RIP Republican Party

[UNI88]

IMO, Simpson-Bowles is a much better starting point for budget talks than Ryan's budget. But at least Ryan had the courage to come up with a budget unlike our intrepid President whose job it is do such things.

I'm not sure what the answer is for Iran but I'm pretty sure it's not sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. I didn't used to think it would be that bad if Iran developed nuclear capability but a column by Charles Krauthammer made me reconsider that line of thinking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one thinks we should stick our heads in the sand, but Krauthammer's piece while sounding sane, is the exact line of thinking that got us into Iraq.

I disagree. IMO, the whole WMD thing in Iraq was a smokescreen that the administration used to pursue other objectives. Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a lot more real and threatening than WMDs ever were in Iraq. Do I think that means that we should go in guns-a-blazing like we did in Iraq? No. Do I think it means we need to very carefully consider out options as well as consider Israeli needs/fears and not think that we can dictate the Israeli response as well as our own? Yes.

[Grizalltheway]

No one thinks we should stick our heads in the sand, but Krauthammer's piece while sounding sane, is the exact line of thinking that got us into Iraq.

I disagree. IMO, the whole WMD thing in Iraq was a smokescreen that the administration used to pursue other objectives. Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a lot more real and threatening than WMDs ever were in Iraq. Do I think that means that we should go in guns-a-blazing like we did in Iraq? No. Do I think it means we need to very carefully consider out options as well as consider Israeli needs/fears and not think that we can dictate the Israeli response as well as our own? Yes.

The sanctions approach we're taking with them actually kind of worries me. I know it's not a full-on embargo like we imposed on Japan, but it's already having a significant impact on their economy, and I wouldn't be at all suprised to see them lash out militarily if it gets bad enough.

[ASUG8]

The Iranians are volatile enough that I believe a lot of ME heads of state would privately love to see the bombing commence - on the other hand, Israel certainly wouldn't hesitate to jump in the fray with big brother which would further agitate the Muslims and lead to a much broader conflict. Muslims in other countries might dislike Iran, but any attack by the US and/or Israel would be construed as an affront on Islam and it would serve as a rallying cry. On top of that, Iran's Russian big brother would be in the background providing financial and military support during the engagement. Taking out a nuke site could easily escalate into another world war.

[kalm]

No one thinks we should stick our heads in the sand, but Krauthammer's piece while sounding sane, is the exact line of thinking that got us into Iraq.

I disagree. IMO, the whole WMD thing in Iraq was a smokescreen that the administration used to pursue other objectives. Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a lot more real and threatening than WMDs ever were in Iraq. Do I think that means that we should go in guns-a-blazing like we did in Iraq? No. Do I think it means we need to very carefully consider out options as well as consider Israeli needs/fears and not think that we can dictate the Israeli response as well as our own? Yes.

Definitely a concern. In this case I'm pro assasination.

[AZGrizFan]

I disagree. IMO, the whole WMD thing in Iraq was a smokescreen that the administration used to pursue other objectives. Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a lot more real and threatening than WMDs ever were in Iraq. Do I think that means that we should go in guns-a-blazing like we did in Iraq? No. Do I think it means we need to very carefully consider out options as well as consider Israeli needs/fears and not think that we can dictate the Israeli response as well as our own? Yes.

The sanctions approach we're taking with them actually kind of worries me. I know it's not a full-on embargo like we imposed on Japan, but it's already having a significant impact on their economy, and I wouldn't be at all suprised to see them lash out militarily if it gets bad enough.

THe last time they "lashed out militarily" half their fleet ended up on the bottom of the Persian Gulf. I would LOVE for them to attempt something again. We've seen time and time again these Middle Eastern "powers" are all hat, no cattle when it comes to conventional warfare.

[kalm]

The sanctions approach we're taking with them actually kind of worries me. I know it's not a full-on embargo like we imposed on Japan, but it's already having a significant impact on their economy, and I wouldn't be at all suprised to see them lash out militarily if it gets bad enough.

THe last time they "lashed out militarily" half their fleet ended up on the bottom of the Persian Gulf. I would LOVE for them to attempt something again. We've seen time and time again these Middle Eastern "powers" are all hat, no cattle when it comes to conventional warfare.

Ummm I believe the phrase is "all turban and no goats"...

[ASUMountaineer]

THe last time they "lashed out militarily" half their fleet ended up on the bottom of the Persian Gulf. I would LOVE for them to attempt something again. We've seen time and time again these Middle Eastern "powers" are all hat, no cattle when it comes to conventional warfare.

Ummm I believe the phrase is "all turban and no goats"...

[Seahawks08]

Yes, there are similarities between Bush and Obama on foreign policy, but the neocons took the American Empire to a new level. Invading and occupying a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 is completely different than what Obama has done. Yes, he used cruise missiles and planes in Libya, but that definitely isn't the same as Iraq.

But I don't want to go on a tirade since I really want to hit on something else. That piece from Krauthammer, while convincing and may even be true, does not lend to what would have to be done to stop Iran from getting a nuke. There is no way of stopping Iran short of regime change. If the U.S. just bombs them with Israel, it would set the program back years, but the program still exists. What are you willing to give in order to change the regime then? That would be more than just airstrikes and could turn into another Iraq situation. Good luck getting reelected!

[ASUG8]

Yes, there are similarities between Bush and Obama on foreign policy, but the neocons took the American Empire to a new level. Invading and occupying a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 is completely different than what Obama has done. Yes, he used cruise missiles and planes in Libya, but that definitely isn't the same as Iraq.

Just remember that even though Bush made the final call as Commander in Chief he had bipartisan support to go after Iraq and Saddam based on intel that the US and Britain had acquired. Also remember that Clinton toward the end of his term was making strong accusations based on intel on his watch that Saddam was developing WMD's so I think it's difficult to make this strictly a Republican problem. I've always believed that we attacked the weakest of the Axis of Evil powers and it turned into a quagmire.

[UNI88]

Yes, there are similarities between Bush and Obama on foreign policy, but the neocons took the American Empire to a new level. Invading and occupying a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 is completely different than what Obama has done. Yes, he used cruise missiles and planes in Libya, but that definitely isn't the same as Iraq.

Just remember that even though Bush made the final call as Commander in Chief he had bipartisan support to go after Iraq and Saddam based on intel that the US and Britain had acquired. Also remember that Clinton toward the end of his term was making strong accusations based on intel on his watch that Saddam was developing WMD's so I think it's difficult to make this strictly a Republican problem. I've always believed that we attacked the weakest of the Axis of Evil powers and it turned into a quagmire.

Seahawk, I am definitely not a fan of the neo-cons so you you can get off of the American Empire soapbox. While there are differences between Obama and Bush on foreign policy, those differences are a matter of a couple of degrees not 180 degrees.
- Did Bush have Congressional approval to invade Iraq? Yes.
- Did Obama have Congressional approval to bomb Libya? No.

Do I think the Bush Administration spun the information they had in order to mislead Congress and get approval? Yes, but that's my opinion not fact. It's not opinion that Obama acted unilaterally.

As usual, I find it humorous & hypocritical that Donks so stridently support Obama's continuation of Dubya's policies.

[Seahawks08]

You're right. Obama should have gotten approval from Congress first. And let's be frank, no one is ever going to be 180 degrees from Bush unless Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Kucinich become president. And even then, once they got in, I still don't think they would completely reverse the equation. So the small degree of difference actually matters nowadays. And I would rather have Obama's foreign policy than Cheney's any day of the week.

[Chizzang]

This has been a solid debate gentlemen.... Both informative and interesting

[kalm]

Now, to get this thread back on track...

For the most part I agree that there really is not much difference between Obushma and Romney. It would take a complete badass to overcome the system and invoke meaningful change. That being said, if Romney loses what will be the cause? Not conservative enough, too conservative of a running mate, he's a Kerry with an R in front of his name, takers are allowed to vote, too many people buy Obama's bullshit?

If he loses, is Rush right that the Republican Party is in serious trouble?

[Chizzang]

Now, to get this thread back on track...

For the most part I agree that there really is not much difference between Obushma and Romney. It would take a complete badass to overcome the system and invoke meaningful change. That being said, if Romney loses what will be the cause? Not conservative enough, too conservative of a running mate, he's a Kerry with an R in front of his name, takers are allowed to vote, too many people buy Obama's bullshit?

If he loses, is Rush right that the Republican Party is in serious trouble?

The Republican is an Urban legend anyway:
Name the last republican to take office and then proceed to spend less than the president he took office from..?

[CID1990]

he's a Kerry with an R in front of his name

Kerry might not be the best comparison.

Kerry matches up better with Anne Romney since they are both Stepford wives.

[Cap'n Cat]

I get so much entertainment from Conks these days it ain't funny!!

[death dealer]

Conservatives 4 Palin??

That's one bloc of uninformed voters that won't be hard to spot.

[Chizzang]

The Republican is an Urban legend anyway:
Name the last republican to take office and then proceed to spend less than the president he took office from..?

Nobody on the RIGHT going to acknowledge this ^ as a fact..? Name one..?
Oh right, It's never actually happened
Thus: Republican = Myth

Just the facts

[kalm]

The Republican is an Urban legend anyway:
Name the last republican to take office and then proceed to spend less than the president he took office from..?

Nobody on the RIGHT going to acknowledge this ^ as a fact..? Name one..?
Oh right, It's never actually happened
Thus: Republican = Myth

Just the facts

Well, in all fairness many of them have been victims of circumstance. Bush II had 9/11, Bush I and Reagan inherited recessions and Democratic controlled congresses, Nixon inherited Viet Nam, Ike inherited Korea, the cold war, and the need to build interstate highways. There's also the population growth to factor in.

There, conks...you're welcome.

(I'm internet right)

[Ivytalk]

Now, to get this thread back on track...

For the most part I agree that there really is not much difference between Obushma and Romney. It would take a complete badass to overcome the system and invoke meaningful change. That being said, if Romney loses what will be the cause? Not conservative enough, too conservative of a running mate, he's a Kerry with an R in front of his name, takers are allowed to vote, too many people buy Obama's bullshit?

If he loses, is Rush right that the Republican Party is in serious trouble?

I just read that pollster Pat Caddell says that Romney is "running the worst campaign in my lifetime." Pat says that Romney essentially has no message, that his staff is totally incompetent, and that he is losing to a very beatable incumbent. I'm coming to agree with that. I thought that Dole's '96 campaign was the worst ever, but Romney's is worse. If Mitt doesn't really impress in the first debate, he's probably toast.

That said, I don't think the GOP is dead. There will always be a conservative party in America, and current party leaders see a need to broaden the base. Plus, the Democrats will always find a way to have a fratricidal fight to keep them from becoming the only major party in the US.

[houndawg]

I don't think anyone wants to be in Afghanistan a day longer than we have to, but it's not the same situation as Iraq. And I think conks should at least give him credit for keeping his word on getting out of there.

Getting out of Iraq is one of the few promises that he kept, but he gets full credit.

He gets credit, but Afghanistan is now Obama's War. He had a perfect opportunity to declare victory and leave when he got bin Laden.

[Chizzang]

Getting out of Iraq is one of the few promises that he kept, but he gets full credit.

He gets credit, but Afghanistan is now Obama's War. He had a perfect opportunity to declare victory and leave when he got bin Laden.

Obama is basically full of shit
These guys all serve the same master - He's not different (militarily speaking) than GW
He says different stuff but does the exact same sh!t
They're all a bunch of pawns to the Military Industrial Complex

[GannonFan]

Now, to get this thread back on track...

For the most part I agree that there really is not much difference between Obushma and Romney. It would take a complete badass to overcome the system and invoke meaningful change. That being said, if Romney loses what will be the cause? Not conservative enough, too conservative of a running mate, he's a Kerry with an R in front of his name, takers are allowed to vote, too many people buy Obama's bullshit?

If he loses, is Rush right that the Republican Party is in serious trouble?

I just read that pollster Pat Caddell says that Romney is "running the worst campaign in my lifetime." Pat says that Romney essentially has no message, that his staff is totally incompetent, and that he is losing to a very beatable incumbent. I'm coming to agree with that. I thought that Dole's '96 campaign was the worst ever, but Romney's is worse. If Mitt doesn't really impress in the first debate, he's probably toast.

That said, I don't think the GOP is dead. There will always be a conservative party in America, and current party leaders see a need to broaden the base. Plus, the Democrats will always find a way to have a fratricidal fight to keep them from becoming the only major party in the US.

Agree with this - Romney is a terrible candidate, and the national Republican party has gone into "shoot self in the foot mode" by letting so many of their whacko elements get so much air time, especially on social issues. And they need to figure out how they can walk back from their destructive stance on immigration. And it will be embarassing for them when they fail to beat Obama who is almost Carter-like in the weakness of his incumbency.

With that said though, Ivy's right, there always will be a conservative party and it will be hard to have this current party be irrrelevant when they will still control one house of Congress and still has a pretty good shot to have all of Congress if they win control of the Senate. The GOP was more irrelevant back in 2009 and early 2010 when the Dems had complete control of everything with their supermajority.

[FargoBison]

Romney was a terrible choice by the GOP, terrible.

He was a terrible choice among a terrible field of possibilities. The GOP needed a fresh face in 2012 and instead all they had to pick from was a bunch of has beens. Romney was the only one that stood a chance, that said maybe it would have been better for the party for one of the fringe candidates like Santorum to have won and then gotten completely embarrassed.

[HI54UNI]

This reminds of 1992. In 1992 all of the big name Dems stayed out because they didn't think Bush 1 was beatable. It gave Clinton the opening he needed.

This time some big Republican candidates like Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie decided to sit it out because they didn't think Obama was beatable. I still don't know if Obama is beatable but I think he is a lot more so than he was 1-2 years ago. They missed their chance.