***Is state GOP out of touch w. voters?

quote:

Originally posted by gracies old man:
http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...0719848/0/ELECTION04

The writer, Mr. Ellington, doesn't even mention the effect of crossover voting, which was a large point of contention, prior to the race.
Dems wanted and went to the polls to make sure Bentley won, for 3 reasons: He is less conservative, he is less of a threat to the AEA and he was seen as easier for Sparks to beat, by some.

Amazing that the writer left out that important little tidbit. I guess it didn't fit his agenda.

Gotta disagree to some extent.
1. I wouldn't say Bentley is "less conservative" but "less radical but plenty conservative." In fact, Dr. Bentley has been a Republican his entire life. Bradley Byrne used to be a Democrat who took lots of money from AEA.

2. Dr. Bentley didn't make attacking AEA the cornerstone of his campaign; Bradley Byrne did. In fact, he threw the first punch at his announcement to run for governor. He put AEA on the defensive from the very beginning. Bentley showed a willingness to work with opposing sides; Byrne didn't. People are tired of the gridlock in Montgomery, and Byrne would have definitely brought more of that.

3. I don't think Dems see Bentley as "easier for Sparks to beat." I think Dems are realistic enough to know that it will be an uphill battle for Commissioner Sparks no matter who the GOP nominee is/was. If Dems must accept a Republican governor (as they likely will), they'd rather have a good, honest man like Dr. Bentley than someone who is going to be a radical idealogue like Bradley Byrne who would be focused only on tearing down AEA the entire four years instead of governing.

That's my take.

My take is:

1) you don't work with Dems, you defeat them!

2) Dems made it the cornerstone of his candidacy, because of what he did, as an appointee of Rileys

quote:

Originally posted by gracies old man:
My take is:

1) you don't work with Dems, you defeat them!

2) Dems made it the cornerstone of his candidacy, because of what he did, as an appointee of Rileys

In any case, Sparks has shown himself to be the biggest advocate for gambling since Don Siegelman, and even more a pro-gambling candidate than Siegleman was. Siegelman pushed for a lottery. From what Sparks has been saying, he would be heartily in favor of the Las Vegasing of Alabama!

Sorry but Byrne has no one to blame but himself. He was the front runner from the start of the race. He had the money, the organization and should have won the nomination handily.

He ran a lousy campaign, picked a public fight with AEA and he lost.

Part of what hurt him I believe is a weariness of the Riley/Hubbard faction of the GOP. I like Gov. Riley and voted for him but lately he comes off as condescending and out of touch. Byrne was perceived as Riley 2.0.

quote:

Originally posted by gracies old man:
My take is:

1) you don't work with Dems, you defeat them!

2) Dems made it the cornerstone of his candidacy, because of what he did, as an appointee of Rileys

Gracie,
I didn't say "work with Dems." I said work with opposing sides. Bentley was the best Republican candidate to bring together people from both parties to get things done in Montgomery despite people with your attitude of "defeat the Democrats" at whatever cost.

It's funny. In an earlier post on another blog, you said, "I am a conservative, not a Republican. I vote for the best person in any given race. That person is never the Dem." You went on later to say you weren't "closed minded." Your radical comments do not support your claim to be open minded.

To answer the question:
"***Is state GOP out of touch w. voters?"


Yes.
Also they are out of touch on the national level.

So are the Democrats.
The only people either party 'represents' any more are themselves.
we are now a naton of the government, by the government, for the government.

think not? then explain why the guy who clearly got the most votes from 'the people' still lost the election.
i didn't like al gore, and i am glad he wasn't president, but i still think that this was a glowing example of how screwed up our system is.

We the people, my fluffy white fanny.

quote:

Originally posted by thenagel:
To answer the question:
"***Is state GOP out of touch w. voters?"


Yes.
Also they are out of touch on the national level.

So are the Democrats.
The only people either party 'represents' any more are themselves.
we are now a naton of the government, by the government, for the government.

think not? then explain why the guy who clearly got the most votes from 'the people' still lost the election.
i didn't like al gore, and i am glad he wasn't president, but i still think that this was a glowing example of how screwed up our system is.

We the people, my fluffy white fanny.

I wholeheartedly agree. The GOP IS out of touch because they they have bought into the lie that what ever is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street.
Capitalism in America has become predatory, completely self absorbed in huge profits, and lost it's loyalty to the flag of the nation.
I am not a socialist, but I understand that this kind of capitalism is just as bad as socialism. Both create misery for all with a select group of ruling elite. In the final analysis, you get socialism verses fascism.

quote:

Originally posted by tigrtrek:
Sorry but Byrne has no one to blame but himself. He was the front runner from the start of the race. He had the money, the organization and should have won the nomination handily.

He ran a lousy campaign, picked a public fight with AEA and he lost.

Part of what hurt him I believe is a weariness of the Riley/Hubbard faction of the GOP. I like Gov. Riley and voted for him but lately he comes off as condescending and out of touch. Byrne was perceived as Riley 2.0.

Thank you. Politicians that think they can run as "Riley's guy"(see Luther Strange in 2006) are giving his approval ratings way too much credit. Most of us conservatives still remember his BS attempt at a tax increase. We also voted for him in 2006 because we had no decent(or half-decent) alternative. When asked whether or not we "approve" of his job performance, most of us say "yes." He's done a reasonably good job, and we don't hate him. However, very few of us are in love with him either.

Buying into the hype that he's the most popular governor in history and should run for president is just silly(well, maybe he's the most popular governor in recent history, but saying someone is the most popular governor in the past 25 years is like saying a movie is the best Jennifer Lopez movie in the past 25 years...even the best sucks).

quote:

Originally posted by thenagel:
To answer the question:
"***Is state GOP out of touch w. voters?"


Yes.
Also they are out of touch on the national level.

So are the Democrats.
The only people either party 'represents' any more are themselves.
we are now a naton of the government, by the government, for the government.

think not? then explain why the guy who clearly got the most votes from 'the people' still lost the election.
i didn't like al gore, and i am glad he wasn't president, but i still think that this was a glowing example of how screwed up our system is.

We the people, my fluffy white fanny.

The electoral system actually protects smaller states with fewer people and gives US, yes us, a voice. Without the electoral college system, candidates would not give small states the time of day. They would only focus on campaigning in large states with lots of people (i.e. the coastal and most liberal states). Take a look at the electoral map from 2000 and see how many states Al Gore actually won. Yes, he got more votes but George W. Bush, by far, won the most states. The map is much more red (GOP) than blue. And for a little icing on the cake...Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. If he'd won his home state, he would have been president. There is a lot to be said about a person who cannot win their hometown or home state. Just food for thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Jelb87:

quote:

Originally posted by thenagel:
To answer the question:
"***Is state GOP out of touch w. voters?"


Yes.
Also they are out of touch on the national level.

So are the Democrats.
The only people either party 'represents' any more are themselves.
we are now a naton of the government, by the government, for the government.

think not? then explain why the guy who clearly got the most votes from 'the people' still lost the election.
i didn't like al gore, and i am glad he wasn't president, but i still think that this was a glowing example of how screwed up our system is.

We the people, my fluffy white fanny.

The electoral system actually protects smaller states with fewer people and gives US, yes us, a voice. Without the electoral college system, candidates would not give small states the time of day. They would only focus on campaigning in large states with lots of people (i.e. the coastal and most liberal states). Take a look at the electoral map from 2000 and see how many states Al Gore actually won. Yes, he got more votes but George W. Bush, by far, won the most states. The map is much more red (GOP) than blue. And for a little icing on the cake...Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. If he'd won his home state, he would have been president. There is a lot to be said about a person who cannot win their hometown or home state. Just food for thought.

One thing that the state could do, and should do as well as a lot of other states, is not have a "winner take all" with the electoral votes. For one thing, it deprives the state of visits from politicians when they are running. States like Alabama and Mississippi are a given for the Republican party which means they are taken for graned .
However, if you look at the actual voting you will find that the vote (in the case of 2000) was closer to 51% R to 48% D. If the electoral delegates were awarded on that percent, both Alabama and Ms would be more purple than red.
California Republicans have been trying to do that in that state, as the reverse is true out there with the state being mostly a given toward the Democrats.
I have no idea which way the 2000 election , or for that part any other election , would have turned out, but I think that the total vote or electors would be a more accurate representation of the will of the overall people.

quote:

Originally posted by gracies old man:
My take is:

1) you don't work with Dems, you defeat them!

2) Dems made it the cornerstone of his candidacy, because of what he did, as an appointee of Rileys

Working with the opposing party is part of how government works. Maybe you don't get that concept?

quote:

Originally posted by Jelb87:


The electoral system actually protects smaller states with fewer people and gives US, yes us, a voice. Without the electoral college system, candidates would not give small states the time of day. They would only focus on campaigning in large states with lots of people (i.e. the coastal and most liberal states). Take a look at the electoral map from 2000 and see how many states Al Gore actually won. Yes, he got more votes but George W. Bush, by far, won the most states. The map is much more red (GOP) than blue. And for a little icing on the cake...Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. If he'd won his home state, he would have been president. There is a lot to be said about a person who cannot win their hometown or home state. Just food for thought.

Oh .. i understand the electoral thing, i really do.
regardless of that, the number of states shouldn't matter. the whole idea is who the majority of the citizens want to lead us, while the electoral collage changes it to who can control the largest square mileage and negates the popular vote.

who cares where the go on their campaign tours? the people that go to see canididate A are the people who are already going to vote for them, OR the people who hate them and want to disrupt the rally.

ya know.. .it's an odd position to be in for me.

It's hard to disapprove of the method when the method gave me the results i wanted, and prevented the one i didn't.
/shrug.

and yes, Al loseing TN amused me greatly.

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:

quote:

Originally posted by gracies old man:
My take is:

1) you don't work with Dems, you defeat them!

2) Dems made it the cornerstone of his candidacy, because of what he did, as an appointee of Rileys

Working with the opposing party is part of how government works. Maybe you don't get that concept?

He listens to too much Fox and Rush. Completely brainwashed . No hope !

How can you possibly work w/ a party that wants to takeover private businesses, pass "Cap and Trade" bills that will drive up real costs for the consumer, i.e. taxes, utilities, transportation, etc.

If that isn't bad enough they want to tell us what we can eat, control our medical records and put them online, (that is going to create even more problems when it comes to identity theft, for starters), and rationing of healthcare, (and remember, we had to "pass the bill to see what's in it". It seems that federal funding of abortions was one of the things that was "in it".

They criticize an immigration bill and then admit they haven't even read the *%@# thing. They sue Arizona for preempting federal law, but ignore so called "sanctuary cities" that do the same thing. They refer to taxes as contributions and terrorism as "man caused disasters".

They pass a stimulus bill that didn't work and helped out the very people who they blamed for the mess, (other than Bush).

The illustrious VP, Biden, is referring to a "summer of recovery", where we are losing jobs at a record pace. They said if we hurried up and passed the stimulus bill, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. WRONG!

They deny American exceptionalism.

The Prez ran his campaign on Bush mishandling Katrina, and then makes him look good, comparitively, on his bungling the BP oil spill situation and on closing GITMO. (It's still in operation). They have tried to make the oil spill an opportunity to promote their "Green Energy, Climate Change" nonsense. He also stated in his campaign that there would be no lobbyists in his administration. WRONG AGAIN!

They were going to make us loved around the world. Instead the world now laughs, scoffs, rebukes and chastises this country. He was going to be post racial. ALSO WRONG AGAIN!

There are just a few reasons NOT to work w/ Dems.

More to come later, I'm positive.

PS, and when did Dems ever compromise? Their idea of compromise is the other side giving in to their agenda.

GOM, Thanks for proving my point.

The ONLY point proven is the point on your head, meaning you must be a pinhead.

Stop trying to be cute and answer the question. Throwing out insults and quips is meaningless.

I gave and number of reasons why "the other side" can't be dealt with or trusted to do what's best for the country. All of those points can be substantiated.

ANSWER THE QUESTION

quote:

Originally posted by Caduceus:

quote:

Originally posted by gracies old man:
My take is:

1) you don't work with Dems, you defeat them!

2) Dems made it the cornerstone of his candidacy, because of what he did, as an appointee of Rileys

Working with the opposing party is part of how government works. Maybe you don't get that concept?

Perhaps you should go mention that on capitol hill, because those people certainly don't get it.

The best thing he can do is agree to help scrap this mess of a Constitution, remove the power from Montgomery and give the people the power in this state.

I thought Repubs were for less gov anyway.