further, they’ll have to move back to true conservatism before a third party like the Libertarian Party continues to bleed off old-school conservatives. Look at all the states that Bush and McCain lost by close margins in '04 and '08. Virtually all of those states were lost by roughly the same amount of votes the Libertarian Party garnered in them.

37

[quote]JaX Un wrote:
I’d vote for bill clinton if allowed[/quote]

And I would vote for Richard M. Nixon if I could.

But neither of us can’t.

That sucks huh?

My money and energy is still on a Duncan Hunter Sr. that can actually get his message out there and inspire more people like me. Hunter would be THE candidate of the republican party if he could start getting his message out there, and get some sort of forum.

Ron Paul had the internet.
Jew-lianai had… Well,… the jewman had nothing from the start! That’s why he failed so miserably.
Mittens Romney… I actually like the guy. Brilliant businessman, a true tactician with the finances… I was excited that a guy like him could be in control of the national budget… Imagine what he could do with his intellect, and his experience, with a White House budget…

Other than that, the other GOPers that I see on the horizon are Pawlenty and Palin.

I’m not thrilled. I would like to see a Hunter/Keyes ticket. Two “take no shit, lay down the hammer” kind of guys that this country so desperately needs.

If not, (and I know that Hunter still wont have a snowballs chnace in hell) I would actually like to see a Romney/Palin ticket.

Think about that for minute. Would it be any better than a community organzier and a blowhard alcoholic? I think yes.

I still want to see Hunter out in front. If he does decide to run again, he has my full support, just like last time. As of late however, it doesn’t seem like he will be running again for anything. To bad. There are MANY in the congressional armed forces committees that hold him in VERY HIGH REGARD. Even Ann Coulter likes him and thinks he would be the best choice for this country. Ann Coulter.

Too bad all the really great ones slip under our noses because they aren’t on TV bashing candidate __________

38

HUNTER IS OUR MAN.

39

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
HUNTER IS OUR MAN.[/quote]

S.? I’ve vote for him even though he’s dead.

40

Gingrich? But he would be drawn and quartered in the press. He would own the debates though.