For U.S. repubs>> Who is the leader of the party right now?

[awake]

I was going to set this up as a poll but polls have been disabled.


I'm thinking to keep things reasonable can we agree to these folks:

Reince Priebus[/font]
John Boehner[/font]
Mitch McConnell[/font]
Ted Cruz[/font]
Paul Ryan[/font]
Rand Paul[/font]
Rush Limbaugh[/font]

I'd prefer just to hear from people who identify themselves as republican.  Thanks.

[/font][/size]

[NowhereInTime]

I guess the rules me out. 

(It's Rand Paul...)

[Marc.Knight]

I guess the rules me out. 

(It's Rand Paul...)

If Rand Paul is the leader of the Republican party then get ready for 8 solid years of Hillary Clinton in the White House.  The country is being gutted from the inside out by Democrats because the Republicans can't field anyone but tried and true flakes such as Paul.  Isn't there anyone "on the conservative side" who has half a brain, can actually speak in meaningful paragraphs, and isn't driven by extreme agendas?  The silence is deafening.

[DanTSX]

Koch brothers
Sarah Palin
LL Cool J

[MV/Liberace!]

the party is being run by john mccain.  perhaps not directly, but in spirit.  weak, believe-nothing elitists are apparently convinced the way forward is to be just like democrats but to do it a little less aggressively.  frankly, i think the party is fucked if it DOESN'T support a rand paul.  if you think he's such shit, i'd like to know who you think the proper alternative is.

[DanTSX]

the party is being run by john mccain.  perhaps not directly, but in spirit.  weak, believe-nothing elitists are apparently convinced the way forward is to be just like democrats but to do it a little less aggressively.  frankly, i think the party is fucked if it DOESN'T support a rand paul.  if you think he's such shit, i'd like to know who you think the proper alternative is.

Unfortunately, it is not so much up to us.

[MV/Liberace!]

Unfortunately, it is not so much up to us.

there's also that.

[Sambo]

i'd like to know who you think the proper [republican] is.

Yea how do you go about starting an opinion poll and not qualifying your own? You even want only republicans to respond. Why then would you hold back?

[awake]

Yea how do you go about starting an opinion poll and not qualifying your own? You even want only republicans to respond. Why then would you hold back?

Sorry, I'm a liberal so I didn't think I was qualified to answer the question.  But I'm interested because I cannot discern from the outside who republicans (as a whole) view as a party leader.  When I look at the republicans from the outside I see two parties (the country club republicans and a group I see as anarchists).  Obviously, I cannot step outside of my mindset so I asked others.  I hope this helps.


I do agree that the Citizen's United ruling has allowed people like the Koch's to hijack the system.

[DanTSX]

Sorry, I'm a liberal so I didn't think I was qualified to answer the question.  But I'm interested because I cannot discern from the outside who republicans (as a whole) view as a party leader.  When I look at the republicans from the outside I see two parties (the country club republicans and a group I see as anarchists).  Obviously, I cannot step outside of my mindset so I asked others.  I hope this helps.


I do agree that the Citizen's United ruling has allowed people like the Koch's to hijack the system.

I wouldn't use the term anarchists, but the new guys not playing by the traditional rules are appealing only because the country club guys have let the base down so much over the past 10 years.  Then they blame us for enabling the likes of Ron Paul and Rubio when we can't distinguish Boehner or McCain from Pelozi or Barney Frank from ideology or action.

The party isn't really fractured.  They just can't see the light emanating from within.

There is room in the middle, but the country club guys keep beating down anyone trying to reach out.  They completely miss out.  That is exactly where Obama came from on the Deomocrat side

[Marc.Knight]

Rand Paul may be saying the right things for conservative ears but he does not appeal to enough of the population to be a viable candidate.  We need someone with charisma, intelligence, experience and presidential "stature" if we want a winning candidate.  As I said, the silence is deafening.

[Marc.Knight]

An ounce of his energy and vision would make the Republican party viable again.  It really is worth watching this video all the way through.


Republican National Convention: President Reagan's Address at the 1992 RNC - 8/17/92

[FightTheFuture]

I wouldn't use the term anarchists, but the new guys not playing by the traditional rules are appealing only because the country club guys have let the base down so much over the past 10 years.  Then they blame us for enabling the likes of Ron Paul and Rubio when we can't distinguish Boehner or McCain from Pelozi or Barney Frank from ideology or action.

The party isn't really fractured.  They just can't see the light emanating from within.

There is room in the middle, but the country club guys keep beating down anyone trying to reach out.  They completely miss out.  That is exactly where Obama came from on the Deomocrat side

I've seen it worse. Who could forget the 70' s?  Of course, we also know that the tumult of that era paved the way for the great,  Ronald Regan.

The GOP is  going through a very natural, cyclical shake-up.  I suspect, the cream will rise just in time for  primary season 2015. Furthermore, do not be surprised if it's someone not presently on the radar screen

[DanTSX]

I've seen it worse. Who could forget the 70' s?  Of course, we also know that the tumult of that era paved the way for the great,  Ronald Regan.

The GOP is  going through a very natural, cyclical shake-up.  I suspect, the cream will rise just in time for  primary season 2015. Furthermore, do not be surprised if it's someone not presently on the radar screen

That will all be fine with me

[awake]

An ounce of his energy and vision would make the Republican party viable again.  It really is worth watching this video all the way through.


Republican National Convention: President Reagan's Address at the 1992 RNC - 8/17/92

See, this is something which always confuses me as a liberal.  Reagan raised taxes (largest tax increase in history at the time), crushed the budget, increased the size of government, was a HUGE spender (deficit was like tripled if I remember correctly), sold weapons to fucking Iran (high crimes and misdemeanors?) to give money to the Contras (high crimes and misdemeanors?).  He did all of this.  He also worked with Tip O'Neill to strengthen Social Security and signed a gun law.


So I get the idea that he was a good orator but in the current republican environment you really think Reagan would have the message that would resonate with the energized portion of the party?  I just do not see it, not in the current climate of party.  Again, I'm waaaaaay outside of the republican mindset regarding government but I would really like some feedback on how a Reagan or Nixon or Bush I would appeal to the current party.

[awake]

I'm looking through the thread and I'm sort of surprised that no one who has replied indicated any of the current "leaders" in either the house or the senate.  I thought certainly that there would be some mainstream folks who would do so or even the head of the RNC.  I see you guys (?) mentioning that you don't see the current schism in the party as being no big deal but I disagree.  From the outside I think the current rules on raising money, anonymous money, crazy districting, 24 hour news and superPACs makes this a unique situation in the history of our politics.   


I'm not happy about it because it creates dysfunction which hurts the US globally but I do think it is real.

[Marc.Knight]

See, this is something which always confuses me as a liberal.  Reagan raised taxes (largest tax increase in history at the time), crushed the budget, increased the size of government, was a HUGE spender (deficit was like tripled if I remember correctly), sold weapons to fucking Iran (high crimes and misdemeanors?) to give money to the Contras (high crimes and misdemeanors?).  He did all of this.  He also worked with Tip O'Neill to strengthen Social Security and signed a gun law.


So I get the idea that he was a good orator but in the current republican environment you really think Reagan would have the message that would resonate with the energized portion of the party?  I just do not see it, not in the current climate of party.  Again, I'm waaaaaay outside of the republican mindset regarding government but I would really like some feedback on how a Reagan or Nixon or Bush I would appeal to the current party.

His enthusiasm and vision for the country can be emulated for a long time to come, by both Democrats and Republicans.  His political message was grounded in his time and place in history.  We need a man or woman to provide leadership that highlights the country's greatness as well as its shortcomings.

[Yorkshire pud]

His enthusiasm and vision for the country can be emulated for a long time to come, by both Democrats and Republicans.  His political message was grounded in his time and place in history.  We need a man or woman to provide leadership that highlights the country's greatness as well as its shortcomings.

The previous couple of weeks on the BBC has been a two part series about the cold war. It started with Stalin, Churchill and FDR right up to perestroika  glasnost and  the fall of the Berlin wall. Gorbachev was a brilliant politician and played it well. He knew that the USSR couldn't carry on, it was spending nearly half of it's GDP on defence and couldn't hope to keep up the proliferation. Reagan and Thatcher were taking any opportunity to tell anyone who would listen of the "evil of communism". What neither of them mentioned (for patently obvious reasons) was that US and UK submarines regularly invaded Soviet waters! The ex sailors said in the programme they didn't identify with being evil, as they were not the aggressors in the submarine (cold) war...that was to change somewhat.

The Soviets sent five ICBM subs in formation down to south of the bay of Biscay, before moving west across the Sargasso sea. They lay there without NATO knowing they were there, although they knew they'd moved west from their original position. These five subs (NATO only detected four) from their final position could have destroyed all of the USA and Canada. One such sub was trailed from an exercise in the Barents sea by a US attack sub to the North pole. The US sub didn't have charts, but the Soviets did, they'd spent years mapping the floor up there. They knew it so well they hid between the troughs in the ice sheets. The US sub lost them and waited to detect them, but couldn't for weeks. Then they heard the Soviet sub crashing up through the ice, where it sat before it launched a test missile..Fully armed it carried 20 missiles, each with ten warheads. From this position and alone, this sub could have obliterated every major city in the USA...The US captain was truly ballsy and followed them back to their port in the Berants sea; this is where it got lively and they were pinged by a Soviet attack sub facing them but in front of the ICBM sub they were trailing. They sent a sonar signal that indicated they were ready to torpedo them. The Captain had no choice and went loud to get their ass out of there.

With such as this and other incidents, Gorbachev sent a clear message. "Don't attack us, we can retaliate and we will succeed"..Reagan and Thatcher had very little choice but to tacitly help Gorbachev reform things in his country. After all, the public saw a sharp suited guy with a fairly glamorous wife who wasn't like the old guard. He smiled a lot, shook hands, and had a western type attitude to commerce. He was everybody's hero; So why would the western leaders try and bring him down?

Reagan wasn't that a great political leader, he made great misjudgments (or rather if he wasn't directly involved, had several instances of being grossly miss-advised)..But notably his secretary of State (Haig I think?) put his neck on the line when he told Thatcher our RAF and Navy could use Ascension Island as a staging post when they attacked the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. There's a funny story in that whole thing because the Soviets placed a submarine in place and told the British ambassador in DC when the Argentines had reported a submerged British sub. At the time the British sub they thought they'd detected was only half way there! But it was enough to scare the shit out of the Argentine navy.

[West of the Rockies]

Self-avowed lib here, so my opinion may be invalid, but I think Ted Cruz seems to be the poster boy of the party now.  Christie was at one time the once-and-future king, but he seems to have eroded any good will the far-right may have held for him (though perhaps more moderate conservatives -- if such there be -- find him acceptable).

During the shutdown, Cruz was clearly "the man"... over and over I would hear a newscaster say that the shutdown was hurting the Republican party, but somehow not hurting Cruz himself.  I agree with those, however, who argue he is much too far to the right to be a legitimate candidate anytime soon (including in '16).  Ditto for Rand.

Honestly, I think that Limbaugh is probably the true voice of the party now, but he clearly has no interest in office and is no young gun anymore.  (Speaking of "young guns", it would appear that Cantor has been revealed to be a third-drawer politician.)

[aldousburbank]

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, but which one?

[awake]

His enthusiasm and vision for the country can be emulated for a long time to come, by both Democrats and Republicans.  His political message was grounded in his time and place in history.  We need a man or woman to provide leadership that highlights the country's greatness as well as its shortcomings.

So would the message be secondary to the personality?

[aldousburbank]

Yeah, but which one?

The funny looking one

[Yorkshire pud]

So would the message be secondary to the personality?

Beards and dyed hair...never trust a man with either. Even worse if both.

[Marc.Knight]

Yeah, but which one?

The weirdo taking the picture.

[West of the Rockies]

I don't see Paul Ryan catching fire...  Okay, I know I don't like the guy's politics, so that undoubtedly colors my take on him, but his style of speaking, while articulate, just sounds so goddamned condescending.  He discusses things like he's talking to an audience of fairly bright third graders.  I think that by comparison, Mitt Romney was a ball of fire.

Honestly though, I don't know that I see a whole lot of fire on the Democratic side either.  John Kerry?  Would he really run again, having lost fairly soundly to a weakened president coming up on ten years ago?  Joe Biden?  He's 71 now -- not promising.  Hillary?  She's the odds on favorite evidently, but I wish she had a more impressive resume.  Of course, if the Repubs trot out anyone from the current crop of wizards, she'll probably skate in....

[Sambo]

Rand Paul may be saying the right things for conservative ears but he does not appeal to enough of the population to be a viable candidate.  We need someone with charisma, intelligence, experience and presidential "stature" if we want a winning candidate.  As I said, the silence is deafening.

I think Ron Paul would have beat Obama had he been the candidate. Romney wasn't the type of character to inspire fresh votes, and Ron seemed radically sane enough to...get assassinated

[PB the Deplorable]

See, this is something which always confuses me as a liberal.  Reagan raised taxes (largest tax increase in history at the time), crushed the budget, increased the size of government, was a HUGE spender (deficit was like tripled if I remember correctly), sold weapons to fucking Iran (high crimes and misdemeanors?) to give money to the Contras (high crimes and misdemeanors?).  He did all of this.  He also worked with Tip O'Neill to strengthen Social Security and signed a gun law...

It's confusing because it's out of context.  This reads like the Left wing media's rendition of the Reagan years. 

... So I get the idea that he was a good orator but in the current republican environment you really think Reagan would have the message that would resonate with the energized portion of the party?...

I keep hearing people say that about Reagan - "ohh, those 'Teabaggers' are so far right they wouldn't accept a Reagan today".  Ridiculous.  I think it's a way to try to dismiss the Tea Party, and that it could not be more wrong.  First off, the Conservatives do not march in lockstep - we all think for ourselves and have different ideas about things.  But we agree on the important things, and on those Ronald Reagan would fit in perfectly today or any day.


The Conservatives and the (mostly eastern) Establishment Republicans have been at war for control of the party for decades - since at least the early 60s.  The Establishment R's have always run the party, except maybe during the Reagan years.  Reagan is the only Conservative to have been elected President, and he did so as a party outsider. 

The Conservative movement really began in earnest in the early 60s with Goldwater and Wm F Buckley.  Reagan ran 3 times before he was elected.  They forced Bush I on him as VP and Bush I distanced himself as much as he could after his own election.  Which is mostly why he lost his re-election campaign.  The Establishment Rino's have been in charge of the party since.

When Nixon was elected, the Conservatives were unhappy and formed a new party - the Libertarians.  That went nowhere and it turned out a third party has no influence  traction.  After the Bushes and the current inept 'leadership', the Tea Party was formed.  It is broader than just Conservative R's, but many of the supporters also see it as an extension of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party and hope to use it as a vehicle to finally gain control of the Party.


There currently is no party leader.  These Establishment R's like McCain, McConnell, Boehner, and their cronies are great at back room deals, collecting campaign contributions, climbing through the ranks, but they aren't Leaders.  They're climbers.  And they need to get out of the way.

They don't represent anyone.  Most people that vote Republican are Conservatives.  Conservatives are the largest voting bloc - a plurality of the voters.  The R's in DC are great at getting themselves elected, but they don't represent their constituents.  They are corporatists, globalists, big government supporters.  Just like the Democrats in DC are.


The insurgent Tea Party has made some inroads, has elected some House and Senate members, has knocked a few old bulls out in primaries.  They will do more of the same in the next round of elections.  Any Leader is going to ultimately come from this group.  Pretty sure they would welcome a Reagan.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Joe Biden?...  Hillary?  She's the odds on favorite evidently, but I wish she had a more impressive resume...

If Joe Biden is not he dumbest person in Washington DC, I don't know who would be.  He ran once before (primaries).  He had to bail when it was pointed out his speeches were plagiarized from a British politician named Neil Kinnock.  Just not a bright person.  Which is probably why Obama picked hm.



Hillary's resume is fine, it's just that she shows poor judgment and has no accomplishments. 

Not that that's been a barrier to being elected President lately.

[Little Hater]

I think it might be that duck call guy.