What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[Zoldor]

They need candidates that are qualified to be president and truely understand the political game. They haven't fielded anyone like that since Bush senior, who lost to Clinton the most charismatic president of the time. They are intentionally fielding candidates that can't win so that the democrats can have control while the country is in the crapper. They will field a proper candidate in the next election and swoop in for the glory. Its a tactic they like, followed by using the Regan/Bush era "return to family values" platform they created in that time frame. Traditional family ideas are changing and they will have to change with that.

Expect a good candidate and running mate next time. Each time their candidate has looked good in the polls, Rom/McCain was before they announced their vice pres and both times the GOP handed them the concrete shoes to sink their campaigns. This was done to keep the agenda of let the Dems control while things are bad and recovering and then show up at the end of recovery and during the first part of prominence. The people in charge of the GOP are more advanced at political tactics than the Democrats and think more in the long term. This is how they keep winning the majority in Congress, which is equally as powerful as a president.

[Kraenen]

Speaking of energy.......maybe we should just switch to Nuclear power and natural gas for the foreseeable future, both of those energy sources are a heck of a lot cleaner than coal.

Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.

[Deadvolcanoes]

because there is just as many scientist that say that the global warming debate has been extremely exaggerated..

This is a great example of what Republicans need to do in order to become relevant again. They need to understand and embrace science and scientific theory. I'm not going to discuss it further due to derailment, but seriously, stop lying to the public about science related topics.

[Dreamless]

Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.

Those were outdated plants.

Setting aside for a moment the major problem with fission being its nuclear waste (a problem which fusion won't have)...

Modern fission reactors are extremely meltdown-resistant; their design eliminates nearly all the causes of meltdown in older style reactors.

And fusion reactors cannot meltdown, period.

[Endus]

because there is just as many scientist that say that the global warming debate has been extremely exaggerated..

This is a complete and utter fiction.



Literally, almost every single scientist working in climate-related fields agrees that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Attempts to equate both sides are just straight-up lies made up by politicians and lobbyists who want to create a false sense that their "side" has value and support.

The fact is, they don't.

[LilSaihah]

Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.

Chernobyl was downright ineptitude. Japan was bad luck and a pretty bad place to put a nuclear plant. America has tons of places in which it'd be nigh impossible for any of the Japan disaster's contributing factors to occur.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.

The dangers associated with nuclear are dwarfed by the dangers associated with coal.

[SirPiken]

Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.

Really .... HUNDREDS of other occasions? I doubt you could even name 1 other without looking it up.

[Magpai]

There's nothing they can do to satisfy people who beg the question of their irrelevance this hard.

[Spectral]

Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.

Remember when 9/11 happened and buildings were hit by jets at WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon, and hundreds of other buildings? Yeah, your comment is just like that.

[Vyxn]

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” - santorum
“Governor Romney has made clear that he opposes the Utility MACT, which costs more than $1,500 for every one dollar reduction in mercury pollution,” Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said in a statement.
Writing in his jobs plan in September 2011, Romney said that this rule “in conjunction with other regulations that the EPA is seeking to impose, the total number of lost jobs may come to be much higher.” Since then, Romney has criticized EPA more generally for overzealously regulating and crippling the coal industry—and the jobs that go along with it.


now its tougher to find quotes on the food thing but i think we can safely assume that the people who propsed it either had no idea what they were doing, or did in fact not care about things like this:

more quotes taken out of context by the liberal press

the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger who interviewed Santorum on January 6 about this very subject

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

The former Pennsylvania senator recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper that, yes, he disagrees with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on contraception.

He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.

“It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”

To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’

[Kraenen]

I doubt you could even name 1 other without looking it up.

that doesn't mean they didn't happen...and it doesn't mean they shouldn't be entered in to the equation.

[Spectral]

Santorum being happy to lie after the fact doesn't change that he said what he meant.

[Lumineus]

Completely cut itself loose from the Ultra-Conservative Christianity; religion and politics should -NEVER- mix. It's a recipe for disaster, as has been proven. Honestly, I'd argue burning the name to the ground and starting afresh under a new banner not tainted by it's past would be the best solution.

That would hurt them with Hispanics, though, and that's the largest growth demographic.

[Kraenen]

Remember when 9/11 happened and buildings were hit by jets at WTC 1, WTC 2, the Pentagon, and hundreds of other buildings? Yeah, your comment is just like that.

what other buildings did the jets hit?

[Deadvolcanoes]

There's nothing they can do to satisfy people who beg the question of their irrelevance this hard.

Actually there's a lot they could do. Throngs of people are dissatisfied with both parties, but simply choose the lesser of two evils. I know I do.

They're actually in a really good position to take back a massive amount of power and influence if they play their cards right.

[starlord]

more quotes taken out of context by the liberal press

no. you confuse "saying something then later backpedaling on it" with "taken out of context."

but hey. keep supporting people like that, im sure the republicans will do well.

[Deadvolcanoes]

what other buildings did the jets hit?

Hundreds of others. Just like the hundreds of other nuclear disasters you cited.

[LilSaihah]

what other buildings did the jets hit?

no. you confuse "saying something then later backpedaling on it" with "taken out of context."

but hey. keep supporting people like that, im sure the republicans will do well.

QED to get public support the Republican party needs to stop suffering from verbal diarrhoea?

[Spectral]

what other buildings did the jets hit?

Just because I can't name them doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration.