Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brian0123

Republican party self-destruction?

Recommended Posts

I'm curious to hear your thoughts (more-so from Republicans) about the current state of the party. As a liberal who has always enjoyed good debate and respected a lot of Repubs in the past... I'll admit that the current Republican party is actually kind of depressing me. It's almost like they are trying to make it too easy for Democrats to win. 

 

I have some intelligent, conservative friends who just seem at a loss. Insightful, moderate, or just well-reasoned Republicans seem to be ostracized for anything... all while Tea Party conservatives seem hell-bent on changing the party completely. Whether or not you agree, you can't deny the fact that the party's image is at an all time low (see most recent gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx)

 

I don't want this thread to turn into liberal/conservative bashing. Instead, I'd like to keep it focused strictly on the party itself. Are you worried about the current direction, what plans you have for voting as the party changes (i.e. will you go libertarian, etc.?). Do you plan to work in the primaries against/for Tea Party candidates... will you just sit back and hold your nose when you vote for the ® on the ticket?  OR, is there no problem at all and liberals like me are just completely off base and everything is peachy in the Republican camp?

Edited by brian0123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that we're starting to see the end of the two party system in the US. What I find incredibly frustrating about both parties is that there are assumptions made that I think are increasingly out of touch with most Americans beliefs. If you believe A, then you need to believe B and C as well. Well what if you don't? You aren't going to get representation from either party.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it certainly seems that way because of the extreme diversity in the republican party. Religion, business, and conservatism all have divided issues, yet they are all under the same party.

 

I'm crossing my fingers for both parties to completely fail and the American public wakes up. Both parties only represent companies, and not the people anymore. It is almost a joke how our government has become. Wasting billions, and all they can do is point the finger at each other, and it doesn't even matter who was to actually blame, people will still vote for them.

 

We need a government that can pump money into our failing public education system, health care, infrastructure, and human rights. Look at how much China & Brazil fund science. I know this might sound dramatic as it has been a slow decline, but if we don't start to change our system, we will fail.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For quite a while Republicans have been holding up Ronald Reagan as an example, but I'd prefer if they emulated Dwight Eisenhower instead.  IMO, Eisenhower is the last president that truly put nation ahead of party...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of 20-30 years ago.

 

I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of moderate Repubs are looking across the aisle and planning their "transition" to the other side so they can escape the sinking ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an interesting series of articles on The Atlantic discussing this very topic.

 

And for my opinion - I'm center-line moderate who votes for the best candidates regardless of political leaning - I feel the Republicans have dug themselves a deep hole that will take a few election cycles to get out of.  This has been completely self-imposed.  Party leadership has failed to rein in the far right of the party and thus are staring at a GOP who is made up of two very different wholes: the Moderate Republicans and the Staunch Ultra-Conservatives who are identified by the Tea Party moniker.  I believe the later group will "break off" and form a 3rd party that, unlike the Libertarians and others, will wield power in the halls of Congress.  I don't see a "tea-party" person emerging and running successfully for president - far from it.  But I do see this new 3rd party as a very devisive group, at least in the short term.  However, I don't think the end game motives of this new party will result in catastrophe for America.  I believe we will see other smaller parties emerge that will allow the more fringe elements of our voting demographics to join ranks with very like minded people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the Republicans losing anything over this, especially here in Texas. Sure they may have gotten a little bad press, and some finger pointing, but come election day, whoever's got that little ® by their name wins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly see them losing, even in Texas.  They may not be big losses (here) in terms of overall numbers but they will be losses all the same.  Nationally the Republicans will lose big time.  They really gambled on the shutdown and it has dropped them to an all time low in approval rating.  People like Ted Cruz were the "winners" of the shutdown, but he won't advance very far into the primaries for the Republican nomination.

 

For me (a moderate, who is not affliated with either party, though I tend to be socially liberal with more conservative international/foreign policy views) I will certainly look twice before I decide to press any buttons for the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of 20-30 years ago.

 

That's funny because I recall in the eighties there was talk of the demise of the Democratic party.  Now it's the Republican's turn though if there's a real split in the party along conservative/moderate lines they may not really recover.  If we end up with 3 parties out of this it's likely the Democrats will have a lock on the presidency for a while as the vote gets split.  You can bet those never-named Republican "insiders" will fight tooth and nail to prevent that split.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny because I recall in the eighties there was talk of the demise of the Democratic party. Now it's the Republican's turn though if there's a real split in the party along conservative/moderate lines they may not really recover. If we end up with 3 parties out of this it's likely the Democrats will have a lock on the presidency for a while as the vote gets split. You can bet those never-named Republican "insiders" will fight tooth and nail to prevent that split.

Don't count on it. A split of the Republican party isn't such a great scenario for the Dems because they would have competition for the moderate voter. I think they like the current scenario where the wing nuts control the party line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that the Democratic Party of the 80s is dead. While it's easy to look at the Dems from the right and claim they are liberal socialists, the evidence points to the contrary. Clinton pushed through welfare reform. Obama escalated wars after running against them. Obama gifted big financial institutions bailout money. Hillary in 2016 would just mean more of the same but with a "she's a she" feel good story instead of "he's black."

 

Of course, the social causes that the Dems stand up for used to be conservative causes (individual liberties and protections from an over-reaching government) but today's "conservatives" are all about banning marriage, shoving cameras up woo-hoos, burning books, and denying science. Funny, but there's nothing "conservative" about those stances.

 

The entire country has veered right for the most part since the 1970s. Today's Democratic Party is pretty centrist. You'll find lots of progressives and liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Establishment. It'll be interesting to see if some rising stars like Elizabeth Warren can bring the Party back. I'd vote for Warren over another Clinton any day of the week.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that the Democratic Party of the 80s is dead. While it's easy to look at the Dems from the right and claim they are liberal socialists, the evidence points to the contrary. Clinton pushed through welfare reform. Obama escalated wars after running against them. Obama gifted big financial institutions bailout money. Hillary in 2016 would just mean more of the same but with a "she's a she" feel good story instead of "he's black."

 

Of course, the social causes that the Dems stand up for used to be conservative causes (individual liberties and protections from an over-reaching government) but today's "conservatives" are all about banning marriage, shoving cameras up woo-hoos, burning books, and denying science. Funny, but there's nothing "conservative" about those stances.

 

The entire country has veered right for the most part since the 1970s. Today's Democratic Party is pretty centrist. You'll find lots of progressives and liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Establishment. It'll be interesting to see if some rising stars like Elizabeth Warren can bring the Party back. I'd vote for Warren over another Clinton any day of the week.

 

Unfortunately, I have had a sinking feeling for quite a while that both the Democrats and Republicans are in such a firm grip of special interests, the same special interests, that what we see and vote on is just the panem et circenses.  Once the show is over, the real decisions are made behind closed doors regardless of which party is in power.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't count on it. A split of the Republican party isn't such a great scenario for the Dems because they would have competition for the moderate voter. I think they like the current scenario where the wing nuts control the party line.

 

I don't know.  I get flashbacks to the Perot campaigns of the 90's and how it split the vote.  Would be nice, though, if moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans could break off and come together in a centerist party.  Might be the only way we could ever get away from domination by the fringes.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

August- you nailed it. Other than a few big name donors on each side, the same monied interests own the parties. The ®s pander to the far right and then never follow through and the (D)s hardly bother with pandering anymore because people on the left are so freaked out by the proposals from the right that they'd vote for a one-legged kangaroo as long as it didn't have an ® next to the name on the ballot. Sorry for the run-on sentence.

 

At the end of the day, I have often wondered if the Dems and Repubs are in cahoots. There's billions being made in politics and it's all really just theatrics. As long as we all hate each other, the money will continue to flow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just sitting here thinking how what we are taught in school about how our political system works differs so much from how it actually seems to operate.  I have to wonder if it ever really worked that way or that's just been a part of the show from the outset.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that the Democratic Party of the 80s is dead. While it's easy to look at the Dems from the right and claim they are liberal socialists, the evidence points to the contrary. Clinton pushed through welfare reform. Obama escalated wars after running against them. Obama gifted big financial institutions bailout money. Hillary in 2016 would just mean more of the same but with a "she's a she" feel good story instead of "he's black."

 

Of course, the social causes that the Dems stand up for used to be conservative causes (individual liberties and protections from an over-reaching government) but today's "conservatives" are all about banning marriage, shoving cameras up woo-hoos, burning books, and denying science. Funny, but there's nothing "conservative" about those stances.

 

The entire country has veered right for the most part since the 1970s. Today's Democratic Party is pretty centrist. You'll find lots of progressives and liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Establishment. It'll be interesting to see if some rising stars like Elizabeth Warren can bring the Party back. I'd vote for Warren over another Clinton any day of the week.

 

Great point. A root cause of a lot of this was that in the 70's, conservatives really had a huge fear that the country was becoming too liberal. The hippies and vietnam protests scared them to death. So with billions of dollars, politicians and judges were bought and think tanks were created to push the conservative message out, and over time, it has worked. Obamacare was a Republican idea! When someone has the guts to protest like occupy wall street, they are painted as criminals and losers without jobs. Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point. A root cause of a lot of this was that in the 70's, conservatives really had a huge fear that the country was becoming too liberal. The hippies and vietnam protests scared them to death. So with billions of dollars, politicians and judges were bought and think tanks were created to push the conservative message out, and over time, it has worked. Obamacare was a Republican idea! When someone has the guts to protest like occupy wall street, they are painted as criminals and losers without jobs. Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

 

Is there anything that you don't view as a conspiracy?  Money impacts politics from all sides, left, right and center and spending money to extend influence is by no means something exclusive to conservatives.

 

The Democratic party moved to the center because there was a huge tactical advantage in doing so.  During the 70s, they made the same mistake that the Republican party is making now.  They catered to the most extreme elements of their party and got out of touch with the majority of the population.  As a result, they lost the presidency for 12 years.  Clinton won it back by being a moderate and capturing the center again.  Obama has continued that style of governance.

 

In a two party system, the party that captures the center wins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point. A root cause of a lot of this was that in the 70's, conservatives really had a huge fear that the country was becoming too liberal. The hippies and vietnam protests scared them to death. So with billions of dollars, politicians and judges were bought and think tanks were created to push the conservative message out, and over time, it has worked. Obamacare was a Republican idea! When someone has the guts to protest like occupy wall street, they are painted as criminals and losers without jobs. Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

 

An alternate theory to this is that the young folks who drove the protests in the '60's grew up, got jobs, got married, got a mortgage, had children and formed the base for the Reagan revolution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything that you don't view as a conspiracy? Money impacts politics from all sides, left, right and center and spending money to extend influence is by no means something exclusive to conservatives.

The Democratic party moved to the center because there was a huge tactical advantage in doing so. During the 70s, they made the same mistake that the Republican party is making now. They catered to the most extreme elements of their party and got out of touch with the majority of the population. As a result, they lost the presidency for 12 years. Clinton won it back by being a moderate and capturing the center again. Obama has continued that style of governance.

In a two party system, the party that captures the center wins.

No. Reagan won because carter had bad luck and Reagan had the movie star charm that connected with people. He was a horrific president. Bush went against Dukakis who was a very intelligent candidate but mundane in personality. And then Clinton came along. You can view things as conspiracies just because you don't want to believe them but the truth is the truth.

Not exactly. Did you forget about Code Pink or the permanent protest camp in Crawford? Or this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

Those protests at least in the us were not on the same scale as Vietnam which were strong enough to stop the war and endured over a longer period of time.

C'mon, you know better than that. You should never let facts influence your thinking.

Stay on topic

An alternate theory to this is that the young folks who drove the protests in the '60's grew up, got jobs, got married, got a mortgage, had children and formed the base for the Reagan revolution.

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Reagan won because carter had bad luck and Reagan had the movie star charm that connected with people. He was a horrific president. Bush went against Dukakis who was a very intelligent candidate but mundane in personality. And then Clinton came along. You can view things as conspiracies just because you don't want to believe them but the truth is the truth.

Jimmy Carter is a wonderful man, but he was a horrible president. Reagan won because he presented hope to a country that was down and depressed and feeling like it was losing its standing in the world. Dukakis was a complete train wreck of a candidate and just showed how out of touch the Democratic party was at that time. Clinton seized the center and won as a moderate. There was very little that was liberal about his presidency. He was more of a fiscal conservative than most candidates the Republicans have fielded in the last 50 years.

You're really just practicing revisionist history at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Reagan won because carter had bad luck and Reagan had the movie star charm that connected with people. He was a horrific president. Bush went against Dukakis who was a very intelligent candidate but mundane in personality. And then Clinton came along. You can view things as conspiracies just because you don't want to believe them but the truth is the truth.

 

 

You have no idea just how horrifically bad a President Jimmy Carter was. He had zero charisma, and no leadership ability at all. He was the biggest downer of a President in my life, and  Eisenhower was in the White House when I was born. Reagan made the country feel good about itself again, showed leadership, and was the most inspiring President since Kennedy. Reagan was a pretty decent President to boot.

 

Sadly, Reagan could not win the Republican nomination these days because he would not be radical enough to get the support of the idiots who have taken over the party, instituting religious tests, etc. As someone said above, you cannot get elected in this country without getting the vote from the center.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Carter is a wonderful man, but he was a horrible president. Reagan won because he presented hope to a country that was down and depressed and feeling like it was losing its standing in the world. Dukakis was a complete train wreck of a candidate and just showed how out of touch the Democratic party was at that time. Clinton seized the center and won as a moderate. There was very little that was liberal about his presidency. He was more of a fiscal conservative than most candidates the Republicans have fielded in the last 50 years.

You're really just practicing revisionist history at this point.

Clinton pushed for universal health care at the beginning of his first term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea just how horrifically bad a President Jimmy Carter was. He had zero charisma, and no leadership ability at all. He was the biggest downer of a President in my life, and Eisenhower was in the White House when I was born. Reagan made the country feel good about itself again, showed leadership, and was the most inspiring President since Kennedy. Reagan was a pretty decent President to boot.

Sadly, Reagan could not win the Republican nomination these days because he would not be radical enough to get the support of the idiots who have taken over the party, instituting religious tests, etc. As someone said above, you cannot get elected in this country without getting the vote from the center.

Nixon was worse than carter he was a disgrace. The one good thing that Reagan did was amnesty but he did a lot of deregulation that came back to haunt the economy later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think how different things might have been if Florida had been using more up to date voting equipment in 2000. Really, how long had it been since the rest of the country had ditched punch cards. "Undercount", Overcount", "hanging chad", remember those terms. Al Gore would have taken decisive action against the terrorist hide outs after the Sept 11th attacks, and then we would have been doen with it. No long protracted war in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars and innnocent lives would have been saved for something better.

 

I still think about this! I don't believe in revisionist history, but I do engage in "what ifs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think how different things might have been if Florida had been using more up to date voting equipment in 2000. Really, how long had it been since the rest of the country had ditched punch cards. "Undercount", Overcount", "hanging chad", remember those terms. Al Gore would have taken decisive action against the terrorist hide outs after the Sept 11th attacks, and then we would have been doen with it. No long protracted war in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars and innnocent lives would have been saved for something better.

I still think about this! I don't believe in revisionist history, but I do engage in "what ifs".

That's a lot of assumptions about what Gore would have done based on incomplete information. One of the things that I find really interesting about the Bush/Obama transition is that Obama came into office highly critical of actions taken by the Bush administration regarding things like Guantanamo. Once he got in, he got noticeably quieter and slower to take action. That really leads me to believe that there's a lot of information in highly classified files that we aren't aware of. We probably won't really know what happened for 50 years or so.

A good example of this is the Rosenberg trials in the 1950s. Held up for years as an example of the excesses of the McCarthy years (and not denying that McCarthy went too far), but guess what - in 2008, it was confirmed that they were spies and that they were passing material to the Soviets.

Edited by livincinco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a lot of assumptions about what Gore would have done based on incomplete information. One of the things that I find really interesting about the Bush/Obama transition is that Obama came into office highly critical of actions taken by the Bush administration regarding things like Guantanamo. Once he got in, he got noticeably quieter and slower to take action. That really leads me to believe that there's a lot of information in highly classified files that we aren't aware of. We probably won't really know what happened for 50 years or so.

A good example of this is the Rosenberg trials in the 1950s. Held up for years as an example of the excesses of the McCarthy years (and not denying that McCarthy went too far), but guess what - in 2008, it was confirmed that they were spies and that they were passing material to the Soviets.

So McCarthy's methods were acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So McCarthy's methods were acceptable?

McCarthy would have been proud of that response. So would Karl Rove. Don't try to engage in substantive conversation. Smear and distort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCarthy would have been proud of that response. So would Karl Rove. Don't try to engage in substantive conversation. Smear and distort.

Please answer the question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please answer the question

Re-read my post. I do not condone McCarthy's methods at all, but history has proven that there was truth in the fears of Communist spies. Maybe now would be a good time to return to the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-read my post. I do not condone McCarthy's methods at all, but history has proven that there was truth in the fears of Communist spies. Maybe now would be a good time to return to the topic.

So it's okay for Obama administration to spy on its own citizens in addition to those of other countries and their politicians as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's okay for Obama administration to spy on its own citizens in addition to those of other countries and their politicians as well?

And this is relates to the topic...how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will history prove something?

 

History always proves something... whether or not that "thing" is what you or others hope it will prove is the real question.

 

What we are all doing right now is projecting what a potential history might be - if - what we think is happening now (the self destruction of the GOP).

 

We may be witnessing an eventual "flip" yet again of both parties and what they represent (as did happen in regards to the civil rights/slavery questions of centuries past).  Though I think it is safe to assume splinter parties will come out of both the GOP and the Democrats representing a more far-left and far-right.

 

It is interesting though (to me at least) that we are watching the GOP falter as they basically "bet the farm" on the Tea-Party side to sway national favor back to them in the aftermath of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and the Bush presidency.  It has failed badly for them if I am viewing our current afairs right.  Just how bad is yet to be seen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History always proves something... whether or not that "thing" is what you or others hope it will prove is the real question.

What we are all doing right now is projecting what a potential history might be - if - what we think is happening now (the self destruction of the GOP).

We may be witnessing an eventual "flip" yet again of both parties and what they represent (as did happen in regards to the civil rights/slavery questions of centuries past). Though I think it is safe to assume splinter parties will come out of both the GOP and the Democrats representing a more far-left and far-right.

It is interesting though (to me at least) that we are watching the GOP falter as they basically "bet the farm" on the Tea-Party side to sway national favor back to them in the aftermath of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and the Bush presidency. It has failed badly for them if I am viewing our current afairs right. Just how bad is yet to be seen.

Agreed. Whether the Democrats can effectively exploit their current advantage is very much an open question. They've stumbled horribly right out of the gate by failing to execute the rollout of Obamacare. Nothing undermines "big government" more than poor execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Whether the Democrats can effectively exploit their current advantage is very much an open question. They've stumbled horribly right out of the gate by failing to execute the rollout of Obamacare. Nothing undermines "big government" more than poor execution.

What is/was wrong with the website?  I wasn't paying any attention to it because I have insurance through work....but with all the hoopla the last week, I decided to log on and take a look -- I didn't have any problems....have they already fixed it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is/was wrong with the website? I wasn't paying any attention to it because I have insurance through work....but with all the hoopla the last week, I decided to log on and take a look -- I didn't have any problems....have they already fixed it ?

Just google "healthcare.gov issues" and you'll find a ton of articles on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just google "healthcare.gov issues" and you'll find a ton of articles on it.

True but the demand is still high. There are millions that want insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but the demand is still high. There are millions that want insurance.

Yeah, you really missed the point. The execution was poor, that's completely unrelated to what the demand is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you really missed the point. The execution was poor, that's completely unrelated to what the demand is.

I didn't miss the point. Please attempt to debate in a respectable manner and not be condescending. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My beef with healthcare reform is that it didn't go far enough. We need a single payer option. The website problems that the Right is up in arms about are laughable. Really? You do everything in your power to kill the bill, vote to squash it 40+ times, shut down the government about it, and then complain that it didn't work as well as it should have when it was finally delivered? Well, frankly, that's on YOU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My beef with healthcare reform is that it didn't go far enough. We need a single payer option. The website problems that the Right is up in arms about are laughable. Really? You do everything in your power to kill the bill, vote to squash it 40+ times, shut down the government about it, and then complain that it didn't work as well as it should have when it was finally delivered? Well, frankly, that's on YOU.

Great point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My beef with healthcare reform is that it didn't go far enough. We need a single payer option. The website problems that the Right is up in arms about are laughable. Really? You do everything in your power to kill the bill, vote to squash it 40+ times, shut down the government about it, and then complain that it didn't work as well as it should have when it was finally delivered? Well, frankly, that's on YOU.

This is a question of execution, not policy. The President of the United States spends six years identifying his signature achievement for his presidency, botches the rollout of that achievement and you're blaming that on the opposition. Of course they were against it. He should have been able to execute anyway.

I'm not saying that the initiative should be killed, I'm just saying that the Democrats missed a golden opportunity to differentiate themselves by showing that they could provide effective government.

The vast majority of the US population feels like government is ineffective and the launch of Obamacare provided an opportunity to prove otherwise and it was missed.

BTW, trying to blame this on the Republicans is just a sign of how ineffective things have become. Remember the famous Harry Truman line, "the buck stops here", when you're President, it's your responsibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a question of execution, not policy. The President of the United States spends six years identifying his signature achievement for his presidency, botches the rollout of that achievement and you're blaming that on the opposition. Of course they were against it. He should have been able to execute anyway.

I'm not saying that the initiative should be killed, I'm just saying that the Democrats missed a golden opportunity to differentiate themselves by showing that they could provide effective government.

The vast majority of the US population feels like government is ineffective and the launch of Obamacare provided an opportunity to prove otherwise and it was missed.

BTW, trying to blame this on the Republicans is just a sign of how ineffective things have become. Remember the famous Harry Truman line, "the buck stops here", when you're President, it's your responsibility.

Obama did not code the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a software and web developer who works on huge financial sites for one of the largest corps in the world, I think I have a little knowledge on the subject. From what I've seen about the healthcare website launch, it appears to be a private contractor who got in over their heads, and now they are trying to save their company by blaming their poor work on the big bad government. From playing around with the site and what I've read, my guess is the contractor spent a ton of time making a pretty front-end, and put their background data-hub on the backburner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a software and web developer who works on huge financial sites for one of the largest corps in the world, I think I have a little knowledge on the subject. From what I've seen about the healthcare website launch, it appears to be a private contractor who got in over their heads, and now they are trying to save their company by blaming their poor work on the big bad government. From playing around with the site and what I've read, my guess is the contractor spent a ton of time making a pretty front-end, and put their background data-hub on the backburner.

That's certainly a big part of it, but it also sounds like there were scope changes late in the project, inadequate testing, and ultimately someone signed off on taking this live when they shouldn't have.

Describe it however you want. Its a missed opportunity to show government executing effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is the Republican Party is self destructing... that has nothing to do with the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) and everything to do with the fact Obama is in office.  I feel like the formerly completely Democrat controlled congress would have been able to push through any number of social policies and the current guise of the GOP would have fought just as hard as they are now.  The GOP reached out to their fringe elements and is now looking like they will regret it.  As with any group the majority is usually silent, and as such voices of reason are drowned out by the screams of discontent from the fringes (or almost from outside the group).

 

This whole thing boils down to control, and has nothing to do with what is best for the country.  I feel like there are very few senators and congress members who are active who value country over their own self-serving needs to remain in office at just about any cost.  Therein lies the problem.

Edited by arche_757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...