Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"

[SuperLuigi]

=HCTC;11718303]With all due respect, if you want to defend hateful speech, that is on you.

After all, both the hateful speech and your defense of hateful speech is certainly a right in this country.

I wasn’t defending hate speech. “Hate speech” is just a calling card for progressives because they don’t have the facts on their side.

I think it’s both hilarious and pathetic that my example of democrats acting hateful by your same standards is being avoided.

Those who embrace conservative values don’t need to run around making excuses or avoiding the issue at hand.

Try it sometime.

 

[Lormar]

Obama’s re-election after a disasterous first term says it all regarding the future of America.

 

[RACJ]

Did you predict that Romney would win the presidency?

I don’t know about Luigi, but I never had enough confidence in the American people to predict that a successful, happy man (Romney) would defeat a contemptuous failure (Obama). Not in today’s amoral yet easily deceived America. Rob

 

[Lormar]

I wasn’t defending hate speech. “Hate speech” is just a calling card for progressives because they don’t have the facts on their side.

I think it’s both hilarious and pathetic that my example of democrats acting hateful by your same standards is being avoided.

Those who embrace conservative values don’t need to run around making excuses or avoiding the issue at hand.

Try it sometime.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Mickey Finn;11718277]Judging by the tenor of some of these posts.

:tsktsk:

Please elaborate. It’s not nice to generalize like that.

The GOP is barely hanging onto it’s collective water.

As we already know, this next election will hold the fate of 2016 in the palm of it’s hand.

Then, you better Hillary to quit while she’s ahead!

If more TEA Party enthusiasts (TP’ers) earn seats.

Not practical in every race, but I wouldn’t mind that if we can swing it. :yup:

The White House will fall to the Democrats. What to do you ask? Abandon the far right wing albatross that is hanging around your collective necks.

The left loves to remind the GOP that they’ve only won the popular vote once since 1988, and in every case a moderate/establishment republican ran.

They don’t like to talk about what happened in the three election cycles before that, two of which when a principled, articulate conservative ran

Assume the position of dignity, and be willing to work with the otherside.

Like Obama and Reid are?

No thanks!

Even if the otherside is the Democrats. Use what power and influence you have remaining, and show that you are made of better stuff.

So this is all coming from the party of so-called gay “marriage”, abortion, contraception and feminism.

Tell me, how long can the left keep this up? If all these minorities and blue-collar union workers that you count on to have kids become liberal and stop having them, where are your numbers going to come from? What happens when all of the white 1960s liberal hippies start dying out?

If the American left wants to talk demographics, they ought to take a good, hard look at Japan and Western Europe.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t know about Luigi, but I never had enough confidence in the American people to predict that a successful, happy man (Romney) would defeat a contemptuous failure (Obama). Not in today’s amoral yet easily deceived America. Rob

My mistake was overestimating the American electorate as well.

And for all the talk about demographics on here, the most white states in the union–Vermont, Maine, Iowa----all carried Obama not once but twice. Throw in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania with all of those supposed “moral”, humble, nice and “homegrown” people also carried Obama/Biden twice.

How about New Hampshire “live free or die”!

What a laugh that motto was in 2012!

And a lot of the folks who voted for Obama undoubtedly expect to able to sit on their couches seeing which party will pander to them the most.

The left likes to talk about whether or not the Gipper would win a primary in today’s GOP.

I have to wonder how JFK would do in a democrat primary today. He wanted lower taxes and asked “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.

With today’s mommy’s basement, race-baiting crowd just looking around for any reason to be offended, JFK’s act just wouldn’t jive.

I would throw in the Vietnam War, but I think a lot of folks on the left today are okay with going to war with a democrat (especially a minority) in office and maybe, just maybe in some cases sending their loved ones to die for their political correctness.

See, one doesn’t have to have principles—even liberal ones—with that flashy D behind one’s name.

Oh, and he was a straight, able-bodied rich white guy.

 

[HCTC]

I think it’s both hilarious and pathetic that my example of democrats acting hateful by your same standards is being avoided.

Try it sometime.

You are offended by the references made about Mr. Abbott’s disability in a clandestine video. While you present this video in defense of Ted Nugent’s hateful speech, I do not feel called upon to defend what you find offensive. Why would I follow your example when you defend hateful speech? That defense is on you.

 

[RACJ]

I am really not so sure about that. I must be the only moderate Republican left in the state of Texas.

With an upcoming primary there are many political ads running right now. And all of them are in a rush to be further right than the other. Texas is no longer a Republican state, it is a Tea Party state.

All the Tea Party stands for, generally, is lower taxes, less government regulation and spending, and more decisions left in the hands of individuals, those principles enshrined in our Constitution. Does being a “moderate” mean that one is generally staisfied with big government usurpation of power? Frankly, I don’t understand the point of the GOP, if they stand for speeding off a fiscal cliff five mph slower than the Democrats.
Question: What does the establishment GOP leaders stand for in 2014? Rob

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t know about Luigi, but I never had enough confidence in the American people to predict that a successful, happy man (Romney) would defeat a contemptuous failure (Obama). Not in today’s amoral yet easily deceived America. Rob

You called it. I have absolutely no confidence in the American electorate. There was a time when this country believed in the founding principles, when people believed if you worked hard you would get ahead; that families of all races stayed together and worked for the betterment of all the family and where morals were the norm. Sadly this is no longer true.

Sadly, I am often glad that I am a senior citizen. I don’t want to live long enough to see the downfall of this country that I love. And we surely are headed in that direction.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All the Tea Party stands for, generally, is lower taxes, less government regulation and spending, and more decisions left in the hands of individuals, those principles enshrined in our Constitution. Does being a “moderate” mean that one is generally staisfied with big government usurpation of power? Frankly, I don’t understand the point of the GOP, if they stand for speeding off a fiscal cliff five mph slower than the Democrats.
Question: What does the establishment GOP leaders stand for in 2014? Rob

I think you’re right about what the Tea Party stands for. In that way, it is actually little distinguishable from “mainstream” Repubs except when it comes to specifics in tactics. And it does seem the TP folks are more serious about spending than establishment Repub POLITICIANS, but not much, if any, different from mainstream Repub voters.

The left and its media hate the IDEA of the Tea Party, and demonize it precisely because it stands for more freedom for individuals. Those who wouldn’t know a Tea Partier from a Tea cozy adopt the hateful stereotype because they’re ignorant, and it’s easier to stereotype than to actually learn anything.

But the left media is good at demonizing. No question about that. It serves their purpose well to divide their opposition. But they’ll equally oppose any Repub no matter what “brand” they put on him.

 

[Cricket2]

[sarcasm]

Blasphemy!

Sacrilege!

Desecration!

How can you say that about President Reagan, the only man excluded from Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?*

We Reagan Catholics will not forgive this.
[/sarcasm]

• I kid you not, I’ve actually read an essay claiming this.

Actually I had a great aunt that knew him personally. She was an aspiring actress in Hollywood, when Reagan was in the business. She found him to be a chronic liar and a psychopath at best. Even his own brother classified him as such.

 

[seekerz]

There was a time when this country believed in the founding principles, when people believed if you worked hard you would get ahead; that families of all races stayed together and worked for the betterment of all the family and where morals were the norm.

And when was that golden time pray? Not in my lifetime, but then, you may be older than me.

 

[Cricket2]

I think if you ask most political pundits who is more likely to gain a majority in the Senate in 2014, they will say the Republicans

Have people learned nothing over the last 40 years, most of which were under republican rule?

 

[ishii]

This thread has been an occasion for Democrats to gloat, and for Republicans to get defensive. But if you take a closer look, Rand Paul’s statement “without change, GOP will not win again” it is true on the surface. Parties have to change because the issues change and the demographics change. In the 1970’s the GOP went conservative standing up for tax cuts, social conservatism and a stronger defense. The landslide in 1980 was a result of that change in the GOP. Reagan Democrats helped the GOP win. They no longer exist today. The electorate has changed. In the late 80’s it was the Democrat party, after nominating liberal after liberal for president and getting trounced, that was said to be on the way out. But they, too, wised up and elected a ticket of southern moderates (at least that was what we thought). That helped them win two elections. Now we have a set of new demographics, and some new issues. The GOP has to speak to these issues and voters. I think there are candidates who can be competitive. Marco Rubio comes to mind as a hispanic with a compelling story. As for the Democrat “lock” on the white house - I don’t think Hillary is invincible - as she has much baggage and is getting old. Plus 8 years of one party in the White house is another factor that will help the GOP.

This shouldn’t be an occasion for Catholic Democrats to gloat and act smug. (go ahead though, overconfidence is indeed a weakness). Nor should it be an occasion for conservatives, GOP’ers to despair - the party in power usually finds a way to screw things up and US policitics are cyclical. Also, two years is an eternity in politics. Yes, the GOP has to change. But so will the Democrat party when it starts losing. The parties have been changing throughout history. The GOP was largely an isolationist party in the 40’s and early 50’s. They changed and were successful.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Have people learned nothing over the last 40 years, most of which were under republican rule?

Since 1970, the senate has been ruled by the Democrats for 25 years, and by the GOP for 18 years. So your facts are wrong.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Actually I had a great aunt that knew him personally. She was an aspiring actress in Hollywood, when Reagan was in the business. She found him to be a chronic liar and a psychopath at best. Even his own brother classified him as such.

This is truly a shameful post. Nothing but rumor/gossip based on hearsay. Do I have to remind you, Cricket2 which internet forum you’re on?

Ishii

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

This thread has been an occasion for Democrats to gloat, and for Republicans to get defensive. But if you take a closer look, Rand Paul’s statement “without change, GOP will not win again” it is true on the surface. Party’s have to change because the issues change and the demographics change. In the 1970’s the GOP went conservative standing up for tax cuts, social conservatism and a stronger defense. The landslide in 1980 was a result of that change in the GOP. Reagan Democrats helped the GOP win. They no longer exist today. The electorate has changed. In the late 80’s it was the Democrat party, after nominating liberal after liberal for president and getting trounced, that was said to be on the way out. But they, too, wised up and elected a ticket of southern moderates (at least that was what we thought). That helped them win two elections. Now we have a set of new demographics, and some new issues. The GOP has to speak to these issues and voters. I think there are candidates who can be competitive. Marco Rubio comes to mind as a hispanic with a compelling story. As for the Democrat “lock” on the white house - I don’t think Hillary is invincible - as she has much baggage and is getting old. Plus 8 years of one party in the White house is another factor that will help the GOP.

This shouldn’t be an occasion for Catholic Democrats to gloat and act smug. (go ahead though, overconfidence is indeed a weakness). Nor should it be an occasion for conservatives, GOP’ers to despair - the party in power usually finds a way to screw things up and US policitics are cyclical. Also, two years is an eternity in politics.

Ishii

I appreciate your candor Ishii. Having read your posts I think we agree on a lot of things. To be honest what concerns me is the 2012 election and the effect it had on the Republican party. For the record Pres. Obama didn’t win the election, but Romney lost it. While I couldn’t have voted in the election (Canadian) I certainly would have because like yourself abortion is a deal breaker following very clear Catholic teaching on this matter. I will admit that voting for Romney was a risk but I would have been taking that risk rather than a sure thing with Pres. Obama.

While Romney said some things that he probably shouldn’t have (47% comment, deport all illegals, etc) it was evangelicals that sat out of voting because they didn’t believe that he would have overturned Obamacare. They are idiots because do they actually think that Obama would have overturned it. I don’t know who I am more mad at, Catholic democrats who actually voted for Obama or those people.

Not to sound too pessimistic but while 2 terms with one party is a lot remember that from 1980 to 1992 had 3 terms with the other party. I honestly felt that Pres. Obama was going to get defeated because the economy isn’t good and prior to 2012 good/bad economic conditions can seriously effect elections e.g. 1992, 2008 (bad economy), 1996, 2004 (good economy).

 

[RPRPsych]

Actually I had a great aunt that knew him personally. She was an aspiring actress in Hollywood, when Reagan was in the business. She found him to be a chronic liar and a psychopath at best. Even his own brother classified him as such.

I was being facetious, Cricket.

He certainly did better than Obama on social issues - that’s all I can say in his defence. (Though I’m not at all crazy about his embracing “safe sex”.) However, one could argue that the polarization of America into right, radical left and unhappy middle began on his watch, with the rise of the “Moral Majority”. (I’d have no problem with a Catholic moral majority - note the lowercase - but not a Protestant one. bad theology, in my opinion, equals bad governance.)

However, I fail to understand the idolatry that the man attracts in some circles. If someone like him were running in a hypothetical U.S. election against, say, Obama or Hillary Clinton, I’d probably take a deep breath and vote for him as by far the lesser of two evils. But I’d stop short of canonizing him, like many in the blogosphere (including the Catholic blogosphere) do. He had his flaws like all of us.

 

[RPRPsych]

While Romney said some things that he probably shouldn’t have (47% comment, deport all illegals, etc) it was evangelicals that sat out of voting because they didn’t believe that he would have overturned Obamacare. They are idiots because do they actually think that Obama would have overturned it. I don’t know who I am more mad at, Catholic democrats who actually voted for Obama or those people.

Both of them were certainly wrong, but the former were more at fault; active participation in evil is worse than “sitting out in a sulk.”

Not to sound too pessimistic but while 2 terms with one party is a lot remember that from 1980 to 1992 had 3 terms with the other party.

I think that had a lot to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, actually.

I honestly felt that Pres. Obama was going to get defeated because the economy isn’t good and prior to 2012 good/bad economic conditions can seriously effect elections e.g. 1992, 2008 (bad economy), 1996, 2004 (good economy).

I was sort of expecting it, too. I remember discussing the election results with my wife on the day they were out - both of us were surprised and disappointed.

 

[Jeanne_S]

This thread has been an occasion for Democrats to gloat, and for Republicans to get defensive. But if you take a closer look, Rand Paul’s statement “without change, GOP will not win again” it is true on the surface. Parties have to change because the issues change and the demographics change. In the 1970’s the GOP went conservative standing up for tax cuts, social conservatism and a stronger defense. The landslide in 1980 was a result of that change in the GOP. Reagan Democrats helped the GOP win. They no longer exist today. The electorate has changed. In the late 80’s it was the Democrat party, after nominating liberal after liberal for president and getting trounced, that was said to be on the way out. But they, too, wised up and elected a ticket of southern moderates (at least that was what we thought). That helped them win two elections. Now we have a set of new demographics, and some new issues. The GOP has to speak to these issues and voters. I think there are candidates who can be competitive. Marco Rubio comes to mind as a hispanic with a compelling story. As for the Democrat “lock” on the white house - I don’t think Hillary is invincible - as she has much baggage and is getting old. Plus 8 years of one party in the White house is another factor that will help the GOP.

This shouldn’t be an occasion for Catholic Democrats to gloat and act smug. (go ahead though, overconfidence is indeed a weakness). Nor should it be an occasion for conservatives, GOP’ers to despair - the party in power usually finds a way to screw things up and US policitics are cyclical. Also, two years is an eternity in politics. Yes, the GOP has to change. But so will the Democrat party when it starts losing. The parties have been changing throughout history. The GOP was largely an isolationist party in the 40’s and early 50’s. They changed and were successful.

Ishii

Well said,Ishii:thumbsup: