[phoenix]

so, you're saying the most likely scenario to you is Obama gets assassinated?

It's the scenario that I sincerely hope doesn't happen, but with the sheer number of white-supremacist whackjobs out there, it's a distinct possibility. Of course, if it happens, we're screwed anyway, for a multitude of reasons.

If that DOESN'T happen, Obama will lose his rubber-stamp Congress in 2010 anyway. The Dems are going to squander their opportunity just like the GOP did, because they're too beholding to too many special interest groups as a party. Even if Obama tries to fight it, Pelosi et al. will make sure he knows what side his bread is buttered on, and will pull him left. They won't address enough of the issues that the voters put them in to address, and they'll be out.

If the GOP can get a majority, they need to do what we've been saying here and get back to basics. Give people the ability to help themselves, rather than depending on the government to do it for them. Get government out of the equation; they may even have to go a bit more libertarian than social conservatives want them to, and focus on fiscal issues rather than social ones.

[Realist]

That's exactly how the Republicans win. Though I suspect most on here will not agree, they have to lose most of the social conservative elements (or not talk about them) and focus on the fiscal and defense element. I think the majority of people in this country are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and if they can find candidates that mirror that, then they will win.

[phoenix]

I think it may be time for Christians to admit that we're not going to do away with issues like abortion or gay marriage through political means. We have to do it through Gospel means, and that's going to take a lot longer.

Face it, we've had a pro-life "evangelical" President in office for eight years, and we're no closer to a repeal of Roe v. Wade than we were during the Clinton administration. It's an issue that we hold over the GOP's head when they're in office, and one they hold over our head come election time. Yes, it's a bad ruling, and it should be overturned, but I'm not holding my breath for a Republican administration that has the guts to do something about it.

[LUconn]

That's exactly how the Republicans win. Though I suspect most on here will not agree, they have to lose most of the social conservative elements (or not talk about them) and focus on the fiscal and defense element. I think the majority of people in this country are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and if they can find candidates that mirror that, then they will win.

Were you paying attention this last election? This is exactly who ran. The same amount of people voted this election as did in the last election. However more young people and more african americans voted in this election. Can you figure out who that means stayed home?

[Realist]

McCain somewhat symbolized that type of candidate, but Palin did not. And it came across to everyone that Palin was just to pander to the extreme right, where they probably gained a few votes, but unfortunately lost a ton of the moderates.

The whole everyone hates George Bush thing is the main reason they lost, but they can win in the future if they will bring socially moderate candidates forward. They will also pick up more of the young voters.

[ALUmnus]

That's exactly how the Republicans win. Though I suspect most on here will not agree, they have to lose most of the social conservative elements (or not talk about them) and focus on the fiscal and defense element. I think the majority of people in this country are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and if they can find candidates that mirror that, then they will win.

But that's not what the voting shows. California has been voting for fiscal liberals for years, but voted to define marriage in a conservative way (and this is happening state after state). The only states that have gay marriage/civil unions have done so through the state supreme court, because it won't happen if left up to the voters.

We can't just choose a couple issues and drop the rest. Republicans have shown strength on just one issue in the last 10 years, and that's national defense. That's it! Dropping social issues will be a backhand to the very people who have been keeping the party afloat for years. Republicans don't need to change or drop issues, they need to actually stand for something, convey that, and show strength in doing it.

Roe v. Wade was never going to be overturned during Bush's presidency. The only thing he could possibly do to help the issue is exactly what he did, nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. He can't force the issue. But he also stopped the public funding of abortion domistically and abroad. We really couldn't ask for more form him on that front.

But like phoenix said, many of these things are an issue of the heart, and as Christians that's what we need to focus on, personal evangelism. However, this doesn't mean we give up on how we're governed.

[Baldspot]

Realist's viewpoint is largely held by Republican's in the Northeast (blue blood Republicans) and is being greatly debated at the GOP meetings in FL. I believe those that hold that view conveniently forget that John McCain is the epitome of what they are asking for and yet the Republican's still lost. McCain has been the darling of the blue bloods for years and years.

This election was all about change, which happens every 8-12 years as voters get tired of whomever has been in office. Change was a tough sell when we were stuck with a 72 year old candidate from the past, who handled the October economy bombshell very poorly and the conservatives didn't really like in the first place.

We just need to be ready when Obama makes his rookie mistakes and the tide rolls back in our way.

[4everfsu]

The last social republician in the House Chris Shay from the Northeast was voted out I heard.
Republicians need to be back to being conservatives

[Ed Dantes]

If Palin runs in 12, she won't make it through the primaries. Jindal will eat her lunch. Huckabee won't run again - he's trying to be the populist Jerry Falwell.

I don't think Obama will make it 8 years. He's going to be another JFK -- cut down in the prime of his presidency, idolized by millions, and one of the most ineffective presidents in history. Biden gets to be LBJ -- take the heat for the results of the things Obama sets in motion, and not run for a second term. All the GOP has to do now is find out who Nixon's going to be.

Palin's a lightweight. She got Quayle'd, and she probably won't come back from that.

I love Bobby Jindal, but it's way too early to predict his career path. Four years ago we were talking about Bill Frist and George Allen as presidential front-runners.

Huckabee doesn't stand the chance on the national stage. I really warmed up to him during the primary season, but still, he's not a President (even if I voted for him).

Obama is in the perfect situation. If he screws up, well, its all his predecessor's fault. Look at the Great Depression, unemployment went up during FDR's first two terms, believe it or not. But everyone says Hoover is the bad guy.

I don't think White Supremacists are organized enough to carry out an assassination against Obama. Maybe if they orchestrated it with Islamic terrorists, but I don't see terrorists wanting to kill Obama. I see terrorists taking the Ra's Al Ghul approach by destroying our society economically these days.

And I don't think this country, let alone the GOP, wants another Nixon.

(Pop quiz, ladies and gents! When was the last time the GOP won an election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket?)

A fairer comparison would be Obama to Jimmy Carter. The country was sliding downhill when Carter took office, he made things worse, people turned on him, and elected Reagan.

Of course, Reagan had been around for years. He had name-recognition, a high Q score, was a successful governor, and unsuccessful Presidential candidate four years earlier (in 1976). So saying "who will our Reagan be" is flawed, because we already have to know who the heir apparent is. And we don't.

Unless it's Mitt Romney, but that ain't gonna happen. Same with Jeb Bush.

[TDDance234]

(Pop quiz, ladies and gents! When was the last time the GOP won an election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket?)

Gerald Ford, 1974.

[BJWilliams]

Herbert Hoover 1928? (last time republicans won and there wasnt a Bush or Nixon on the ticket) Gerald Ford wasnt voted into office...he finished Nixon's term after Watergate

[TDDance234]

Duh. Good catch, BJ.

That's staggering to think that a Repub. without a Bush/Nixon hasn't won since 1928.

[ATrain]

But that's not what the voting shows. California has been voting for fiscal liberals for years, but voted to define marriage in a conservative way (and this is happening state after state). The only states that have gay marriage/civil unions have done so through the state supreme court, because it won't happen if left up to the voters.

Actually both Massachusetts and Connecticut defeated constitutional amendments for a gay marriage ban...it started with the court, but residents refused to overturn it.

[Ed Dantes]

But that's not what the voting shows. California has been voting for fiscal liberals for years, but voted to define marriage in a conservative way (and this is happening state after state). The only states that have gay marriage/civil unions have done so through the state supreme court, because it won't happen if left up to the voters.

Actually both Massachusetts and Connecticut defeated constitutional amendments for a gay marriage ban...it started with the court, but residents refused to overturn it.

I don't think its ever been put to a vote in Massachusetts or Connecticut, it was the legislatures who decided after the Courts. I think the only place where a 'marriage is only between one man and one woman' referendum failed was in Arizona.

[ALUmnus]

Here's the electoral results map for this year.

http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg

Is it just me, or are major cities plagued by group-think?

[LUconn]

I love the boarder counties. Yeah, I'm sure no Mexican citizens are voting.

[Ed Dantes]

I'm surprised at how blue Iowa is. I thought for sure they'd be inline with the midwest, but I guess they're getting a lot of Wisconsin / Illinois / Minnesota spillover.

[Sly Fox]

Unions and farmers. Both are Democratic strongholds.

[01LUGrad]

Here's the electoral results map for this year.

http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg

Is it just me, or are major cities plagued by group-think?

I'm moving to Oklahoma.

[mrmacphisto]

Here's the electoral results map for this year.

http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg

Is it just me, or are major cities plagued by group-think?

I'm moving to Oklahoma.

Not worth it.

[JMUDukes]

I think it may be time for Christians to admit that we're not going to do away with issues like abortion or gay marriage through political means. We have to do it through Gospel means, and that's going to take a lot longer.

Face it, we've had a pro-life "evangelical" President in office for eight years, and we're no closer to a repeal of Roe v. Wade than we were during the Clinton administration. It's an issue that we hold over the GOP's head when they're in office, and one they hold over our head come election time. Yes, it's a bad ruling, and it should be overturned, but I'm not holding my breath for a Republican administration that has the guts to do something about it.

sorry, I'm never EVER giving up on the issue of life (which I consider 1000x more important than gay marriage).

[4everfsu]

Agree

[Fumblerooskies]

McCain somewhat symbolized that type of candidate, but Palin did not. And it came across to everyone that Palin was just to pander to the extreme right, where they probably gained a few votes, but unfortunately lost a ton of the moderates.

Great point, Realist...and I got absolutely flamed on here when I was critical of the selection when it first happened. All-in-all, though, NO REPUBLICAN had a snowballs place in Hades given the economy and the Democratic bitterness over the past 8 years. They were able to mobilize their resources much like the GOP did in 2000 and 2004.

[Ed Dantes]

It's one thing to 'give up on life', it's another to re-evaluate the strategy.

Right now, from what I understand, the Christian / Conservative way of solving the issue is:

- Elect a pro-life President
- Hope a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice retires
- Hope President picks a qualified replacement that will side with the pro-life cause
- Hope prospective Justice gets through the Senate confirmation process
- Hope that an abortion decision gets to the court
- Hope that the pro-life Justice hasn't had a change of heart.

Right? *If* all that were to happen, which is doable, but a long-shot, you would wind up having zero fewer abortions. Roe v. Wade would be returned to the states, who would promptly pass laws allowing for abortions. Yes, there will be some restrictions (some states will ban in after certain terms, others would make parental notification laws mandatory, and others will impose waiting periods), but someone determined to have an abortion will ultimately have one, or go to a state that permits them.

Maybe, as Christians, we need to stop relying on these Hail Mary passes and start reaching out to people in need, and helping them out before they get to the point where they need an abortion.

By the way, two other points:
#1 - During Clinton's term, abortions declined 18 percent. During Bush's, they went down 9 percent. Explain.
#2 - To say 'life is the trump card of issues', the country with the lowest abortion rate is Saudi Arabia. Do you think we should be more like Saudi Arabia? Or are there other issues at stake, such as 'freedom'?

[Fumblerooskies]

I certainly understand the pro-life issue...and I agree whole-hearted. However...to put all the eggs in that one basket is simply NOT going to work any longer. I have no personal illusions that Roe v Wade will ever be over-turned...that boat has long since sailed. The only way I see things changing is for the Dems to fail over the next 4-8 years as bad as the Bush admin did the last 4...and to find a vibrant and unifying candidate as the Dems did. Out of the currently known crop...to me that means either Romney or Huckabee.
(Disclaimer...I know very little about EITHER of their two agendas and am just going on name recognition).