A fairly recent (May) Gallup Poll shows that since 2001 the GOP has lost ground in nearly EVERY demographic group in America. The greatest loss was in those who had post-graduate degrees (13%); the least decline came from those who identified themselves as conservatives or senior citizens. The only group they held(but did not increase)support from was frequent church-goers.
Now, considering the facts that caucasions will cease to be the dominant ethnic group by 2042 (8 years sooner than expected) and that a higher percentage of minority groups vote than whites, that the female population (who are more likely to vote for a democrat) is increasing more rapidly then the male population, and the GOP supporting senior citizens will gradually die off, the future doesn't look too rosey for the Grand Old Party unless they make some significant changes to their platform.
It's possible that the Republican party could go the way of the Whigs. I wouldn't be surprised if the Libertarian party replaces them in 10 years.
By 2042, the fat cats who control the GOP and manipulate the uneducated masses, most of whom comrpise their conservative Evangelical base, will pretty much own EVERYTHING, so there will be no more need for a political party, because it will have devolved back into a modern form of a Feudal society, with corporate oiligarchs (sic) replacing the Feudal lords.
And odious bottom feeders like those on conservative right wing talk radio will be the court jesters.
I would bet anything that more than half are Democrats.
....now stands for Good ‘Ol Partisans.
The RushBeckians offer no new ideas, or real leadership (thank God for that) yet, & does not resemble the Grand Old Party of Reagan, Goldwater, Eisenhower, TR.
Wish the Republican Party would purge the half- wit RushBeckian T-Baggers out of the Party or leave them to themselves & start a new Republican Party based on the past GOP principles of old for a viable and healthy 2 party system leaving the RushBeckian Party as the marginalized, dysfunctional, paranoid group it is.
Where have you gone Joe DiRepublican our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you... woo woo woo...
is not going to be understood by nuts because it is not manipulated by ideology.
Actually, Bill Clinton said that the future belongs to the progressives.
Understand many dislike Bill Clinton but he is one bright man. You don't become Rhodes Scholar by being a dummy especially considering how poor he was while growing up in Arkansas.
His personal character was clearly his biggest weakness. You can't lead the strongest nation in the world if you behave like a spoiled, rich fraternity boy that can get any piece of ass you want. At least not in this generation of 24-hour news.
Had he kept it in his pants, my guess is that Clinton would be one of the more highly respected former Presidents. As it is, he remains generally well-liked but even his most ardent supporters cringe a little when they think of "what might have been."
This country is obsessed with sex.
Lead quite well and successfully??? Just what did he do?
The country may like sex but no one was or is more obsessed about it than President Clinton. Nothing wrong with that. He just wasn't smart enough to hide it.
For starters:
Under President Clinton's leadership, almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years of his Administration -- an average of 250,000 new jobs every month.
In 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.
As part of the 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.
President Clinton signed into law the largest deficit reduction plan in history, resulting in over $600 billion in deficit reduction. The deficit is going down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.
President Clinton cut the federal bureaucracy by more than 100,000 positions. And, he reduced the White House staff by 25 percent.
And when he left office, the country had a budget surplus in the trillions, and even after being impeached had an approval rating of 66%, the highest since WWII
This guy was the conservatives worst nightmare... he was a Rhodes Scholar, he got things done, and the people loved him. The conservatives tried to get him on Whitewater, the "Travelgate" scandal, and even tried to imply that he had something to do with the death of Vince Foster and nothing worked. So they got him for lying to Congress about getting a blowjob. And STILL, if there weren't term limits on the presidency, he'd have been re-elected.
For more, click the link:
-- Modified on 10/11/2009 3:46:06 PM
did nothing as Osama bin Laden and his followers plotted the execution of the most destructive attack ever on the continental U.S. He had bin Laden's head offered to him and turned it down.
The economy, jobs and everything else you mentioned will always find ways to go up and down, regardles of who the President is and what he/she does. America's safety is the No. 1 job of any President.
And in this area, he failed miserably.
Clinton ordered a cruise missle attack on a reported Osama base - Unlike Bush, he actually tried to KILL bin Laden. Unfotunately he missed. Then he was excoriated by the conservatives for his efforts as a "Wag the Dog" technique to divert his personal problems with Congress.
Then Richard Clarke, Clinton's terrorism advisor tried to warn Bush's administration about bin Laden:
Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in Condaleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[6] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice. Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.[7]
In his memoir, "Against All Enemies", Clarke wrote that when he first briefed Rice on Al-Qaeda, in a January 2001 meeting, "her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before." He also stated that Rice made a decision that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism should be downgraded. By demoting the office, the Administration sent a signal through the national security bureaucracy about the salience they assigned to terrorism. No longer would Clarke's memos go to the President; instead they had to pass though a chain of command of National Security Advisor Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, who bounced every one of them back.
"Within a week of the inauguration, I wrote to Rice and Hadley asking 'urgently' for a Principals, or Cabinet-level, meeting to review the imminent Al-Qaeda threat. Rice told me that the Principals Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions in the Clinton administration, would not address the issue until it had been 'framed' by the Deputies."[8]
At the first Deputies Committee meeting on Terrorism held in April 2001, Clark strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden." Clark replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed "an immediate and serious threat to the United States." According to Clark, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." [9]
At a July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS, Clarke stated that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, a three-star general who was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration and stayed on into the Bush administration, wrote Hadley a classified two-page memo stating that the NSA needed to "pay attention to Al-Qaida and counterterrorism" and that the U.S. would be "struck again." As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings.
On August 6, 2001, Clarke finally delivered a Daily Briefing Memo to President Bush entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States", five weeks before the attacks. It featured information about ongoing Al-Qaeda activities within the United States, signs of a terror support network, indications of hijacking preparations and plans for domestic attacks using explosives.[10]
[edit] 9/11 Commission
Richard A. ClarkeOn March 24, 2004, Clarke testified at the public 9/11 Commission hearings.[11] At the outset of his testimony Clarke offered an apology to the families of 9/11 victims and an acknowledgment that the government had failed: "I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11...", "To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in this room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."[11] Clarke was the only member of the Clinton or Bush Administrations who provided an apology to the family members of victims along with an acknowledgement of the government's failure.
Many of the events Clarke recounted during the hearings were also published in his memoir. Among his highly critical statements regarding the Bush Administration, Clarke charged that before and during the 9/11 crisis, many in the administration were distracted from efforts against Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization by a pre-occupation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit".[12] After initially denying that such a meeting between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.[13][14]
Prior to the 9/11 Commission portions of the Clarke's August 6 Daily Briefing Memo to President Bush were subsequently redacted by The White House for national security reasons. Despite the title of the memo, in response to aggressive questioning from Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the 9/11 Commission, Rice stated that the document "did not warn of attacks inside the United States." Clarke then asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues, and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. No principals committee meetings on Al-Qaida were held until September 4, 2001.[15]
In a late November truthout interview, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal said, "Clark urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of Al-Qaeda.. the Bush administration is trying to withhold documents from the 9/11 bipartisan commission. I believe one of the things that they do not want to be known is what happened on August 6, 2001. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told (Clarke) that he didn't want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible... The public has a right to know what happened on August 6, what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke's memos and statements were."[16]
Former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, the only member of the 9/11 Commission to read the President's Daily Brief, revealed in the hearings that the documents "would set your hair on fire" and that the intelligence warnings of al-Qaida attacks "plateaued at a spike level for months" before 9/11.[17]
The demographic changes you list not only spell the death of the Republican Party but the United States as we know it. The population of the US will become a bunch of Katrina victims or like the people in Detroit waiting on getting Obama money last week. The left will be happy when the majority of the population is dependent on Government for survival. The ideas our founders will die out and America will become another 3rd world country with constant warfare between the blacks and hispanics. I know this sounds good to those of you on the left because it will make you feel good to take stuff from one group of citizens to give to another group but it will only degrade our culture and society even more. (Not so sure about you're statement about the male/female stats. Is this caused by "global warming"?)
Why don't we copy Mayanmar, N. Korea and shut the borders, pull away from rest of the world.
You need to look at the contribution of the immigrant population. Just look at the Noble Prize winners for Chemistry and Physics, all were immigrants.
Look at the new businesses started in past 20 years and jobs created.
I agree that the GOP will keep decreasing in popularity and strength as long as they continue down the path of mimicking Democrats. Granted that during the GBW years it mostly manifested itself as out of control spending and some fringe but higher than normal corruption.
The heart of the country has been and still is strongly right of center. It’s also clear that the prime short term mover of shifts is always economic issues.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/03/liberal_think_tank_discovers_t.cfm#
There is a short term health issue for the GOP and long term ones. Demagoguing the right wing in order to facilitate a shift to the left may seem beneficial to those on the left that are doing so in an attempt increase their own power, but in the long run having two parties on the left is nuts and not healthy for the country.
To predict the long term health of the GOP based primarily on racial demographics is simplistic. Roman Catholicism is very strong in the Hispanic community, as well as the importance of family bonds. Have you noticed the recent influence the Catholic church is attempting on Democrat health care reform?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/breaking-catholic-bishops-on-health-care-change-bills-or-else.html
Economic issues will continue to hold and sway their interests. The Dems will continue to attempt to convince as many of them as possible that they need to turn to the government as their primary ”care giver” as possible. Unfortunately the Dems have decades of success in doing this to the black community. I sincerely doubt it will ever approach the 90% rate of blacks. Only time will tell if 50% of the Hispanic will follow suit. It will certainly depend on the alternatives offered to the Dem plan.
do nothing". I will continue to do my part as a conservative. The Bible is very clear that in the end 'all that was once considered good will be considered evil'. The reverse also stands out as well.
They are wounded but far from dead.
The GOP has gotten in trouble because they allowed the far right wing to control the party.
Most Americans are in the middle of the political spectrum. So as the GOP moved farther and farther to the right, moderates left the party.
But the Republican Party is reassessing their positions and I would expect in a few election cycles we will be seeing an image of a new moderate Republican Party.
The Republican Party is not dead. It's just in a "down" cycle. Politics is one of the most cyclical animals in the world.
It wasn't too many years ago that the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate and were in the midst of a two-term presidency. The Democrats were in disarray. Commentators on TV were saying that the Dems lacked direction and lacked a real leader. Things were so bad that Howard Dean was their frontrunner for the nomination until they woke up and realized that an idiot like Dean could not win more than his own state (if he was lucky.)
So, just a few years later, a young, charismatic Democrat emerges and the cycle is now in favor of that party.
There will be another Republican step forward. It always happens. History will tell you that.
hadn’t taken over and forced that extreme ring wing candidate John McCain down everyone’s throat.
Look, I'm liberal but I'm not extreme left liberal. The last line of my post was "...unless they make some significant changes to their platform".
There was a time in congress where republicans and democrats battled it out on the floor, and went out for drinks together afterwards. Compromise was the key to getting things done, and usually in the best interest of the COUNTRY, not the individual parties.
It's revealing that many moderate conservatives are called by their more radical conservatives "RINO's" (Republican In Name Only), indicating that their less radical ideals are counter to the conservative base.
True conservatives and republican need to distance themselves from the haters and nay-sayers. Only then will they have a chance to remain viable.
to compromise and have drinks afterwards was none other than President Reagan. For being known as the ultra-conservative, he worked harder at finding consensus than any President in my lifetime.
We need someone like him again. Desperately.
Reagan wasn't nearly as conservative as people remember him as. He also wasn't as good a president as people remember his as, but I'll grant you that he was probably the best republican president since Eisenhower.
Reagan was the best leader this country has had since Roosevelt. Hands down.