akuma587 said:
If Republicans let people like Cheney fill the leadership vacuum in their party, a guy who has no future in politics and in normal times would have been thrown in federal prison, Republicans will be in the wilderness for a very long time. And even the Bush Adminstration abandoned almost all the policies Cheney is beating the war drum about by 2004. They knew they weren't effective, highly questionable morally, and overall more of a liability when fighting terrorism rather than a strength. Its much easier to argue for these policies in the abstract than it is when the news spills out and you have to do damage control for the remaining time you are in office. Cheney is fighting a battle that was lost about 5 years ago. He's stuck in the past and is worried about his legacy. He's moving the Republican Party in the wrong direction and is fighting battles in the past rather than offering an articulate view of the future. As to the rest of your post, the problem is that Republicans are unwilling to budge on pretty much ALL those issues I listed. The Democratic Party is more flexible. You want to be a pro-life Democrat, that's not a problem (the DNC ran quite a few in the South in the last few election cycles). You want to be a pro-gun rights Democrat, that's cool too (DNC also fielded quite a few of these candidates). You want to be big on national defense, that's alright (many Democrats in places of power have this stance, like Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman). The problem with the power holders in the Republican Party is that if you don't agree with them on every issue, they want to kick you out of the party. You can't run the same kind of candidate in New York City that you can in Alabama. Republicans are actually finally starting to figure this out and will do a better job of fielding candidates who can ACTUALLY WIN in the places they are running outside of the Deep South. Thank people like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham. |
Since this is off-topic I'll be straight to the point:
- 71% agree with Cheney and the Bush administration's position on waterboarding even when you label it outright torture. This is the number of people who "often", "sometimes", or "rarely" think it is justified. So no matter when or how they've argued they've always been winning (although they are winning by a lot more now that Cheney is giving his side of the story)...so yes the debate was lost years ago..but the left is the side that lost the argument in the eyes of the American people.
- Look at idealogy ID numbers. Conservatives thrash liberals by often greater than 3:1 like back in 2007 when it was nearly 3.5:1. So it's no surprise Dems have to run with conservative ideas to win, but you're assuming all things are equal if you think conservatives must run with liberal ideas the same way. They need to adapt and be flexible, no doubt, but they don't need a large shift like anything close to what you're suggesting.
- Even so neither party forces every candidate to meet their platform positions on every issue, just their key platform positions...which includes the dems as well. The dems are more flexible on some issues, and the republicans are more flexible on others. Look at issues like Gay Marriage for example where you've lied to yourselves rather than accept that Obama is against it....oh right "He is just saying that." [wink][wink] Lets get real.
- For some hard evidence of why you're wrong: From Battleground Polls '08 "How would you describe your position on fiscal issues?"
- 26% - "very conservative"
- 43% - "somewhat conservative"
- 1% - "moderate"
- 22% - "somewhat liberal"
- 5% - "very liberal"
- 3% - "don't know" - DNR
- People who describe themselves as moderate usually don't actually take moderate positions on issues. They still have strong opinions they simply aren't all one way or the other. And since liberals aren't going to vote for Republicans anyways...who exactly are they supposed to win over by moving their positions? Ooh look at that sexy 1% of people.... But maybe thats the idea?
- Republicans got booted for not doing what they said they would or in a lot of cases doing the opposite of what they said they would. Their core platform is fine (even though you and I don't agree with all of their positions), their actions on the other hand were not in line with their promises and positions. This is why Pelosi ran on the "drain the swamp" rhetoric when trying to take the congress, and why it worked.
PS - Where did you pull that crazy Cheney approval number from? I figured I'd ask since you completely ignored that.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
