A Problem of Shrinkage

[Lemur]

Read some disturbing articles about the GOP today. First there is a report that the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Republicans has shrunk (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/parsing-the-polls/21-percent.html) to 21 percent, the lowest it's been in a quarter-century. From the article: "In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents." That means that Indies outnumber Repubs by almost two to one.

Then I read about how the base of the GOP is getting more ideological and angry (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21677.html), rather than less, in the face of defeats.


But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.

There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies – as always – through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.

In other words, the Republican base may be getting smaller, older, whiter and angrier. And any politico who hopes to run the gauntlet for the party's nomination to any office is going to have to please this crew, which increases the likelihood that unelectable people will be given the nod.

Seems to me that the only hope for the Repubs to regroup and recoup is for the Dems to make a series of grievous mistakes. And while I have supreme faith in the Democrats' ability to lose a winning hand, I don't see President 44 as a typical Dem in this respect. That means we may face four to eight years of continuing Republican decline.

This would be a Bad Thing. We cannot become a one-party nation. If the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs and the Federalists, we might face a serious political vacuum. Assuming the Dems haven't messed up so badly as to revive the Republicans' fortunes, given the lack of a healthy opposition, they'll certainly get fat and stupid as quickly as possible. I don't want to see the U.S.A. facing the sort of single-party complacency that the Japanese had under the LDP for decades.

What do Orgahs think? Obviously, rumors of the Decline and Fall of the House Ron Built are premature. The Dems have not been given a proper chance to foul their own nest yet, and that's what usually brings balance to the equation. But what if they don't, at least not in time for the Repubs?

I've heard several Republican Orgahs argue that ideological purity and adherence to conservative principle is the way forward, and that "moderate" candidates get them nowhere. Problems that I see with this logic:

(1) America is a moderate nation. It's the rare and exceptional politician who rouses the rabble to move in any direction at all. (Reagan springs to mind, as does Obama.) Ideologically pure Republicans don't sell well in the national setting. I expect Sarah Palin to become the Jesse Jackson, Jr. of the Republicans for this very reason. (In other words, an unelectable pariah whom nobody within the party dare criticize.)

(2) The quest for ideological purity is not compatible with building a national coalition. One of the strengths of the Dems is that they have no principles or ideology. Oh, it suits some people in campaign mode to yammer about this Dem or that being a "socialist" or an "extreme leftist," but the truth of the matter is that there is no ideological underpinning for the Democratic Party in the same way that modern conservatism serves the Republican Party. This accounts for the Dems' weakness as well as their resilience. Weakness because they have no overarching agenda, resilience because they can accept anyone into their coalition at no cost. Wanna be a pro-gun Dem? Fine, sign up. Wanna be a pro-life Dem? Sign up.

Republicans, on the other hand, have any number of litmus tests to determine if a politician is or isn't a RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RINO). Thus in the Repub world, heresy is common, damnable and results in expulsion. This accounts for the Repubs' discipline and shrinkage problem. Discipline because their members know that they must toe the line or be basted by any number of ideological organs, including various think tanks and talk radio gurus, not to mention party leadership. Shrinkage problem because an exclusive church which expels the heretics must also be engaged in conversion if it wants to grow. And at the moment, I don't see any evidence that the Repubs are engaged in any serious attempt at conversion. The polling among the thirty-and-younger crowd is eye-popping.

Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?

[Che Roriniho]

Then it simply promotes other parties. A two Party state is just half as worse as a one party state. A multi-party state is almost perfect, and could finally make America something to be proud of, and indeed the envy of nations. Something that's been severely lacking for the past 60 years

[Hooahguy]

but you are forgetting that multi parites is a mess. just look at israels system. to get a government going, you need the majority of the seats, and since that is so hard to do, coalitions are formed and its a mess.
if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

[Che Roriniho]

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

That would be ideal, but those sort of conditions tend to create 2-party systems, because the only way to get into power is to form large parties with a broad range of ideologies.

[Hooahguy]

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.
you know, that kind of stuff led to the Civil War. just sayin'

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?
Aren't we? The politicians in the executive branch favor expanding executive power, while the politicians in the legislative branch favor re-election at any cost. The letter next to their name and their pet causes don't matter very much.

[Sarmatian]

Political vacuum is always filled, usually instantly. I think Republicans are just having a temporary drop.

On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial for US if this would allow some other party or parties to fill the gap. I don't like two-party system much, but considering the political system in the US, that isn't likely to happen. Setting up a new party to rival Reps and Dems would be extremely difficult and extremely expensive.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Political vacuum is always filled, usually instantly. I think Republicans are just having a temporary drop.

Setting up a new party to rival Reps and Dems would be extremely difficult and extremely expensive.

Same here. Politics is full of ups and downs, just like economics. Republicans are many things, but not stupid, or at least as stupid as some of us may perceive them to be. They will change or die, and more likely, they will change. It would be immensely difficult for another, new party to establish themselves in the US Gov't, so it is easier to simply give the old corpse a new dress than to raise a new child to adulthood. Unless of course the other party makes a grave misted, and the mistake would have to be grave indeed, since even the contrasting performances of the Republican Harding and Democrat FDR were not enough to give the Democrats an edge.

Not to mention, after a 2-3 Democrats in the power, the people will once again beg for change, and so the cycle is renewed. Then a line of Republicans again, then Democrats, and so on ad perpetuum. Pathetic, but each day this cycle continues, the more firmly entrenched it becomes. Parties change views and constituents to unrecognisability, but the name and the symbols carry on. Kinda difficult to imagine what the Republicans were before Reagan, without working class men, or the Democrats before FDR, without the blacks, but it was so some time ago.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Kinda difficult to imagine what the Republicans were before Reagan
Deliciously smug? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Deliciously smug? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.)
He's my new hero :2thumbsup: Then again, I do not associate myself with American conservatives...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, maybe my perspective's changed too far, but NRO feels like a rag without him in it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yeah, maybe my perspective's changed too far, but NRO feels like a rag without him in it.
Definitely. What draws me away from the American conservatives is their associations with the South, religion, and anti-intellectualism. And that lad was everything I could have wished for.

[Furunculus]

Read some disturbing articles about the GOP today. First there is a report that the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Republicans has shrunk (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/parsing-the-polls/21-percent.html) to 21 percent, the lowest it's been in a quarter-century. From the article: "In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents." That means that Indies outnumber Repubs by almost two to one..........................

..............Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?

this happens from time to time, a party ceases to represent the desires of the people and without realising it they become an irrelevance, and a new party rises to fill the vacuum.

It happened to the Whigs in Britain one hundred years ago.

America won't be a one-party state, either the republicans will evolve back into the sphere of visible public interest or they will whither and a new party will arise.

[naut]

Ah, right, I expected a thread about swimming...

[Sarmatian]

Ah, right, I expected a thread about swimming...

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I want my coffee back...

[CountArach]

if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.
There are a number of ways to fix this:
Elect the President by popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
Preferential voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)
OR
A permanent solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system)

[LittleGrizzly]

I have always been a big fan of preferential voting... I think bigger partys tend to be against the idea as it means small partys can actually make gains without people feeling thier vote is wasted. You can make your idealogical choice (the one that is actually closest to your paticular views) and vote for the guys who are better than those other guys, the hold your nose vote...

[Hooahguy]

There are a number of ways to fix this:
Elect the President by popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)
Preferential voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)
OR
A permanent solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system)
you know, a while back before the 2008 election i posted that question, and i believe you were one of the people who bashed on the idea of going to popular vote.

[CountArach]

you know, a while back before the 2008 election i posted that question, and i believe you were one of the people who bashed on the idea of going to popular vote.
:inquisitive:

That doesn't sound at all like me.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im fairly sure a few left wing people were being 'bashed' about just liking the popular vote because Bush would have lost under it in 2000

[Crazed Rabbit]

I've read some articles that say the old conservative scions need to actually adopt conservatism to our modern times, and stop living like it's the 1980s. Also, the GOP in power didn't even try to reflect those old principles.

A new, more libertarian route, may be the way to go. Consider former New Mex gov Gary Johnson, who's said he may run in 2012 (http://reason.com/blog/show/132995.html).

An interview with the man back in '00: (http://www.reason.com/news/show/27909.html)

This practical approach drives his notorious attitude toward drug prohibition, which Johnson has attacked more forcefully and visibly than any other elected official in America today. He rails against the drug war mostly, though not exclusively, on the grounds that it is inefficient. In general, he is more interested in pragmatic concerns than in defending anything as abstract as inalienable rights. When I bring up prostitution, another consensual crime, he endorses decriminalization, but not on the grounds that people own their bodies or that it’s not the state’s business. Instead he frames his response this way: "Given that prostitution takes place, the question is, ‘Are you safer engaging a prostitute in Nevada or New Mexico?’ I think you are clearly safer engaging one in Nevada in a licensed prostitution establishment."
...
Reason: What do you consider your major accomplishments as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: Building 500 miles of four-lane highway in the state. We have reduced taxes by about $123 million annually. More significantly, before my taking office there was never a set of six years in the state of New Mexico where not a single tax had gone up. We reformed Medicaid and got Medicaid costs under control. We built a couple of new, private prisons in New Mexico. We had prisoners housed out of state, and the federal court system had been running prisons in New Mexico under a consent decree since 1980. We are now out from under that consent decree. We have approximately 1,200 fewer employees in state government today than we did when I took office.

CR

[Vuk]

Repubs ain't going nowhere. Media is blowing Obama up as big as possible and trying to attach a stigma to anyone who identifies as a Republican, but that has not made conservatives give up their beliefs or jump the country. Wait till next election, you are gonna see a revival like you have never seen in your life. Even before the 08 election was decided there were all kinds of social groups being formed to stop Palin in 2012 :P, and the media has been trying to paint her as a failure all this time. There is a reason liberals are so afraid of her, that gal is dynamite and you are gonna see an historical reinvigoration of the republican base that you will not believe. Why do you think they are barraging her with all these BS ethics charges? Why do you think there are social groups on sites like Facebook dedicated to making an organised effort to discredit her? Why do you think the media is desperately trying to paint her as radical, gun toting loony? They are scared...scared out of their minds. If Palin runs, you will be eating your words Lemur. ~;) They say that people don't like her and that she only attracts people on the fringes, etc, but almost all the conservatives I know, an easy majority of the moderates I know, and even a few libs I know love her.
Don't get me wrong, I know she ain't perfect; I don't think she is the messiah. I am excited about her because I think that she is honest, and that her beliefs are rationally grounded, and that her politics are mostly good, and cause I know that she has one heck of a chance of taking the Obamonster out next election.

[Lemur]

Repubs ain't going nowhere.
Check the polling for the thirty-and-under crowd. If that doesn't make you sit up and take notice, nothing will. Examples (and this is just me doing some sampling; I'm sure CountArch could illustrate the point far better):

Young Voters Disenchanted with GOP (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/27/MNMIRNDUK.DTL&tsp=1)

"The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters is reflected in the poll's findings that show two-thirds of young voters surveyed believe Democrats do a better job than Republicans of representing their views - even on issues Republicans once owned, such as terrorism and taxes. [...] The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said."

"70% of voters under the age of thirty (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/tag/obama-approval-rating/) say they like the job President Obama is doing."

I've seen polls with the numbers for the under-thirties pegged as high as 75% approval for Obama. I think this makes one thing abundantly clear: The GOP needs to find a message that resonates with young people.

As for Palin, I think nominating her would be a grave mistake for the Repubs, unless they have no real desire to win in '12. The governor CR cites sounds far more formidable.

[seireikhaan]

the Obamonster
You really should get over your ODS (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496418).

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Obamination has nothing to fear, I can't see the Republicans coming close in 4 years time. Palin is a joke, and that Johnson fellow will struggle to get the support of the evangelical voters.

[Lemur]

The Obamination has nothing to fear, I can't see the Republicans coming close in 4 years time.
Um, believe t or not, this thread isn't about Obama. And the fact that he has "nothing to fear" is exactly why I think we should be worried. Every leader should have a fire under his posterior. Makes 'em behave better.

[Che Roriniho]

@Just Vuk Again

You do realise she is an idiot, don't you? We're talking about someone who not only is a creationalist, but she thought Africa was a country. And she's a hypocrite. And she's stupid. Did I mention she's stupid?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Um, believe t or not, this thread isn't about Obama. And the fact that he has "nothing to fear" is exactly why I think we should be worried. Every leader should have a fire under his posterior. Makes 'em behave better.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Having something to fear means they will take steps to make sure they get reelected. That isn't synonymous with doing what needs to be done.

****

Haven't young people almost always been liberal?

****

How big a deal is it what people are choosing to call themselves? I don't think the issue polls have shown any radical change.

[Vuk]

Check the polling for the thirty-and-under crowd. If that doesn't make you sit up and take notice, nothing will. Examples (and this is just me doing some sampling; I'm sure CountArch could illustrate the point far better):

Young Voters Disenchanted with GOP (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/27/MNMIRNDUK.DTL&tsp=1)

"The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters is reflected in the poll's findings that show two-thirds of young voters surveyed believe Democrats do a better job than Republicans of representing their views - even on issues Republicans once owned, such as terrorism and taxes. [...] The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said."

"70% of voters under the age of thirty (http://maristpoll.marist.edu/tag/obama-approval-rating/) say they like the job President Obama is doing."

I've seen polls with the numbers for the under-thirties pegged as high as 75% approval for Obama. I think this makes one thing abundantly clear: The GOP needs to find a message that resonates with young people.

As for Palin, I think nominating her would be a grave mistake for the Repubs, unless they have no real desire to win in '12. The governor CR cites sounds far more formidable.

Just so you know, I do not identify myself as a Republican. I have voted Democrat before and hate the party system. I think you should form your opinion on the candidate, and not let party lines influence you. A negative stigma is being attached to being a republican, so a lot of republicans do not like associating themselves with the negative media image. As I said, Repubs did not pack up and leave, nor did they change their views. And don't worry, today's dems are tomorrows repubs. ~;)
I cannot agree with you on Palin at all Lemur. The left has good reason to be scared of her. She is intelligent, honest, has good policy views, and is very popular.


You really should get over your ODS (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496418).

You really should learn to take a joke. :P


Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.


So why the difference? Could it be because the media tells us what to think of each? :P



Um, believe t or not, this thread isn't about Obama. And the fact that he has "nothing to fear" is exactly why I think we should be worried. Every leader should have a fire under his posterior. Makes 'em behave better.
I agree with Sas, it just means they campaign in office.


@Just Vuk Again

You do realise she is an idiot, don't you? We're talking about someone who not only is a creationalist, but she thought Africa was a country. And she's a hypocrite. And she's stupid. Did I mention she's stupid?

A) By saying that she is an idiot for disagreeing with you on the origins of the world, you are calling everyone who believes in Creationism an idiot (me included).
B) She did NOT think Africa was a country.
C) A hypocrite? lol, please explain.
D) Stupid? lmao. :P


I don't think this is necessarily true. Having something to fear means they will take steps to make sure they get reelected. That isn't synonymous with doing what needs to be done.

****

Haven't young people almost always been liberal?

****

How big a deal is it what people are choosing to call themselves? I don't think the issue polls have shown any radical change.

:2thumbsup: Thank you for saying what I wanted to say better than I could have said it.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

C) A hypocrite? lol, please explain.
Bridge to Nowhere, also for a so-called fiscal conservative alaska gets a whole lot of government welfare

[seireikhaan]

You really should learn to take a joke. :P
BusHitler.

So why the difference? Could it be because the media tells us what to think of each? :P
You should try listening to other media besides the media telling you about the media brainwashing everyone into following the media.

A) By saying that she is an idiot for disagreeing with you on the origins of the world, you are calling everyone who believes in Creationism an idiot (me included).
Oh dear...

[Lemur]

Anybody who wants to debate creationism is encouraged to start another thread. I'm still interested to hear opinions about (a) whether we are in danger of becoming a one-party state, and (b) if not, why not.

[Don Corleone]

In danger of becoming a one party state? I think we're there. Most Americans look to the government to solve all of their problems for them. Few if any show any sort of self-confidence to address their own problems themselves. R or D, we have consistently ceded freedom and liberty, in the hopes that whoever was in office would "Just make all the bad stuff go away". We're sheep, and we've gotten what we deserve.

If your question is whether the Democrats are approaching a permanent majority? Again, with the way the media editorializes on politics, and presents current events in ways that would make Pravda blush, the answer is a resounding yes. What's more, I don't see much hope for the fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic party, the Blue Dog Democrats.

Or haven't you heard about Accountability Now (http://accountabilitynowpac.com/) and Campaign for America's Future (http://www.ourfuture.org/), two groups who are dedicated to targeting Democrats in primaries that "aren't liberal enough". Looks like your big tent is getting a little snug there too.

[Spino]

Haven't young people almost always been liberal?

Yes, this is reflected in my own generation (Generation X) which, as I recall, were decidedly more liberal in our youth. As we grew older, we grew more conservative. The Baby Boomers are the one generation that bucked the trend in that they still possess a modest liberal bias even as the eldest of their ranks passes from middle to old age.

It remains to be seen how long Generation Y will remain solidly liberal. Reagan exerted enormous influence on my generation not simply because he was so sunny and optimistic (that will only get you so far) but because he brought positive, tangible results with him shortly after entering office. It remains to be seen whether Obama can actually deliver on the hype and his promises. Given that Obama's answer is to tax, borrow and spend irresponsibly, essentially the same position as his predecessor (albeit taken to obscene heights) and current Congressional peers then I think it's safe to say the popularity and degree of satisfaction his presidency brings won't come remotely close to emulating Reagan's.

One thing for sure, the Generation Y'ers that are so adamantly in favor of Obama are the most poorly educated & equipped generation to come along in a long time. I don't have much love or respect for my generation but when I see these young 'uns going about their daily business of recklessly pushing themselves needlessly into debt by living way above their means and acting like overgrown children who happen to have jobs, (depleted) bank accounts and 401Ks I wonder what the hell they're going to be like when they smash into reality and are forced to abandon their pursuit of la vida loca. So we'll see how their ideological position changes when more of them settle down, have kids, are confronted with piles of bills and mortgages to pay and... yes, grow old. They may just richochet hard to the right or... there's a good chance that, given their lack of connection to a generation reared in a culture that emphasized moderation and responsbility, will push the country even further to the left. Out of their inability to deal with even the basic challenges of life I can easily see Gen Y'ers turning to government to provide all the answers.

[Xiahou]

Anybody who wants to debate creationism is encouraged to start another thread. I'm still interested to hear opinions about (a) whether we are in danger of becoming a one-party state, and (b) if not, why not.Personally, I'm all for letting Democrats have absolute control. The sooner they get to screw things up, the sooner people can get disgusted with them and the sooner we can be rid of them. I'd rather have people like Specter or Snowe in office as Democrats than Republicans.

Being "moderate" and not having any driving principles behind them is what got the GOP thrown out of power. They came to power with the Contract with America and were helped by the complacency of the Democrats at the time. However, with disappointing speed, members of the GOP quickly abandoned their principles and became more interested in pandering and feathering their own nests than in following up on the principles that got them the majority in the first place. An unfortunate side-effect of the "contract" was that the most principled members of the GOP left office by self-limiting their terms in office as they all supposedly agreed to (see Pat Toomey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Toomey#Congressional_career)).
In 1998, Toomey ran for the 15th District seat being vacated by incumbent Paul McHale against state Senator and future Allentown Mayor Roy C. Afflerbach. Toomey successfully flipped the seat from the Democratic McHale and won by an unexpectedly wide ten-point margin. He may have been helped by Governor Tom Ridge's landslide reelection victory.

Toomey was reelected two more times by relatively comfortable margins. While the 15th has historically been a Democratic district, it has a fairly strong tinge of social conservatism.

Toomey did not run for reelection to his House seat in 2004, fulfilling a pledge that he had signed in 1998 to only serve three terms.[3]As I bemoaned during the Bush years, people like the RSC- the true Republican conservatives, were dismissed and even mocked by the party establishment, jokingly referring to them as the "minority" party since, according to them, that's what the party would become if their principles were put into legislation. Well, the RSC clearly didn't get it's way- and guess what happened? :oops:

I fully expect that after a number of years, the pendulum will again swing the other way and the GOP will be back in power again on a platform of limited government.... sadly, it's also just as likely that they'll quickly betray those principles again too. History repeats itself.... :shame:

[drone]

One thing for sure, the Generation Y'ers that are so adamantly in favor of Obama are the most poorly educated & equipped generation to come along in a long time. I don't have much love or respect for my generation but when I see these young 'uns going about their daily business of recklessly pushing themselves needlessly into debt by living way above their means and acting like overgrown children who happen to have jobs, (depleted) bank accounts and 401Ks I wonder what the hell they're going to be like when they smash into reality and are forced to abandon their pursuit of la vida loca. So we'll see how their ideological position changes when more of them settle down, have kids, are confronted with piles of bills and mortgages to pay and... yes, grow old. They may just richochet hard to the right or... there's a good chance that, given their lack of connection to a generation reared in a culture that emphasized moderation and responsbility, will push the country even further to the left. Out of their inability to deal with even the basic challenges of life I can easily see Gen Y'ers turning to government to provide all the answers.

Get off my lawn! ~D

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I pretty much agree here. Too spoiled, too attached to some alternative reality.

Will the GOP be able financially to contest seriously for House and Senate seats? If they run Palin in 2012, it could very well be the end of the Republican party.

[Xiahou]

If they run Palin in 2012, it could very well be the end of the Republican party.I'm ambivalent towards Palin. I think she took a terrible beating on the McCain ticket. Part of it was certainly due to her inexperience, but much of it I also blame on the ineptitude of the McCain campaign. I also think the enthusiasm with which she was ripped in the new coverage was pretty astonishing too.

Regardless, she now has a very deep hole to dig herself out of. If she comes back in 2012 and is extremely polished, runs a perfect campaign and is able to repair her image- great, she would deserve to win the primary. However, if she's still rough around the edges and makes too many missteps, then she'll lose- and in that case, good. If she runs, she'll start out as damaged goods- and if she can overcome that, she'll probably have earned the nomination. :shrug:

[Lemur]

In danger of becoming a one party state? I think we're there. Most Americans look to the government to solve all of their problems for them. Few if any show any sort of self-confidence to address their own problems themselves.
I think this is overly pessimistic. Just looking around me, the vast majority of people I know work for a living. The only person I know on public assistance is a state-certified paranoid schitzophrenic who has to take medicine or the voices start again. And in his case, I don't see why the minimal support he gets is a bad thing. Would we rather he were on the streets, unmedicated, defecating in his hand and screaming about demons?

Anyway, if you're going to argue that the vast majority of Americans are welfare-suckling statists who can't make their own way, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of backup.

[Spino]

Personally, I'm all for letting Democrats have absolute control. The sooner they get to screw things up, the sooner people can get disgusted with them and the sooner we can be rid of them. I'd rather have people like Specter or Snowe in office as Democrats than Republicans.

Ugh. The problem with this approach is once you pass a bill or create a government program, department or entity it's incredibly hard to get rid of it unless you can achieve a similarly solid majority... and possess the political will to take a legislative axe to the offending branches. The Dems with a non-filibusterable majority are going to be downright scary, in many cases far worse than what we saw during the last 8 years. Better buckle up... and buy a damn good buttplug... :help:


I fully expect that after a number of years, the pendulum will again swing the other way and the GOP will be back in power again on a platform of limited government.... sadly, it's also just as likely that they'll quickly betray those principles again too. History repeats itself.... :shame:

Agreed.

[Don Corleone]

Anyway, if you're going to argue that the vast majority of Americans are welfare-suckling statists who can't make their own way, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of backup.

For starters, let's look at the public demand for:

-the stimulus package
-subsidized home ownership
-universal healthcare
-government renogotiating debt contracts (mortgages, credit cards, etcetera)

In other words, the public is looking for socialism. Pleading for it. Demanding it. We don't say we are, we claim to all be "hard-working, do-it-ourselfers". But when push comes to shove, what's our answer? Beg the government to solve our problems for us.

Hell, just look at gas going over $2.50/gallon. What's the average reaction in the street? A whiny: The government ought to do something about this...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

[Spino]

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

It's a nice thought but it doesn't jibe well with human nature. Human beings are naturally very hierarchical, tribal animals. We have a marked tendency to draw lines where none exist. Such is the lot of primates.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why don't you just become like Canadians? They have that cheesy notion that that anyone can just buckle up and make an honest living, while at the same time being sort of socialist.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.
You like one party-system :grin:? Go to Russia then!! We may have different parties, but only Putin's United Russia holds any power. jk. But they are pretty powerful.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You like one party-system :grin:? Go to Russia then!! We may have different parties, but only Putin's United Russia holds any power. jk. But they are pretty powerful.



What? I said I didn't want any parties whatsoever.

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, I'm clearly not the only person (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/28/specters_departure_a_wake_up_c.html?hpid=topnews) thinking about this.


The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the depth of the party's problems. Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Party identification does fluctuate with events. But as a snapshot indicator, the latest figures highlight the impact of Obama's opening months on the Republican Party. From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs. It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was.

The Republicans have many demographic challenges as they plot their comeback. Obama has attracted strong support from young voters and Latinos -- two keys to the future for both parties and once part of the GOP's calculation for sustaining themselves in power. Suburban voters have moved toward the Democrats. Specter can see that problem acutely in the suburbs around his home in Philadelphia home. Obama is also holding a solid advantage among independents, the proxy measure for the center or swing portion of the electorate.

Reihan Salam, co-author of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save America," said this week that the danger for Republicans is to believe they now represent a vast, silent majority that is waiting to reassert itself. A louder voice from a smaller cadre of supporters is not the answer, he warned. That will just prevent Republicans from reassessing their old agenda, developing new ideas and once again learning to reach out broadly. [...]

Sixty percent of the country trusts Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future -- but just 21 percent trust Republicans in Congress.

Despite their solid opposition to the president's economic and budgetary policies, Republicans in Congress have seen this trust quotient decline eight points since January. A CBS News-New York Times poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Republicans have opposed those policies for political reasons, rather than because GOP lawmakers genuinely believe the policies are bad for the economy.

[Marshal Murat]

. A CBS News-New York Times poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Republicans have opposed those policies for political reasons, rather than because GOP lawmakers genuinely believe the policies are bad for the economy.
I wonder how the questions were phrased...

I think that reveals two key things concerning public views of Republicans and politicians in general. Few seriously believe that the Republicans have an ideological conflict with passing big budgets, and some no doubt do have conflicts with passing big budgets. The public is so cynical as to believe this is a purely political move, and it is, to an extent but it's also an affirmation of some Republicans that they don't believe that the budget it the right idea. They are actually sticking to conservative principles in some form or another.

The Republicans can claim a youth vote just as easily as Obama did. The youth aren't going to always going to swing one way, so if the Republicans can sell it right they could take in the youth vote. Besides, Obama is a President, and like all Presidents after two terms we will tire of him. Besides, no one has ever maintained serious control of Congress (filibuster proof Senate and House majority) during a favorable Presidency.
The Republicans need to be able to embrace Schwarzenegger (California) and Crist (Florida), and get their followers to do so. They are fiscally conservative but they're open on social issues, and that's where Republicans need to moderate, move back to close-center at least.

[Lemur]

Marshal Murat, I suspect that a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Repub party would be a force to be reckoned with. But how to accomplish such a thing without a revolt from the social conservatives/religious right is beyond my tiny lemur brain's capacity.


I wonder how the questions were phrased...
A worthwhile question. Here's the WSJ/NBC poll (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NewsPoll_042809.pdf) (PDF warning). Here's the NYT/CBS poll (http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-obama-s-100th-day-in-office/page/1#p=15) he's referencing.

[Marshal Murat]

Subliminal messaging.

[ICantSpellDawg]

8 Years of a Democratic House, Senate and Administration will do more for the Republican cause than anything the GOP could ever do for itself.

Democrats would be nowhere without GWB.

[Xiahou]

People have been digging up some rather amusing things about Specter in light of his party switch....

Like his speech (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmU4MDUzNTAxMTU4OGViNjE4YTljZmY3ZDg5MDljZGQ=)after Jim Jeffords aligned with the Democrats:
How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.I guess he's now pretty happy that his rule was never adopted. :beam:

Then there's this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da83vt-4HAQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da83vt-4HAQ) he made in support of a GOP challenger in a House election where he warned how letting the Democrats get any more seats could be dangerous to the country.

And here's an interview (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/specter-had-disavowed-a-switch/) he gave just last month where he denied that he was switching parties, again citing the importance of keeping Democrats in check. Of course, all of the above goes out the window when his reelection is on the line.

My favorite part of his speech today was how he said he was changing parties because he didn't want his time in the Senate to be judged by Pennsylvania Republicans. Of course, he didn't mind us judging him for the 30yrs that we reelected him- it's only when he may not get reelected that we're suddenly beneath him. :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

I have removed the off-topic and frankly snarky tangent on creationism. Please ensure it does not try to adapt to the new environment otherwise I shall be forced to make you extinct.

:bow:

[CountArach]

Check the polling for the thirty-and-under crowd. If that doesn't make you sit up and take notice, nothing will. Examples (and this is just me doing some sampling; I'm sure CountArch could illustrate the point far better):
You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/ThesisFigures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_curious_case_of_the_libera.php). She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/kristen-soltis/).

[Spino]

8 Years of a Democratic House, Senate and Administration will do more for the Republican cause than anything the GOP could ever do for itself.

Democrats would be nowhere without GWB.

So true. The Dems ought to erect a statute of GWB in the DNC headquarters.

With the Democrats having a solid lock on Congress and the White House this is shaping up to be a repeat of the Carter years. Dobbs posted some House & Senate numbers last night and it's 1976 - 1979 all over again, complete with a filibuster proof 60 seat lock in the Senate.

The big question now is who will be the one to issue the rally cry for conservatives?

[Spino]

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/ThesisFigures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_curious_case_of_the_libera.php). She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/kristen-soltis/).

The Achilles heel of the youth vote is that despite their noise and excitement the youngsters never turn out in large numbers to vote. This recent election didn't see the explosive youth turnout the media and DNC kept insisting would happen.

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/ThesisFigures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_curious_case_of_the_libera.php). She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/kristen-soltis/).

Lol at the drop after 88, looks like the first Bush totally ****** it up for the conservative movement.

[seireikhaan]

The Achilles heel of the youth vote is that despite their noise and excitement the youngsters never turn out in large numbers to vote. This recent election didn't see the explosive youth turnout the media and DNC kept insisting would happen.

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.
Methinks the baby boomers were plenty conservative in their younger days. When one stands to benefit from government handouts, it is rather interesting what it can do to their ideology.

However, I don't see any Republican being the rallying cry in '12. The gov'nuh from New Mexico that CR linked to seems like the most qualified person I've seen yet, however he has pretty much no press and will have to really storm the scene. And he may be too libertarian for the social conservatives that he'll need to win over to get the Republican nomination, particularly if their battle cry continues to get increasingly shrill.

[CountArach]

The Achilles heel of the youth vote is that despite their noise and excitement the youngsters never turn out in large numbers to vote. This recent election didn't see the explosive youth turnout the media and DNC kept insisting would happen.
This is a trend that has been reversing itself over the last 3 elections (http://www.civicyouth.org/?p=339). There is still a lot of inequality in terms of voter turnout. What I find interesting about that article is the effect that education on voting patterns - a more educated citizenry is genuinely more engaged.

Lol at the drop after 88, looks like the first Bush totally ****** it up for the conservative movement.
In the article this is explained largely by the election of Bill Clinton rather than Bush I. The idea of a young man being elected rather than another old guy was quite appealing I would imagine.

[Xiahou]

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/ThesisFigures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_curious_case_of_the_libera.php). She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/kristen-soltis/).

And yet, the Battleground poll (http://www.tarrance.com/082008/BG-35-questionnaire.pdf) from August 2008 still said 60% of the country considered itself very or somewhat conservative vs 36% very or somewhat liberal....

[AlexanderSextus]

if the GOP ceases to exist i hope the Libertarian Party fills the vacuum.

[Lemur]

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.
A longish article (http://www.thenextright.com/kristen-soltis/the-vanishing-young-republicans) on this subject. Interesting bit:


I've been troubled in recent months when discussing the issue of young voters with some fellow Republicans. There seems to be a sort of conventional wisdom that we should expect young voters to trend liberal and Democratic, that the behavior of young voters in 2008 is not serious cause for concern. This stems from a belief in partisanship as a life-cycle factor, that voters start liberal and Democratic and wind up older, conservative, and Republican. But the data paint a very different picture. Take the graph of partisan identification for instance; over the last few decades, young voters have not identified with the Democratic party in substantially higher numbers than voters overall. Even conservatism had its moment among young voters in the 1980's. Yet with the end of the Reagan presidency, young voters shifted toward liberalism. This ideological shift did not play out into actual partisan identification in a meaningful way until 2006 and 2008.

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are "locked in for life", supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A longish article (http://www.thenextright.com/kristen-soltis/the-vanishing-young-republicans) on this subject. Interesting bit:

I've been troubled in recent months when discussing the issue of young voters with some fellow Republicans. There seems to be a sort of conventional wisdom that we should expect young voters to trend liberal and Democratic, that the behavior of young voters in 2008 is not serious cause for concern. This stems from a belief in partisanship as a life-cycle factor, that voters start liberal and Democratic and wind up older, conservative, and Republican. But the data paint a very different picture. Take the graph of partisan identification for instance; over the last few decades, young voters have not identified with the Democratic party in substantially higher numbers than voters overall. Even conservatism had its moment among young voters in the 1980's. Yet with the end of the Reagan presidency, young voters shifted toward liberalism. This ideological shift did not play out into actual partisan identification in a meaningful way until 2006 and 2008.

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are "locked in for life", supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.



Big deal. We'll see what happens when it happens. The GOP will change when it needs to change. They're out of congressional power for what, 4 years and administrative power for just over 100 days - and we're sealing their coffin? How ridiculous can we be about things?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Repubs ain't going nowhere. Media is blowing Obama up as big as possible and trying to attach a stigma to anyone who identifies as a Republican, but that has not made conservatives give up their beliefs or jump the country. Wait till next election, you are gonna see a revival like you have never seen in your life. Even before the 08 election was decided there were all kinds of social groups being formed to stop Palin in 2012 :P, and the media has been trying to paint her as a failure all this time. There is a reason liberals are so afraid of her, that gal is dynamite and you are gonna see an historical reinvigoration of the republican base that you will not believe. Why do you think they are barraging her with all these BS ethics charges? Why do you think there are social groups on sites like Facebook dedicated to making an organised effort to discredit her? Why do you think the media is desperately trying to paint her as radical, gun toting loony? They are scared...scared out of their minds. If Palin runs, you will be eating your words Lemur. ~;) They say that people don't like her and that she only attracts people on the fringes, etc, but almost all the conservatives I know, an easy majority of the moderates I know, and even a few libs I know love her.
Don't get me wrong, I know she ain't perfect; I don't think she is the messiah. I am excited about her because I think that she is honest, and that her beliefs are rationally grounded, and that her politics are mostly good, and cause I know that she has one heck of a chance of taking the Obamonster out next election.

To quote Bender: Oh... your... God.

That woman is appalling on a level I never before imagined. Even after I saw Ann Coulter, I thought to myself... there is no way a woman can be as disturbed as this woman... and then we saw Palin. Who is like Ann Coulter, except more extreme and less articulate.

Liberals are afraid of her because she's a partisan extremist demagogue who WILL drive this nation into a ditch of despair and partisanship and...


South, religion, and anti-intellectualism

Which just about sums up why the Republicans are failing as a party. There's nothing inherently better or different about the South than the North, and that sort of regionalism makes people pissed off. Religion is fine but not everyone agrees with your religion nor do they believe it has a place in politics. Anti-intellectualism just feeds on the average joe's resentment with being at the bottom of the social ladder and blames everything on the evils of elitism and education. I'm all for equality but you know what? I'd rather vote for a well-educated, successful, intelligent person over someone who doesn't know what they are doing, and most people would too. Hence the resentment against such people who always lose to them in life. It's rallying people around laughable concepts like regionalism, religion-in-politics when religion is a personal thing, not a public thing to be legislated, and populist anger at not attending Harvard, which creates the feeling that everyone from an Ivy League school must be evil.

Palin is a one-trick pony. She was a third place finisher of Miss Alaska, and so therefore she appeals to certain men, and she talks about things which play on prejudices; religious intolerance, regionalism, and populism. Then she doesn't take a consistent stand on anything, smiles, and shrieks in a voice which makes paint peel, in a folksy manner (horribly reminiscent of Bush) and doesn't understand her own party's positions or the arguments she was given to parrot for them. She can't explain herself or what she believes. Maybe she is smart, but she's pulling off an incredible act convincing me that she's either dumb or terribly, terribly unqualified for any sort of public service.

More people than just liberals have an unfavorable opinion of her. There's much to be unfavorable about. And I think that the ethics complaints against her aren't fabrications, either, sorry. Convince me otherwise.

[Furunculus]

This happens from time to time, a party ceases to represent the desires of the people and without realising it they become an irrelevance, and a new party rises to fill the vacuum.

It happened to the Whigs in Britain one hundred years ago.

America won't be a one-party state, either the republicans will evolve back into the sphere of visible public interest or they will whither and a new party will arise.

it looks like labour could face terminal decline from obselescence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5260005/Labour-MPs-plot-Lib-Dem-defection-due-to-doubts-about-Gordon-Brown.html

[Banquo's Ghost]

it looks like labour could face terminal decline from obselescence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5260005/Labour-MPs-plot-Lib-Dem-defection-due-to-doubts-about-Gordon-Brown.html

If they could come back to government after the Winter of Discontent via the nadir of Michael Foot, they can come back from anything. Brown may well have condemned them to a long time in the wilderness again, but the party is likely to reinvent itself. Plus, many commentators are describing the coming election as a good one to lose - the winner is going to have to implement some very nasty tax increases and severe public sector cuts. (Excellent, one might say, but the feeble-minded electorate loves to believe that they can have it all, and will baulk at anyone who tells them the party cannot continue).

The Conservative Party has performed the same resurrection trick. After Major's defeat, pretty much everyone said they were finished - and like Labour before them (and despite that lesson) they retreated into the core vote, elected some astonishingly silly leaders rather than the moderate heavyweights they had available, in a desperate spiral of searching for "purity". A party that for fifty or more years had been the "natural party of government" (through pragmatism of an exemplary standard) made itself utterly irrelevant. Finally, more by accident than judgement, they ended up with Cameron and came back towards the centre. Like New Labour, they are ideology free, but Brown is such a spectacularly incompetent leader, he gifts them endless opportunity whilst all the Tories have to do is watch and laugh. There's no evidence of an appetite for a Tory agenda, but no-one outside of a mental institution is considering voting for Brown. Yet if he hadn't been yellow to the very spine, Mr Brown may well have won a snap October 07 election and Cameron (who was on the verge of being dumped by his own party) would have made the same foot note in history as Iain Duncan Smith.

Such are the vagaries of power. The Republican party looks as if it might be in danger of imploding in the way some do when they think their core is all-important, but they'll recover their senses. Maybe not soon, but that will depend on the Democrats - it is almost always the government that loses elections, not oppositions that win them. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing any US party trying to rebuild is the primary system. As I understand it, only candidates who can mobilise the core vote have much of a chance these days, and thus those who then face the wider electorate (where they need to change significantly to appeal to those voters who currently don't like them) are often unappealing.

[Furunculus]

i agree with you, it takes a lot of hard work over a long time to become completely irrelevant to the voter, quite how the whigs/liberals have managed to perpetuate such a feat is beyond my imagination.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If they could come back to government after the Winter of Discontent via the nadir of Michael Foot, they can come back from anything. Brown may well have condemned them to a long time in the wilderness again, but the party is likely to reinvent itself. Plus, many commentators are describing the coming election as a good one to lose - the winner is going to have to implement some very nasty tax increases and severe public sector cuts. (Excellent, one might say, but the feeble-minded electorate loves to believe that they can have it all, and will baulk at anyone who tells them the party cannot continue).

The Conservative Party has performed the same resurrection trick. After Major's defeat, pretty much everyone said they were finished - and like Labour before them (and despite that lesson) they retreated into the core vote, elected some astonishingly silly leaders rather than the moderate heavyweights they had available, in a desperate spiral of searching for "purity". A party that for fifty or more years had been the "natural party of government" (through pragmatism of an exemplary standard) made itself utterly irrelevant. Finally, more by accident than judgement, they ended up with Cameron and came back towards the centre. Like New Labour, they are ideology free, but Brown is such a spectacularly incompetent leader, he gifts them endless opportunity whilst all the Tories have to do is watch and laugh. There's no evidence of an appetite for a Tory agenda, but no-one outside of a mental institution is considering voting for Brown. Yet if he hadn't been yellow to the very spine, Mr Brown may well have won a snap October 07 election and Cameron (who was on the verge of being dumped by his own party) would have made the same foot note in history as Iain Duncan Smith.

Such are the vagaries of power. The Republican party looks as if it might be in danger of imploding in the way some do when they think their core is all-important, but they'll recover their senses. Maybe not soon, but that will depend on the Democrats - it is almost always the government that loses elections, not oppositions that win them. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing any US party trying to rebuild is the primary system. As I understand it, only candidates who can mobilise the core vote have much of a chance these days, and thus those who then face the wider electorate (where they need to change significantly to appeal to those voters who currently don't like them) are often unappealing.


I see where you are coming from - these are rational thoughts and expectations. On the flip side, the US is a different place than Britain and the difference is more than just locale. Republicans could implode just like the tories in a monumental desert-destined defeat. Or not.

I do like the Idea of the big tent. We need to include everyone who supports at least one pillar of that tent. This shouldn't be a hard sell. There are plenty of Republicans who seem to have their heads on straight and can convince people in a crowd that they have decent ideas.

I'm not all that afraid. I plan on changing my registration to Republican as my own counterbalance. I was an Independent when they were in power and I will be a Republican when they are out of power. Democrats havn't won the social debate, they havn't won the economic debate (they are barely letting anyone know what the plan is here) and they've essentially caved on the foreign policy debate into a transcendent pan-party ideology.

We just need to wait for their large scale failure on one of those pillars to inflame sensitivities JUST enough to get people to stop thinking that the GOP is the enemy of hip and smart. PLUS we have to welcome more "smart".





Which pillar will it be?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I see where you are coming from - these are rational thoughts and expectations. On the flip side, the US is a different place than Britain and the difference is more than just locale. Republicans could implode just like the tories in a monumental desert-destined defeat. Or not.

I do like the Idea of the big tent. We need to include everyone who supports at least one pillar of that tent. This shouldn't be a hard sell. There are plenty of Republicans who seem to have their heads on straight and can convince people in a crowd that they have decent ideas.

I agree that there are significant differences.

The challenge of 21st century Big Tent Republicanism is one that faces a lot of "conservative" parties these days. It is the huge chasm between the ideologies of fiscal/small government/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives. The former is entirely predicated on reducing and removing government and societal control of citizens' lives. The latter is entirely about regulating citizens' lives down to their very morality, and invariably relies on one single tradition (usually religious) to set the parameters of that control. This of course, is directly antithetical to a free and pluralistic society.

As with the European Union in Britain (it tore apart the Tories for years, but for no reason as the allegedly pro-Europe Blair proved) sacred cows split parties. If the GOP finds the courage to ditch social conservatism and embrace the fiscally responsible constitutionalist soul* it used to have, it will reappear as a powerful force that really appeals to middle America, particularly in these gravely worrying times when an alternative to government largesse and associated power grabs is sought by many, I suspect.

* Including dumping the foreign entanglements. :wink:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree that there are significant differences.

The challenge of 21st century Big Tent Republicanism is one that faces a lot of "conservative" parties these days. It is the huge chasm between the ideologies of fiscal/small government/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives. The former is entirely predicated on reducing and removing government and societal control of citizens' lives. The latter is entirely about regulating citizens' lives down to their very morality, and invariably relies on one single tradition (usually religious) to set the parameters of that control. This of course, is directly antithetical to a free and pluralistic society.

As with the European Union in Britain (it tore apart the Tories for years, but for no reason as the allegedly pro-Europe Blair proved) sacred cows split parties. If the GOP finds the courage to ditch social conservatism and embrace the fiscally responsible constitutionalist soul* it used to have, it will reappear as a powerful force that really appeals to middle America, particularly in these gravely worrying times when an alternative to government largesse and associated power grabs is sought by many, I suspect.

* Including dumping the foreign entanglements. :wink:


There are differences between social conservatives and those who would rule the nation as a theocracy. Ron Paul is agaisnt Abortion, Banquo - in fact he was the only candidate to go to the march for life during the election year.

Most Democrats believe that people should be able to have sex with whomever they'd like at all times and murder their own children as long as they are out of sight. BUT they believe that if you don't wear a seatbelt or recycle you are a monster and should be arrested/killed. Illogical dichotomy is not an exclusive hallmark of the right.

[HoreTore]

but you are forgetting that multi parites is a mess. just look at israels system. to get a government going, you need the majority of the seats, and since that is so hard to do, coalitions are formed and its a mess.
if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

The simple solution to that problem:

Make it so that you don't have to get a majority in parliament to rule. You only need a majority to throw the government out. As for the practical ruling stuff, they still need a majority on each case, which they will find by seeking support from the other parties. If the other parties decide they no longer wants them in charge, they'll refuse to pass the budget, and the government must take their hat and leave, and another government is formed(minority or majority).

We've had dozens of minority governments, all of them have functioned well. The current government is actually the first majority government we've had in quite some years.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Most Democrats believe that people should be able to have sex with whomever they'd like at all times and murder their own children as long as they are out of sight. BUT they believe that if you don't wear a seatbelt or recycle you are a monster and should be arrested/killed. Illogical dichotomy is not an exclusive hallmark of the right.

I didn't claim it was.

But, your hyperbole aside, the Democratic party seems to have forged a consensus towards the middle ground which eludes the GOP at present. And it is the GOP's return to power which we are discussing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I didn't claim it was.

But, your hyperbole aside, the Democratic party seems to have forged a consensus towards the middle ground which eludes the GOP at present. And it is the GOP's return to power which we are discussing.


I agree with your point, although I'm not sure that their policies are middle ground. I think they've fielded a talent in Obama and he is using that talent to "put lipstick on a pig" as it were. He has made previously distasteful ideas go down more smoothly, not because he has worked out the kinks, but rather because of the way he words his agenda.

The party is in office because a number of Republican policies have failed miserably. Like you've said, elections are usually lost by the party in power rather than won by the usurper. Obama has been a miraculous talent BUT, as most posters believed, Hillary Clinton would have won the election handily if he had not been present - and she is one of the least politically talented politicos in recent history. I bleeive that a Dog scratching its way out of a paper bag would have been elected before a Republican after the last 8 embarrassing years. Nontheless, talent like Obama managed to make his way to the top of a vacuum and seal the deal, probably for a while.

I give him endless credit. He has put garnish on a glass of pee when the united states is trying to get the taste of GOP vomit out of their mouths.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I believe the same hyperbole can be used for the so-called right:

Most Republicans believe that people who are born with a same-sex preference are horrible sinners who will burn in hell and don't deserve equal rights, freedoms, and protections as straight people. They also don't seem to care about that one percent or so of people who are born hermaphroditic or otherwise sexually irregular, due to intelligent design of the human species. Of course, due to that design, doesn't that mean God welcomes his creations as he made them? BUT they believe that the government has a right to intrude into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't believe that we should allow people to become obscenely rich while others are dying from curable disease, then you're a godless communist. They believe that anyone from Mexico, south America, China, or Arab countries are a threat to this country, regardless of being legal immigrants or second-generation. They think that it is OK for people to own any kind of assault weapon and that's the same as legitimate hunting or home defense firearms. They harp on and on about the rights of the people and the big bad government, then they remove people's rights both domestic and foreign and support the use of torture, in spite of their moral grandstanding on other issues like the life of the unborn, and paint the people who think if a woman has been raped by her father and would not like to have the child and that should be legal as being some child-murdering monsters, overlooking a woman's sovereign right to govern her own body from invaders. If a person is in your home uninvited, don't you have the "right" to shoot them on sight in many states? How is that different, in any way shape or form, from abortion? They also seem to think anyone who votes Democrat must be a pot smoking hippie who should be arrested/killed.

This kind of rhetoric gets us nowhere. Twisting the extremes of a party and then attributing that to the entire party is a pretty strong example of a straw man argument.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe the same hyperbole can be used for the so-called right:

Most Republicans believe that people who are born with a same-sex preference are horrible sinners who will burn in hell and don't deserve equal rights, freedoms, and protections as straight people. They also don't seem to care about that one percent or so of people who are born hermaphroditic or otherwise sexually irregular, due to intelligent design of the human species. Of course, due to that design, doesn't that mean God welcomes his creations as he made them? BUT they believe that the government has a right to intrude into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't believe that we should allow people to become obscenely rich while others are dying from curable disease, then you're a godless communist. They believe that anyone from Mexico, south America, China, or Arab countries are a threat to this country, regardless of being legal immigrants or second-generation. They think that it is OK for people to own any kind of assault weapon and that's the same as legitimate hunting or home defense firearms. They harp on and on about the rights of the people and the big bad government, then they remove people's rights both domestic and foreign and support the use of torture, in spite of their moral grandstanding on other issues like the life of the unborn, and paint the people who think if a woman has been raped by her father and would not like to have the child and that should be legal as being some child-murdering monsters, overlooking a woman's sovereign right to govern her own body from invaders. If a person is in your home uninvited, don't you have the "right" to shoot them on sight in many states? How is that different, in any way shape or form, from abortion? They also seem to think anyone who votes Democrat must be a pot smoking hippie who should be arrested/killed.

This kind of rhetoric gets us nowhere. Twisting the extremes of a party and then attributing that to the entire party is a pretty strong example of a straw man argument.


mine was 2 lines and meant to be humorous. Yours was long and boring! teehee

I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the right BUT that it was not exclusive to the right.

[Askthepizzaguy]

mine was 2 lines and meant to be humorous. Yours was long and boring! teehee

I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the right BUT that it was not exclusive to the right.

I am pointing out that accusing all democrats of being cold, heartless child murderers isn't actually that funny, accurate, or fair. And as for illogical dichotomy, I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the left BUT that it was not exclusive to the left.

If you can do it, I can do it. It's a fair argument that way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And all the while, the Whigs are eating your babies. :juggle2:

The Republicans will pick themselves up. People always think parties are dead after a bad election defeat, then as soon as the opposition are in power for a while people forget about the past government and blame everything on the current one. People are just plain stupid, no government will ever be good enough.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And all the while, the Whigs are eating your babies. :juggle2

I KNEW IT!!! Damn those Whigs! Let's get them!!! :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

There are differences between social conservatives and those who would rule the nation as a theocracy. Ron Paul is agaisnt Abortion, Banquo - in fact he was the only candidate to go to the march for life during the election year.There's plenty of common ground between social and economic conservatives. Respecting social tradition isn't incongruous with wanting a smaller, less costly government- the two line up in numerous ways. In fact, I'd say a consummate conservative would want both respect for tradition and a return to a smaller government such as we had pre-New Deal. :yes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's plenty of common ground between social and economic conservatives. Respecting social tradition isn't incongruous with wanting a smaller, less costly government- the two line up in numerous ways. In fact, I'd say a consummate conservative would want both respect for tradition and a return to a smaller government such as we had pre-New Deal. :yes:


Xiahou, that goes beyond mindless criticism - I don't think it will fly. Social conservatives are moronic zealots who have nothing in common with anyone and should be left on the proverbial curb.

Everybody knows that.

[Xiahou]

Here's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_re_us/us_centrist_america) an article on a recent Pew survey:

The results also suggest that the public recently has rejected the GOP for poor performance, not because it disagrees with the party's positions on key issues. That means beleaguered Republicans looking to rebound must convince voters they are still good stewards of those values while improving the GOP's image and morale.To which I respond "DUH!". Again, America is a right-leaning country. Voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected the GOPs failure to follow it.

[Lemur]

Again, America is a right-leaning country.
They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month. I think it depends entirely on how you choose to define "right," a nebulous term at best. Almost as bastardized and ill-defined as "conservative" and "liberal," words that have been twisted into pretzels in the last three decades.

I think Americans are more moderate and nuanced on the issues than either party would like to believe. From the article you linked:


This group hews more closely to Democrats than Republicans on social values, religion and national security. But it also is more conservative on several key issues including the economy, partly because of steady defections from the GOP, and more skeptical than two years ago of expanding government assistance, a typically Republican position. More in line with Democratic thinking, most independents support expanded government intervention and regulation in the private sector, albeit reluctantly.

Does that mean "center-right"? If so, why?

That said, the latest polls are not good. (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/18/poll-gop-losing-ground-in-most-demographics/)

[Askthepizzaguy]

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month. I think it depends entirely on how you choose to define "right," a nebulous term at best. Almost as bastardized and ill-defined as "conservative" and "liberal," words that have been twisted into pretzels in the last three decades.

Finally someone who understands me.

The political language has been turned into nonsense. These shorthand terms for very complicated and nuanced political viewpoints have been abused beyond recognition. I refuse to identify as right or left wing, because those things no longer have any meaning that can't be twisted to mean its exact opposite. I know it's the same tired debate procedure "well first we have to define our terms..." but to be frank, we no longer have any terms I can relate to.

As an aside; all I hear from Fox is attempts to define and re-define everyone and everything. Those aren't conservatives they are Neoconservatives. Those aren't Democratic party members, they are Democrat socialists. In spite of a recent election where the moderate/liberal gets elected by a good margin, we're a "right" leaning country. America is a "Christian" country even though we're officially secular. Obama is a "fascist" for returning the tax rate to Clinton-era levels. Everyone besides Christian conservative Republicans are "un-American".

I grow weary of the rhetoric, along with the abuse of language.

[drone]

That said, the latest polls are not good. (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/18/poll-gop-losing-ground-in-most-demographics/)

And with the RNC's continuing descent into madness, it's probably not going to be getting better any time soon. They need to fix themselves quick, I'm going to need someone sane I can vote for once the Dems get drunk with power (i.e. 2010).

In general, I do believe the US to be mainly center-right (in the classical sense). And Fox will continue to bang this drum to spin things. The problem is that the GOP doesn't represent the center-right, right, or even the far-right, they just have everyone thinking that they do.

[Lemur]

In general, I do believe the US to be mainly center-right (in the classical sense).
But what does that mean? "Left" needs something to be left of, and "right" needs something to be right of. America is "center-right" in relationship to what? America? Does that even make sense?

Was Genghis Khan more "right" than Mussolini? Was Pol Pot more "left" than Castro? How can you even use such soft and nebulous descriptors and hope to express anything that has meaning?

I think saying "America is a center-right" country means this, precisely: "Yes, we lost the last election very badly, and our party is in eclipse, but more Americans agree with us than with anyone else, so everything's going to be okay."

Nothing more, nothing less.

[CountArach]

To which I respond "DUH!". Again, America is a right-leaning country. Voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected the GOPs failure to follow it.
I disagree (As I can assume you knew I would :wink: ). Take a look at the following chart that shows American opinions on certain economic issues (Social issues will come later - but I have to leave soon):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/517-2.gif
There is still strong support of regulation of businesses and more people are beginning to believe it does more good than harm. There is HUGE support for the Government making health care affordable - showing a rejection of free-market values, while at the same time the voters making it clear that they do not want the government becoming *too* involved. However, the most telling quote comes from the Pew Survey results release statement (http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes):

The public continues to be of two minds in its opinions about both government and business. Business generally, as well as Wall Street specifically, is viewed as playing a vital role in American society, but both are viewed as excessively concerned with amassing profits. In addition, although support for government assistance to the poor has declined, opinions about the government itself – whether it is wasteful and inefficient, whether it is run for the benefit of all – have moved in a positive direction.

But anyway I really have to go now, I'll be back to look at the social issues - where there is no way someone can claim America has moved to the right.

[Xiahou]

But what does that mean? "Left" needs something to be left of, and "right" needs something to be right of. America is "center-right" in relationship to what? America? Does that even make sense?In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center. :yes:


And Fox will continue to bang this drum to spin things.

all I hear from Fox is attempts to define and re-define everyone and everything.
They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month.
Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it. Is this the new "Fox News" defense debate tactic I've heard about? Can I retaliate with the Chewbacca Defense (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454) ?

[CountArach]

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center. :yes:
What someone labels themselves as and what someone actually believes can be remarkably different. Look at the above table - note that 48% of Republicans want government regulation of the market in some way! How is that at all conservative?

[Lemur]

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center. :yes:
Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen a poll that supports it (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans).

This poll shows Independents, Dems and Repubs, in that order. As for "conservative" and "liberal," words you use as though they had a commonly accepted definition (they don't), let's see the data. You've made a straight factual assertion, so I'm assuming you have something to back it up.


Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it.
When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016962.php) verbatim, people just might notice.

[Xiahou]

Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen a poll that supports it (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans).

This poll shows Independents, Dems and Repubs, in that order. As for "conservative" and "liberal," words you use as though they had a commonly accepted definition (they don't), let's see the data. You've made a straight factual assertion, so I'm assuming you have something to back it up.I've posted it before, I'll post it again. Maybe one of these times you'll remember it. The Battleground Poll (http://www.tarrance.com/bg.cfm) has been carried out since 1991. Question D3 asks respondents to self identify as either Very Conservative, Somewhat Conservative, Moderate, Somewhat Liberal, or Very Liberal. See for yourself. (http://www.tarrance.com/files/10.23-GWU-BG%20Tracking-Questionnaire.pdf). 59% identify themselves as somewhat or very cosnervative, 36% identify as somewhat or very liberal. Very conservative vs Very liberal is 20% vs 10%.The entire point of my previous post was that the GOP is in decline because voters have lost all confidence in their ability to live up to their ideals. Presenting polls, as you have, that less Americans identify themselves as Republicans doesn't refute that- if anything it supports it.


When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016962.php) verbatim, people just might notice.So it is the Fox News Defense. Good show. :laugh4:
My only response is: Why would a Wookie be on Endor?

[Samurai Waki]

It'll be interesting to see where both parties end up in 50 years... that is, if we're still a democracy (you can never be to sure about these things). Hopefully the repubs take notes from the Libertarians...

[Lemur]

I've posted it before, I'll post it again. Maybe one of these times you'll remember it. The Battleground Poll (http://www.tarrance.com/bg.cfm) has been carried out since 1991. Question D3 asks respondents to self identify as either Very Conservative, Somewhat Conservative, Moderate, Somewhat Liberal, or Very Liberal. See for yourself. (http://http://www.tarrance.com/files/10.23-GWU-BG%20Tracking-Questionnaire.pdf).
Your link, she is broken. Here's the fixed version (http://www.tarrance.com/files/10.23-GWU-BG%20Tracking-Questionnaire.pdf).

An interesting poll. They ask for liberal/conservative self-definition in relationship to government and politics, not on any other subjects (say, social issues or finance), which is interesting thing one. They also provide no definition of "conservative" or "liberal," which is interesting thing two.

Here's what I would like to see to make the "center-right" mantra believable: A breakdown of which issues represent "conservative" and "liberal," and then a broad-based poll of Americans seeing how they fall on the issues. Anything less is just poll-smoking. CA, can you whip a poll like that out of your posterior?

[drone]

I think saying "America is a center-right" country means this, precisely: "Yes, we lost the last election very badly, and our party is in eclipse, but more Americans agree with us than with anyone else, so everything's going to be okay."

Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I said Fox would spin it that way. Americans are more religious than their Euro counterparts, and generally Americans don't want the government sticking their nose into their business. The GOP abandoned both the financial and social conservatives, but they still want people to believe that's what they stand for. Americans are waking up to the fact that they have been conned, and are abandoning the GOP.

If they had competent leadership, one of the larger third parties would be actively courting disenfranchised GOP moderates and conservative leaning indies. Unfortunately, most of the Libertarians are still wasted from 4/20 and haven't jumped at the unique opportunity being presented.

[Vladimir]

Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it. Is this the new "Fox News" defense debate tactic I've heard about? Can I retaliate with the Chewbacca Defense (http://http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454) ?


When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016962.php) verbatim, people just might notice.


So it is the Fox News Defense. Good show. :laugh4:
My only response is: Why would a Wookie be on Endor?

It's your typical and mindless demagoguery. Pick a symbol of hatred and whenever that symbol associates itself with something you disagree with, equate the two. It doesn't even matter if the person or idea is directly associated with the symbol (e.g. I don't watch Fox News, but hold many of the same views presented there). Rally 'round the flag boys! (BTW I call Godwin in two) Personally, I recommend one of these (http://jointhealing.com/graphics/products/playmaker_side_large.jpg) to remedy the problem.

I read an Air Force version of the Chewbacca defense and it's hilarious.

[Lemur]

Vladimir, the cool thing about your posts is that they are entirely calorie-free, so I can consume as many as I like without worrying about my waistline.

Meanwhile, yet another take (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090523_2195.php) on the subject:


Since Bush's re-election in 2004, the GOP has lost ground electorally in the South and the rest of the nation. But the erosion has been much more severe outside the South. That dynamic has threatened Republicans with a spiral of concentration and contraction. Because the party has lost so much ground elsewhere, the South represents an increasing share of what remains -- both in Congress and in its electoral coalition. The party's increasing identification with staunch Southern economic and social conservatism, however, may be accelerating its decline in more-moderate-to-liberal areas of the country, including the Northeast and the West Coast. "Many of the things they have done to become the dominant party in the South have caused them to be less successful in other places," said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, a South Carolina native.

These intertwined trends -- the Republican Party's growing reliance on the South and the erosion of its strength elsewhere, particularly along the coasts -- have prompted some unusually public soul-searching within the GOP about whether the party has grown too defined by the unflinchingly conservative priorities of its most loyal region. Although the GOP congressional leadership includes more non-Southerners than it did in the 1990s, much of the party's most militant opposition to President Obama has come from Southern leaders, such as South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The Texan even raised the possibility of secession in response to Obama's initiatives.

In the view of former Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who was defeated in 2006, "The current crisis of the Republican Party is whether it wants to be a regional party or whether it can try to expand ideologically and appeal to other regions."

[Xiahou]

I still don't buy that. As per the Pew study, the GOP has certainly shrank- but it hasn't grown significantly more conservative, which only serves to keep the party in flux. The Republican party needs to stand for something and until they figure that out, they won't get back in power.

Being the Democrat party Lite isn't a meaningful alternative for voters. They need to outline a contrasting platform, and more importantly, convince voters that they can deliver on it. Until they do that, the party will continue to flounder.


I read an Air Force version of the Chewbacca defense and it's hilarious.I fixed my links. :sweatdrop:

[Lemur]

An honest-to-goodness call to duty (http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Bruce_Bartlett_4F5B7C83-D4EF-4CCC-A643-E9A3D30A8E77.html):


Powell has to accept that he is in a unique position to command attention and lead the Republican Party—or at least that part of it that isn’t consumed with defending the indefensible on torture or living in a fantasy world where the economy would be booming today if it just wasn’t for Obama’s budget deficits. It’s a pretty small constituency these days—most of those, like me, who share Powell’s views have left his party to become independents—but it may be enough to build a foundation on that can offer a meaningful challenge to the dominant Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin wing of the Republican Party that views all efforts to expand its membership as a sell-out to be resisted at all cost, even if it means further political losses. But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections and to win elections it must be inclusive, not exclusive.


Thus the ultimate message Powell has to offer Republicans is the most persuasive one of all—follow him and win or follow Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin and lose. Personally, I would like to see Powell follow in the steps of Dwight D. Eisenhower and run for president—I’ll sign up for his campaign today even if it means having to rejoin the Republican Party. But if he is serious about not wishing to do that, then Powell has a responsibility to help those who share his vision by lending his enormous credibility, popularity and fund-raising ability to their efforts. If he fails to do so he risks being seen by history as someone who walked away when the times demanded that those who share his beliefs stand and fight for what they believe.

[Xiahou]

What exactly does Powell stand for anyway? IIRC, one of his stated reasons for endorsing Obama over his long-time friend McCain, was that he didn't want to see any more conservative SCOTUS appointments.

Personally, I think Powell's endorsement was pretty much a shameless case of bandwagon jumping, but even taken at face value, I don't think the reasons he stated would be reasons many Republicans would want to be associated with.

I used to think very highly of Powell, but the more I hear from him the less I like. His character took several whacks during his tenure as Sec of State starting with his schizophrenic statements on Iraq and his involvement in "Plame-gate". Combined with his head-scratching Obama endorsement, he begins to come off as someone who is more interested in being a media darling than someone who actually wants to take hard stances. :shrug:

[Askthepizzaguy]

:laugh4:

I'm not laughing at you, Xiahou... I'm laughing at myself. It's like I am your twin from an evil parallel universe or something. I find myself appreciating Colin Powell and his defiant stance against the Cheney wing of the Republican Party... he's practically the only Republican I support at this point.

You probably mentioned somewhere before what your opinion of the previous administration was. Who among the current party leadership do you like? I'm wondering if we are really the exact opposite or not. And if so... it still puzzles me. Surely there is some kind of common ground, or set of basic principles we all agree on. But again and again I find that some people really do see the world from a totally different perspective and it changes almost everything.

[Beskar]

I was reading the title "A Problem of Shrinkage" and at first thought, I thought it was about the over-medication of Ritalin and propagation of disorders through dodgy dealing in psychiatry.

[Lemur]

Big, number-filled article about shrinkage (not the kind in your swim trunks, you perverts): The Ice Age Cometh (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html)


I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

Demographic change is irritating to politicos, since it works on elections much as rigged dice do on a Las Vegas craps table: it is a game changer. For years, Republicans won elections because the country was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever on Election Day. Today, however, that formula is no longer enough.

It was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing.

In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow.

[Strike For The South]

Jose has been the #1 name since '97.

As Bush showed the right white man can still capture the "hispanic" vote. Not to mention many hispanics are social conservatives esp. in South Texas. People seem to think Hispanic=black and that's not really the case. Considering most of these articles are written by old white men whose connection with mexicans stem from there front yard it really does not surprise me.

[Xiahou]

I hate identity politics. It's all about- how can we pander to latinos or how can we pander to blacks, ect... as though each entire race has a hive mind and is in lockstep on the issues. I think that's so much of what is wrong with politics today....

Ah well, not like it's gonna change...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Republicans are the natural party of the current general Hispanic consensus. I like hispanics. I don't see them any differently from Italians, other than they tend to be more humble. Soon enough hispanics will stop being our modern day "Eyrish, Eyetalians" and we can get back into the process of adding them to Republican ranks.

Current Republican demographics? No. Demographics of tomorrow? Yep.

Identity politics are important. How else can 1 man or woman cater to whole massive segments of the population? The reality is that people tend to be attracted to those who remind them of themselves. When you can find a common denominator with Charisma, you've got the key to the castle. Obama is literally THE Identity politico and I think that is good. Would you want someone representing you who had absolutely no idea where you came from?

[Lemur]

I hate identity politics. It's all about- how can we pander to latinos or how can we pander to blacks, ect... as though each entire race has a hive mind and is in lockstep on the issues. I think that's so much of what is wrong with politics today....
But don't you, yourself, based on your age, race and location, vote exactly how identity politics indicate you would? I think your lament is a little naive.

Another article about the (entirely unproved) demographic doom of the GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061301209.html?hpid=topnews):


For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the last two decades. From whatever angle of their approach -- age, race, economic status, geography -- they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.

Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse or at least minimize these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.

Lots of detail in the article itself.

[CountArach]

I hate identity politics. It's all about- how can we pander to latinos or how can we pander to blacks, ect... as though each entire race has a hive mind and is in lockstep on the issues. I think that's so much of what is wrong with politics today....

Ah well, not like it's gonna change...
On the other hand identity politics allows those with a shared race, class, gender, etc to band together and demand rights that they believe are theirs. That they believe they need. Identity politics is only natural and has been the norm since the birth of democracy (That is to say a democracy with an expanded suffrage, not the faux-democracy of the 18th and 19th centuries).

Further, as Lemur said, your own views on politics are to a large extent determined by your situation; by your social consciousness. It is simply that, as a member of the ruling class/race/gender, it is natural for you to also look down on identity politics because it is counter to your interests.

[Xiahou]

Further, as Lemur said, your own views on politics are to a large extent determined by your situation; by your social consciousness. It is simply that, as a member of the ruling class/race/gender, it is natural for you to also look down on identity politics because it is counter to your interests.It's amazing that you and Lemur have such insight into my life- you two must be psychic. What ruling class am I a member of exactly?

And Lemur, you know my political views and say I fit into the demographic that represents those views- tell me about who I am then. You should have no trouble detailing what ethno-social stereotypes I fit into since you know my political views. :yes:

[CountArach]

It's amazing that you and Lemur have such insight into my life- you two must be psychic. What ruling class am I a member of exactly?
You are most likely a member of the petit bourgeoisie who has bourgeois sympathies. By aligning with the bourgeoisie you are perpetuating their class' rule.

[Lemur]

And Lemur, you know my political views and say I fit into the demographic that represents those views- tell me about who I am then. You should have no trouble detailing what ethno-social stereotypes I fit into since you know my political views. :yes:
I'm not claiming any special insight into your life, Xiahou. You're a white middle-class suburban male in his late thirties or early forties. Maybe in your fifties, but I don't think so. What they would call a "skilled" worker. Your demo, while a tad young, is the bedrock of the Republican party.

You decry "identity politics," but mebbe it's not so obvious when you're the identity being pandered to. Just a thought.

[Xiahou]

You are most likely a member of the petit bourgeoisie who has bourgeois sympathies. By aligning with the bourgeoisie you are perpetuating their class' rule.Guess again. You must be a proletariat by your views, huh? :yes:


I'm not claiming any special insight into your life, Xiahou. You're a white middle-class suburban male in his late thirties or early forties. Maybe in your fifties, but I don't think so. What they would call a "skilled" worker. Your demo, while a tad young, is the bedrock of the Republican party.Are you describing me or yourself? If it's me, you're wrong. Either way, it's not particularly insightful. I mean, you "narrow" my age down to a range of about 25 yrs and still blow it- come on. White? Yes, along with 70% of the country last I checked. Male? Yes, but you already knew that. Suburban? Not really. I'm an apartment dweller and live in a city of about 50,000.


You decry "identity politics," but mebbe it's not so obvious when you're the identity being pandered to. Just a thought.Or maybe not, huh? Like I said, I'm guessing your above description probably fits you to a tee- does it not? Why aren't you a Republican? They're the party that panders to your demographic aren't you? I guess you're a sell-out. :laugh4

Yes, I decry identity politics. Can I take that to mean you like them? I find it repugnant that people are stereotyped into groups- racial groupings being most repugnant - and then are assigned a slate of political views that they all must support by virtue of belonging to said group. It's prejudiced and divisive as hell. Both parties do it to varying degrees- and it stinks.

[CountArach]

Guess again. You must be a proletariat by your views, huh? :yes:
Enlightened bourgeoisie.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oooh I finally get to agree with Xiahou. :clown:

Yeah I don't like identity politics and stereotyping. Even if the stereotype fit the mold more than half of the time, it's still a mild form of prejudice to put people into boxes based on superficial data such as race, age, or social status. Plenty of wealthy types are interested in the poor; plenty of poor people who think excessive taxation is bad, whites who support affirmative action, minorities who do not... etc.

I take it Xiahou has plenty of conservative viewpoints, but even if that is the case I am doubtful I could still predict his stance on a given issue. Many people think independently.

In short; Pizza doesn't like the box. It is full of crumbs and crusts.

[Xiahou]

Enlightened bourgeoisie.So you're one of the one's exploiting me! :soapbox:
I own no property, no means of production, have never hired, fired or even supervised anyone. I sell my labor to those with means in return for wages- sounds like I'm a proletariat. Funny thing though... I don't feel exploited. :shrug:

I'm sure it's because I'm not "enlightened"- maybe one day I'll have my eyes opened and buy into all that marxist drivel. :dizzy2:


Oooh I finally get to agree with Xiahou. :clown:I'd better go to bed. Clearly I'm beginning to hallucinate. :drama1:

[CountArach]

So you're one of the one's exploiting me! :soapbox:
I own no property, no means of production, have never hired, fired or even supervised anyone. I sell my labor to those with means in return for wages- sounds like I'm a proletariat.
Nor do I, however by birth I am a part of the supervisory class (As that is what my dad does, much to my chagrin/distates). Personally though I fit into the proletarian paridigm, and sometimes I do feel exploited by the company I work for - the level of profits they earn is far too high for the wages I get paid. They also expect me to do things that I would normally have moral qualms about.

Funny thing though... I don't feel exploited. :shrug:
I've heard several proletarians give speeches that disagree with you.

EDIT: But yeah, how about that GOP?

[Lemur]

Or maybe not, huh? Like I said, I'm guessing your above description probably fits you to a tee- does it not?
Nope. I'm rural, not suburban or small-urban, as you appear to be. And I'm not a "skilled worker," I'm what would be referred to by the demo wonks as a "professional."

As a professional who's been to college, I fit into a different demo.

So I take it you're either radically younger or older than I thought. I'll just point out that if it's the latter, you fit into the Republican demo even better.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sure it's because I'm not "enlightened"- maybe one day I'll have my eyes opened and buy into all that marxist drivel. :dizzy2:

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

:book:

[Lemur]

If you're going to quote Saint Ronald, EMFM, at least give the man attribution.

[Lemur]

-- delete me please, problems with connection caused double-post --

[Strike For The South]

Enlightened bourgeoisie.

When you use outdated terms to describe the class system I can't take you seriously.

I imagine as an enlightend bourgeoisie your name will be on the protected scrolls as the uncouth masses come down and kill the white men and rape the white women?

Will you get a nice clerical position?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If you're going to quote Saint Ronald, EMFM, at least give the man attribution.

It was in quotation marks, I figured that most people would know who it was from or Google it if they didn't.

[CountArach]

When you use outdated terms to describe the class system I can't take you seriously.
I find the Marxist terminology far more flexible and a system built around ownership vs wealth is IMO far more applicable to society. It's how most academics refer to the world, at least in history.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If your dad's a filthy rich capitalist pigdog, why do you work some place you have "moral qualms" about?

[CountArach]

If your dad's a filthy rich capitalist pigdog, why do you work some place you have "moral qualms" about?
Because they aren't going to fund my hobbies, etc. What does it matter anyway?

[Xiahou]

Poll: Politically conservative number up (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/15/Poll-Politically-conservative-number-up/UPI-51191245078027/)
The number of Americans saying they are politically conservative rose slightly so far this year, aligning it to the 2004 level, Gallup Poll results indicate.

Forty percent of Americans polled described their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and 21 percent as liberal, poll results released Monday indicated.More evidence that the problem for Republicans isn't being too conservative, but rather voters don't believe (with good reason)that the GOP can apply it.

[Marshal Murat]

The respondents described their views as "conservative" rather than having a set of points which would determine their political positioning. This could mean that previous moderates, if they don't agree with a "liberal" president would then shift from moderate to a conservative position in a poll, but not by voting differently.

[AlexanderSextus]

As far as i am concerned the only chance the GOP has to win in 2012 is to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate, or that other guy from New Mexico that was mentioned.

[CountArach]

As far as i am concerned the only chance the GOP has to win in 2012 is to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate, or that other guy from New Mexico that was mentioned.
Ron Paul could not win a national election. Ever.

[penguinking]

As far as i am concerned the only chance the GOP has to win in 2012 is to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate, or that other guy from New Mexico that was mentioned.

The fact that no one knows his name and instead refers to him as "that other guy from New Mexico" is a bad sign.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Romney has a shot if Obama continues to bungle it up. If the economy comes back to life, we don't have a shot in hell at the presidency. Congress IS within our grasp at any point in the future.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If you consider Romney your great white hope for a Republican rally...

[CountArach]

Congress IS within our grasp at any point in the future.
Actually Republicans have been trailing on the generic house ballot all year (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/10-us-house-genballot.php). The Democrats have been polling really well recently from every polling company except Rasmussen, who generally have more Republicans in their samples and are the only ones to show the Republicans leading recently. In fact, if you take them out of the equation the Democrats have a 6-7 point lead.

Plus the Senate elections in 2010 really don't look promising for the Republicans at all.

[Lemur]

The Republican rebirth seems like it's not going to emanate from South Carolina (http://www.thestate.com/politics/story/830664.html).


State Republican leaders said they do not think online racist jokes by party activists will have a long-term impact on the party’s ability to attract black voters and candidates. [...]

GOP activist Rusty DePass apologized for the Facebook remark that likened first lady Michelle Obama’s ancestors to an escaped Riverbanks Zoo gorilla. On Tuesday, Mike Green, an employee with Lexington GOP consulting firm Starboard Communications apologized for an online joke about President Barack Obama taxing aspirin “because it’s white and it works.” [...]

“I’ve heard he has done a lot of good things in this state, and it would be a tragedy to be remembered by this event,” said Howard, who Tuesday helped push a legislative resolution to express sympathy to Michelle Obama. The proposal was stopped when Rep. Wendy Nanney, R-Greenville, objected to suspending House rules to pass the bill without a committee hearing. Five House members joined her dissent.

The Republican bid to block the resolution also did not help the party’s image. Republican leaders acknowledge they have struggled with the race issue and are working to change the perception of their party.

A stupid move in Tennessee (http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/2009/06/sen-diane-blacks-r-gallatin-legislative-aid-circulates-racist-email/), as well, but that's neither here nor there.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh my God.

I hadn't actually seen any seriously racist stuff coming from any Republican leaders. That's pretty lame.

My question is, is this racist **** coming from official or unofficial Republican policy or is it just a handful of really, really stupid people? I'm inclined to not jump on that as being representative of all Republicans. Of far, far more concern to me was the concerted official campaign to label Obama a terrorist who wasn't even an American during the election. That kind of kiddie bull is what actually made me label the Republican party as broken and corrupt. I'm only really interested in official Republican party activities, and from my perspective they have done far more shameful things.

A handful of racists doesn't surprise me anymore. And besides, I honestly think that there are plenty of Democratic racists. Al Sharpton needs to shut his big fat mouth as far as I'm concerned. Not a fan of Jesse Jackson. And Sonia Sotomayor may not realize it, but some of her comments do strike me as perhaps not racist, but certainly coming from a standpoint of racial pride and/or ignorance. There is no reason to think that a "wise Latina" is better than all white males. That's discriminatory as well.

There are plenty of idiots all across the political spectrum. I won't bang the drum of war over a few screw-ups in one party. I'm concerned about official party policy; let the individuals hang themselves with their own words.

[Xiahou]

I actually had to look the gorilla story up- it seemed so absurd. But yeah, he said it. I think it may have been intended as a evolution vs creationism quip that was also frighteningly ignorant of the racist implications of such a statement. Not that it makes it much better, I was just trying to determine what would motivate him to make such a stupid comment.

[Lemur]

I see what you're referring to (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/15/south-carolina-republican-compares-michelle-obama-to-escaped-gor/):


DePass told WIS-TV in Columbia, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

Then he added, "The comment was hers, not mine," claiming that Michelle Obama made a recent remark about humans descending from apes. The Daily News could find no such comment.

[CountArach]

I actually had to look the gorilla story up- it seemed so absurd. But yeah, he said it. I think it may have been intended as a evolution vs creationism quip that was also frighteningly ignorant of the racist implications of such a statement. Not that it makes it much better, I was just trying to determine what would motivate him to make such a stupid comment.
Yeah I took it to be a Evolutionist comment - but as you said that doesn't make it any less stupid.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Because they aren't going to fund my hobbies, etc. What does it matter anyway?

You're not a very good Marxist if you're going to betray your principles so quickly and without cause...

[CountArach]

You're not a very good Marxist if you're going to betray your principles so quickly and without cause...
If I have no choice but to betray my principles in order to get by in our current society then I'm afraid I am forced to betray my principles. I'm opposed to working in retail for anti-consumerist reasons and management is now making me work to upsell products and sell inferior stuff that have higher profit margins. I oppose both of these but given that I haven't got the qualifications for anything else I haven't got a choice. I could not work, but then I wouldn't be able to get to University without living at my parent's expense... which I am also opposed to.

But anyway, that's straying way too far from the topic and I don't feel I have to answer questions about my morality to you.

[Lemur]

American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/18/no-really-replace-the-republican-leadership/) examines why, exactly, some Republicans have decided that Iran is the greatest attack issue evar:


One reason why Cantor and Pence have been demanding that the President take a stronger public line in support of the protesters in Iran is that supporting Mousavi’s voters openly is the emotionally satisfying, easy, almost mindless thing to do, so it is very appealing for opposition figures who have no ideas. But there is more to it than that. All of this comes back to the problem of Republican denial about why they lost power. They are supremely confident about their views on national security and foreign policy, and they cannot conceive that a majority of the country would reject them because of the policies they advocated and enacted. Worse still, they remain wedded to the hectoring, moralistic and aggressive approach of the last administration, in which sanctions and condemnation are the only “soft” tools they understand. They are so wedded to this approach that that they think this is not only the best kind of foreign policy, but that anything other than this is fecklessness and surrender. To a disturbingly great extent, replacing the current leadership may not have much of an effect on shoddy foreign policy thinking on the right, because the rot is so deep and widespread, but it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly. It will also mean building up the credibility and knowledge to challenge and resist the President if he embarks on misguided or irresponsible courses in the years to come. Cantor and Pence have shown this week that they do not have either one.

[AlexanderSextus]

Ron Paul could not win a national election. Ever.


why not?

and if this is actually true, then i'd be completely content with the fact that the GOP has no chance in hell of being a major party anymore.

i'd like to see a DP vs LP ticket in the future.

[CountArach]

why not?
He earned more money than most of the Republican candidates and yet he did not even come close to winning a single state in the primary. His policies just aren't popular at all - there are very few Americans who would willingly have his economic policies - such as the gold standard.

Further, the number of libertarians (Who one would naturaly assume would dominate the Ron Paul campaign) in the country are incredibly low (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/libertarians_favor_obama_and_other_looks_at_election_2008):

Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Some people beleive that Americans are generally stupid and emotional. Those same people now believe that The Republican party "Doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming a majority party". That doesn't really equate.

As long as there are stupid constituencies, they will elect stupid representatives. Hopefully, the GOP can return the Democrats to that status and start coming up with ideas of their own. They won't be able to do it using emotion and lazy patriotism.

[Hosakawa Tito]

One of the GOP's biggest problems is that they set themselves up to fail by always claiming the moral/ethical/family values/uncorruptible/small unintrusive government/I'm more patriotic than thou
high ground, and then inevitibly not delivering on it. The ratio of moral/ethic/policy failures is comparable to Democrats, but the high horse hypocracy and bald use of said "values" for purely political gains doesn't fool too many people. They need to stop listening to the radical/rabid dog neo-con fringe like Gingrich & Company and instead provide reasonable,logical,fiscally responsible opposition where it should be applied; the massive increase in budget spending and increase in federal government. Leading by example would be a nice start.

[HopAlongBunny]

I doubt the GOP will disappear.

The present crisis will not go away quickly or easily; 2 terms of Bush illustrated that you can fool most of the ppl some of the time, and that the politics of fear is still effective.

The Dem's greatest strength was a platform of inclusion and empowerment; if they fail to deliver the fall will be spectacular.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I doubt the GOP will disappear.

The present crisis will not go away quickly or easily; 2 terms of Bush illustrated that you can fool most of the ppl some of the time, and that the politics of fear is still effective.

The Dem's greatest strength was a platform of inclusion and empowerment; if they fail to deliver the fall will be spectacular.

Republicans will succeed if they promote good change rather than simply oppose bad change.

The funny thing is that the Republicans will become the party of change when the current echelons in the younger generation become middle agers. The two party system encourages a balancing act. One party is the party of stagnancy and the other of change. As constituencies age for the larger party, the smaller party goes after the young because it can afford to gamble a bit more. The situation becomes inverse.

I'm a Republican now because there is room for change. When the GOP dinosaurs die out, guys like Ryan and Paul will have a bigger voice in our party and attract younger and brighter voters - all while the geriatric democrats defend their failed policies that sounded progressive 20 years prior, scaring off the youth. Sure the politics will change,That's my take.

[KukriKhan]

I've tried, reading through the 5 pages of this thread, to generate interest in the outcome of the Republican Party.

But I've failed. I just don't care (enough) to have an opinion or a prediction about their resurrection or demise. "But, Kukri, why say anything then?", you ask.

Because:

Seems to me that the only hope for the Repubs to regroup and recoup is for the Dems to make a series of grievous mistakes. And while I have supreme faith in the Democrats' ability to lose a winning hand, I don't see President 44 as a typical Dem in this respect. That means we may face four to eight years of continuing Republican decline.

This would be a Bad Thing. We cannot become a one-party nation.

Lemur was correct there, in my opinion. Someone (a significantly large minority) needs to play the loyal opposition, to keep the current majority honest (or as honest as a political body can be).

They had their opportunity: in what everyone perceived as an emergency, we gave them the white house and both parts of congress - a move unprecedented in recent history, because we prefer a balance, despite "gridlock" - to see us through that emergency. They stumbled through that time, and a 9-11 attack didn't recur. Fine. But they went too far, piling authority onto the Executive to the point where the only thing stopping GWB being coronated was the Constitutional provision of presidential term-limits. I half-expected there to be a move in 2006 to suspend that provision "temporarily" during the by then never-ending "emergency".

But it didn't happen. Instead, we took away his congressional majority. I remember his face the day after that election. He was stunned. Surprised. One more thing he "never saw coming".

Lesson for future Presidents: America will give you whatever you need to solve an emergency, but you only get about 5 years to resolve that emergency, no longer. After that, if unresolved, we're gonna start taking away some of those tools, thinking you can't handle the job.

I think Pres. Obama gets that, hence his push to get as much done as possible as soon as possible, since we've given him the same tools GW got given. He shouldn't count on being given a congressional majority forever. His second term, if he gets one, will be more difficult than his first.

I just don't know if his opposition will be from the almost-extinct Republican Party, a wing of his own party, or some up-and-coming new group. I sense that many americans are beyond disappointment with the folks in the parties, and are more at the sick-and-tired stage. That's good for the country, I think, but not so hot for any incumbents, of either party.

[Adrian II]

American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/18/no-really-replace-the-republican-leadership/) examines why, exactly, some Republicans have decided that Iran is the greatest attack issue evar [..]I hold a different view. Mousavi's unexpected success in the Iranian elections and the enthusiasm of his followers is in many ways a result of Obama's new policy of reconciliation toward Iran. If Obama succeeds in breaking up the hard-liners' hold on Iran by continuing this policy, the whole Republican outlook on today's world and the Middle East in particular will crumble. And I won't shed a single tear if they shrink beyond recognition. They've done enough damage.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Republican rebirth seems like it's not going to emanate from South Carolina.

That's most unfortunate, considering the governor there, Mark Sanford. He's a guy who leans libertarian and is probably one of the great hopes for revitalizing the GOP with a platform based around the present and not a rehash of Reagan (that the GOP failed to follow through on anyways).

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I hold a different view. Mousavi's unexpected success in the Iranian elections and the enthusiasm of his followers is in many ways a result of Obama's new policy of reconciliation toward Iran. If Obama succeeds in breaking up the hard-liners' hold on Iran by continuing this policy, the whole Republican outlook on today's world and the Middle East in particular will crumble. And I won't shed a single tear if they shrink beyond recognition. They've done enough damage.

I agree to some extent. Youths are obsessed with not feeling left out when other youths do something percieved as cool. Iranian youth is no different. Americans elected a "cool" candidate that wanted a reconciliation - Iran is stuck with a dumber and more hostile version of Bush. The youth is tired of being a repressed laughing stock to other youths and became uppity.

The outstretched hand is just a symbol of the change, imo.

Republican hostile strategy of war had nothing to do with Iran, or for that matter North Korea. I never wanted war with either of them. I have always hoped that this type of activity was inevitable. I support war in Iraq because the conventional part was going to be a cakewalk (it was) and good practice - Plus eventually they will be better off. Human beings have a problem with altitute - especially fighting wars in high altitude - especially fighting second world nations who are accustomed to it. Iran is the one of the last small nations that we would want to confront. There is simply no political or temporal payoff and the people have more freedoms there than they did in Iraq, anyway.

I don't dislike Obama's policy toward Iran - it is just a new way to acheive a collapse of the theocracy without war which is a shared goal, lets try it.

[HopAlongBunny]

Republicans will succeed if they promote good change rather than simply oppose bad change.


I agree. I think any renewal will come from clearly articulated policy that lines up with Americans' needs and desires.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I've tried, reading through the 5 pages of this thread, to generate interest in the outcome of the Republican Party.

But I've failed. I just don't care (enough) to have an opinion or a prediction about their resurrection or demise. "But, Kukri, why say anything then?", you ask.

Because:


Lemur was correct there, in my opinion. Someone (a significantly large minority) needs to play the loyal opposition, to keep the current majority honest (or as honest as a political body can be).

They had their opportunity: in what everyone perceived as an emergency, we gave them the white house and both parts of congress - a move unprecedented in recent history, because we prefer a balance, despite "gridlock" - to see us through that emergency. They stumbled through that time, and a 9-11 attack didn't recur. Fine. But they went too far, piling authority onto the Executive to the point where the only thing stopping GWB being coronated was the Constitutional provision of presidential term-limits. I half-expected there to be a move in 2006 to suspend that provision "temporarily" during the by then never-ending "emergency".

But it didn't happen. Instead, we took away his congressional majority. I remember his face the day after that election. He was stunned. Surprised. One more thing he "never saw coming".

Lesson for future Presidents: America will give you whatever you need to solve an emergency, but you only get about 5 years to resolve that emergency, no longer. After that, if unresolved, we're gonna start taking away some of those tools, thinking you can't handle the job.

I think Pres. Obama gets that, hence his push to get as much done as possible as soon as possible, since we've given him the same tools GW got given. He shouldn't count on being given a congressional majority forever. His second term, if he gets one, will be more difficult than his first.

I just don't know if his opposition will be from the almost-extinct Republican Party, a wing of his own party, or some up-and-coming new group. I sense that many americans are beyond disappointment with the folks in the parties, and are more at the sick-and-tired stage. That's good for the country, I think, but not so hot for any incumbents, of either party.

New York & California are prime examples of one party dominated government entities that have and continue to spend way above their means, and then try to tax themselves back to prosperity. Ain't gonna work and the only reason both have not been bankrupted yet is the one-shot federal largess both received this year. We need an effective opposition party, I don't care who or what they call themselves, that can offer more than just rhetoric to this massive debt without even including this proposed healthcare boondoggle put forth by the Democrats.

[Adrian II]

I don't dislike Obama's policy toward Iran - it is just a new way to acheive a collapse of the theocracy without war which is a shared goal, lets try it.As usual you and I find common ground in international concerns, in the larger picture so to speak. :bow:

[ICantSpellDawg]

As usual you and I find common ground in international concerns, in the larger picture so to speak. :bow:

Weird! hehe:yes:

[Lemur]

When the GOP dinosaurs die out, guys like Ryan and Paul will have a bigger voice in our party and attract younger and brighter voters - all while the geriatric democrats defend their failed policies that sounded progressive 20 years prior, scaring off the youth.
A long, detailed essay (http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/2009/06/the-zombie-party.html) that correlates with what you're saying, TuffStuff:


We know what happens when movements or parties continue to stagger forward after running out of ideas: They become zombies. Zombie parties are a recurrent feature of electoral democracies. Unable to articulate any coherent or workable governing philosophy, they mindlessly jab at cultural hot buttons, mechanically repeat hardwired tropes ("cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes"), nurse tribal resentments, ostracize independent thinkers. Above all, they feel positively proud of their doggedness. You can’t talk them out of it. Think of the Republicans in the FDR years, the Democrats in the Reagan years, the British Labour Party in the Thatcher period, and the British Conservative Party in the Blair period. Think of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party for most of the past half-century, or France’s Socialists today. To get a new brain, zombie parties usually need to spend years out of power or wait until a new generation rises to leadership.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A long, detailed essay (http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/2009/06/the-zombie-party.html) that correlates with what you're saying, TuffStuff:

We know what happens when movements or parties continue to stagger forward after running out of ideas: They become zombies. Zombie parties are a recurrent feature of electoral democracies. Unable to articulate any coherent or workable governing philosophy, they mindlessly jab at cultural hot buttons, mechanically repeat hardwired tropes ("cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes"), nurse tribal resentments, ostracize independent thinkers. Above all, they feel positively proud of their doggedness. You can’t talk them out of it. Think of the Republicans in the FDR years, the Democrats in the Reagan years, the British Labour Party in the Thatcher period, and the British Conservative Party in the Blair period. Think of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party for most of the past half-century, or France’s Socialists today. To get a new brain, zombie parties usually need to spend years out of power or wait until a new generation rises to leadership.



Right. That's what tends to happen over time. An investment of time and ideas into the GOP is an investment in the future even though it might be an embarrassment in the present. Our consolation is that no matter the look and smell of a fish now, it all starts to stink over time, so Democrats shouldn't get too used to it. The smart democrats who arn't die hards would be well served to join the GOP because there is more room for you - the Dems are going to become top-heavy and static over the next few years. You like Ron Paul? Do you think that voice can be amplified with the Democrats? Come on over and make the GOP what it will be, don't be afraid of being "out of step with progress". You know it's relative. Get ahead of the curve.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

the Republicans in the FDR years
Yeah, those guys totally had it wrong. :rolleyes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I really hope the Republicans get their act together. If the Democrats really start to mess things up on a Bushian level, I really need an alternative party to vote for. The threat of losing power is the only way to keep those in power even SLIGHTLY honest.

They must, absolutely must, flush Rush. Or at least not follow his terrible, terrible lead.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I really hope the Republicans get their act together. If the Democrats really start to mess things up on a Bushian level, I really need an alternative party to vote for. The threat of losing power is the only way to keep those in power even SLIGHTLY honest.

They must, absolutely must, flush Rush. Or at least not follow his terrible, terrible lead.

It may be a surprise, but they don't control him. I don't know how much they're following his lead, but they shouldn't.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd be interested to know which Republican leaders don't have to apologize for saying a critical word about him or his politics.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Most of them? As far as I know only Steele has apologized in a way.

What worries me more is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford turning out to be in Argentina for a week instead of hiking in the Appalachians. :sweatdrop:

CR

[seireikhaan]

Most of them? As far as I know only Steele has apologized in a way.

What worries me more is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford turning out to be in Argentina for a week instead of hiking in the Appalachians. :sweatdrop:

CR
Yeah, that was really strange. I get that its nice to have a vacation every now and then, but telling the wife might have been a good idea.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh wait, he was having an affair (http://www.thestate.com/154/story/838823.html):

Gov. Mark Sanford admitted today that his secret trip to Argentina over Father's Day weekend was to visit a woman he is having an affair with.

Mark Sanford left the Governor's Mansion in this black State Law Enforcement Division Suburban assigned to his security detail. The Suburban remained parked Wednesday morning at Columbia Metropolitan Airport.

"I have developed a relationship with what started as a dear dear friend from Argentina. It began very innocently as I expect many of these things do, just casual email back and forth," Sanford said. "But here recently this last year developed into something much more."

Asked if Sanford was separated from his wife, he said "I don't know how you want to define that. I"m here and she's there. I guess in a formal sense we are not."

Sanford said his wife has known about the affair and they have been working through it for the past five months. "What I did was wrong, period. End of story," Sanford said.

****.

Video. (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/366123.html)

**** it!

Gah.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Most of them? As far as I know only Steele has apologized in a way.

I'll have to defer to someone who has been keeping track, but... I'm pretty sure there's been a bunch more than that. This is a somewhat humorous (but a bit too mocking for my taste) page (http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry) I found, but hey! Look! It's that SC governor again... and a Georgia Congressman, in addition to Steele.

I haven't been keeping track, but how many concurrent scandals are happening right now involving Republican politicians? It feels like they are actually kicking themselves when they are down. And if we can ignore the media sensationalism, I've also been monitoring the content coming from them. No real budget proposal, no real health care reform proposal. If they have the better ideas, where are they hiding them, and who told them to do so?

This is an excellent opportunity, I think, to clean house and get rid of a lot of the leadership. The party is already down, there's no real chance of winning back Congress in the next election... but perhaps those Republican seats that will always be Republican seats need to be seriously challenged in the coming election by other Republicans who can provide a more serious challenge to the Democrats

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'll have to defer to someone who has been keeping track, but... I'm pretty sure there's been a bunch more than that. This is a somewhat humorous (but a bit too mocking for my taste) page (http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry) I found, but hey! Look! It's that SC governor again... and a Georgia Congressman, in addition to Steele.

So two republicans apologized and one more (who's no longer a leader) said he wasn't directly calling Rush an idiot.

Excuse me while I scoff at your suggestion, which you admitted was based on no research, that all republican leaders are kowtowing to Rush.
*scoffs*

Rush has nothing to do with the real problems the GOP has.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

These :daisy:. Sanford has always been full of it. If Romney pulls any of this crap i'm voting for Hitler.

Sanford has worked very hard to boost his image as the quite and honest type. Too bad he has a big mouth and cheats on his wife. Hack.

Everytime a guy in the GOP cheats he loses votes for the party, even more than when a democrat does it. When will these people learn and realize that sex isn't important? Do your job and get a video game.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So two republicans apologized and one more (who's no longer a leader) said he wasn't directly calling Rush an idiot.

Excuse me while I scoff at your suggestion, which you admitted was based on no research, that all republican leaders are kowtowing to Rush.
*scoffs*

Rush has nothing to do with the real problems the GOP has.

CR

I apologize CR. You've put me in my place.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup. What scum - cheating on their wives. And Sanford - doing it on Father's day. :wall:

He deserves ruin.

At this rate, Romney may be the only one left for the GOP in 2012. Wouldn't be bad. Though Obama's likely to get a second term anyway, so we may want to sacrifice someone else.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yup. What scum - cheating on their wives. And Sanford - doing it on Father's day. :wall:

He deserves ruin.

At this rate, Romney may be the only one left for the GOP in 2012. Wouldn't be bad. Though Obama's likely to get a second term anyway, so we may want to sacrifice someone else.

CR


No - Run Romney. He'll be too old to run after that and these past 8 years are his window. If he doesn't run next, he'll never run again I think. We need to put a stark alternative up agaisnt Obama, particularly if his policies fall flat or he seems extreme at the end of his 4 years. We hardly have a shot in hell - it would be a waste to blow a young career.

The GOP sacrifices old bulls, Democrats sacrifice lambs.

*Edit - I want Sanford to resign (althought it isn't my state). I simply don't trust people who betray their immediate families. How could anyone trust someone to do right by them whose own wife couldn't?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Romney does look like a decent candidate. I probably wouldn't vote for him but I'd like to think the debate would be civil.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Sanford should be impeached and removed from the governorship of SC. He left the state with no executive leadership and no way to contact him in case of a state emergency for 5 days. His judgement and lackadasical approach to responsibilty & duty clearly indicate he's not fit to govern. gee, you think this will hurt my chances to get the republican nomination for president? He'll probably get applauded like Senator Ensign for fessing up. Another standup guy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sanford should be impeached and removed from the governorship of SC. He left the state with no executive leadership and no way to contact him in case of a state emergency for 5 days. His judgement and lackadasical approach to responsibilty & duty clearly indicate he's not fit to govern. gee, you think this will hurt my chances to get the republican nomination for president? He'll probably get applauded like Senator Ensign for fessing up. Another standup guy.

He and ensign are written off. Human Garbage. If we can't find a way to get them out of office for something illegal we should all vote against them FOR anyone else.

[Proletariat]

What happens in Buenos Aires stays in Buenos Aires... sometimes, doh

:embarassed::laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Sanford should be impeached and removed from the governorship of SC. He left the state with no executive leadership and no way to contact him in case of a state emergency for 5 days. His judgement and lackadasical approach to responsibilty & duty clearly indicate he's not fit to govern.Ditto that. :yes:
Had it just been the affair, I'd say let the voters decide- an affair is a serious character issue, imo, but I'd be content to let it play out in the campaign. But when you add to that the string of lies surrounding it and his dereliction of duty while off on his fling.... it's time for him to pack it in.

[CountArach]

An Email (http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html) between Sanford and his lover (from December... for some reason only published now)... Worth reading for the laughs:

You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details ...

[KukriKhan]

Ditto that. :yes:
Had it just been the affair, I'd say let the voters decide- an affair is a serious character issue, imo, but I'd be content to let it play out in the campaign. But when you add to that the string of lies surrounding it and his dereliction of duty while off on his fling.... it's time for him to pack it in.

I usually don't care when pollie's cheat, cuz it seems so rampant. But this one reeks with irresponsibility, dereliction of duty, and maybe international entanglement consequences.

Q: What if the "girlfriend" was Cristina FERNANDEZ DE KIRCHNER, the current President of Argentina?

https://jimcee.homestead.com/xinsrc_532120411104784381248.jpg

[Crazed Rabbit]

An Email (http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html) between Sanford and his lover (from December... for some reason only published now)... Worth reading for the laughs:


At least it was a woman. :sweatdrop:

Yup, he's not fit to govern. Impeachment sounds right.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

LOL

I don't need to know the details, all I need to know is that he wasn't doing his job and he lied about why. The steamy emails, while I am sure are very entertaining, don't concern me too much.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The question on my mind - is she hot?

[Xiahou]

A new favorability poll (http://people-press.org/report/524/republican-favorability) about "Leading Republicans".

Interestingly, Palin has both the highest favorable and the highest unfavorable ratings of any. :shrug:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The Republicans and Palin deserve each other.

[CountArach]

Interestingly, Palin has both the highest favorable and the highest unfavorable ratings of any. :shrug:
She is the best known of those and as such has fewer undecideds. This is a huge liability in an election where you have a net favourability rating of +1 because there are few voters who will change their mind on you.

A far more acurate look would be the net favourability ratings which are +1 for Palin, +12 for Romney (Thought -12 in January last year when he was campaigning), -3 for Gingrich and +11 for Steele (Though admittedly, there isn'y much point measuring it when 63% of people don't know). That would imply that Romney is the best bet for the Republican Party as he has a good net favourability AND a lot of undecided voters. It is just a matter of not being painted as the plutocratic candidate which he was presented as last year. If he can avoid that he can at least keep his favourables in the right territory.

[Xiahou]

A far more acurate look would beAccurate for what? I said she has the highest favorable and unfavorable of any in the poll. I didn't claim she was going to be the next presidential candidate. :wink:

However, among Republicans, Palin enjoys a very high +56pt net favorability rating- which none of the other "leaders" in the poll can even approach. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the general public's favorability and the party's ratings of her. I thought she was considered damaged goods by a lot more people than that.

Regardless, the poll is certainly good news for Romney- who clearly has aspirations of running again. :yes:

[CountArach]

However, among Republicans, Palin enjoys a very high +56pt net favorability rating- which none of the other "leaders" in the poll can even approach. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the general public's favorability and the party's ratings of her. I thought she was considered damaged goods by a lot more people than that.
Candidates often recover after the heated and intense partisanship of a campaign. Even Bush's approval is recovering from where it once was. Don't be surprised if she decides to run in 2012 (As I suspect she will) and has her favourability rating decrease. Several other Republican candidates *might* be able to blame her for the election loss in '08 and that would reduce her own party's favourability rating.

[Furunculus]

some local colour for you:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100002484/liberal-delusions-of-grandeur-america-is-still-a-conservative-nation/


PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

looks like the republican party still has a future, provided they can adapt to the needs of the electorate.

[CountArach]

looks like the republican party still has a future, provided they can adapt to the needs of the electorate.
People get more conservative as they get older. Besides, more Americans identify themselves as Conservative anyway and are thus more likely to say their views grow more conservative over time. The same thing can be seen when people are asked if X will make them more or less likely to vote for someone. This usually breaks along partisan lines, despite the reality being that people aren't changing their opinions.

Don't read too much into that poll.

[Lemur]

Well, Audra Shay (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-10/the-gops-young-hatemonger/) has now been elected as the new leader of the Young Republicans. Let the rebirth begin! (Note: Her comments make Devastatin' Dave look like a model of circumspection and restraint.)

[woad&fangs]

*Yawn*

She's obviously an idiot but the author is stretching it a lot.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, Audra Shay (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-10/the-gops-young-hatemonger/) has now been elected as the new leader of the Young Republicans. Let the rebirth begin! (Note: Her comments make Devastatin' Dave look like a model of circumspection and restraint.)

Not really...

CR

[Lemur]

Not really...
Really? I have a hard time imagining DD approving of the racist epithet "coon."

[woad&fangs]

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Yesterday on Facebook, an unfortunate incident occurred. An individual posted two comments on my Facebook wall, the first comment arguing against big government and the second filled with racially charged comments. I responded supporting the individual’s first post, to continue the fight against big government spending. I was not aware of the racial comments until sometime later, when a third individual brought it to my attention. I immediately deleted the derogatory and outright disgusting comments and subsequently posted a statement on my Facebook Status stating that in no way, shape or form are the comments posted by other individuals a reflection of me or my beliefs as an American, a Veteran, a Mother or a Candidate. I do not, nor would I ever, condone that type of language or behavior.
bolding is mine
link (http://theconservativist.com/2009/07/03/audra-shay-responds-to-race-allegations/)

Sounds plausible :shrug:

[Lemur]

Sounds plausible :shrug:
Sounds like a bald-faced lie. She fails to mention that she de-friended the two friends who brought the racist comments to her attention, while staying friends with the dude who made them. And from looking at a cache of the page, the timing doesn't even work.

Damage control, nothing more.

[woad&fangs]

Sounds like a bald-faced lie. She fails to mention that she de-friended the two friends who brought the racist comments to her attention, while staying friends with the dude who made them. And from looking at a cache of the page, the timing doesn't even work.

Damage control, nothing more.

Ah, I don't think that information was mentioned in your link. In that case, I hope the Republicans banish her from the party. :dunce:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really? I have a hard time imagining DD approving of the racist epithet "coon."

Hmm, good point. Either way, it doesn't seem like a good choice.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Does a thirty-eight year old really qualify as a "young" Republican?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Does a thirty-eight year old really qualify as a "young" Republican?

Apparently. :wall:

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Apparently. :wall:

Hmm. I wondered if I had misunderstood.

Surely one of the key demographics the GOP would like to recapture is young people? There must be some charismatic young people with conservative views that can appeal to and energise their generation.

What would the normal route(s) into national politics look like for a young person full of vim and vigour?

[Lemur]

There are campus organizations in which a young(er) person can enlist while still at Uni. A lot of politically inclined people start there, and go on to intern in campaigns, for Congresscritters, etc.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I wasn't sure whether to post this article here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6710646.ece), or in the Palin Resigns thread, for it neatly concatenates the two. I think it belongs here, because it addresses (albeit from a conservative UK viewpoint) the core concern of the future of the GOP. I'd be interested in views from our American colleagues.


The maths of politics aren’t very complicated. If you want to win and you don’t have enough votes from people who agree with you, you have to win support from people who don’t by accommodating their views. You cannot win elections by getting the same people to vote for you by pulling the lever harder. This, however, is the strategy the Republicans seem to be embarking upon.

Footnote: I think Mr Finkelstein's copy editor may have missed a mistake, since this sentence doesn't make sense (at least to me) unless the examples are placed the other way round: "The experience of the British Conservative Party is that trying to sack your voters — effete chattering-class liberals — and replace them with a new set — hard-working strivers — doesn’t work very well." :shrug:

[Furunculus]

I wasn't sure whether to post this article here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6710646.ece), or in the Palin Resigns thread, for it neatly concatenates the two. I think it belongs here, because it addresses (albeit from a conservative UK viewpoint) the core concern of the future of the GOP. I'd be interested in views from our American colleagues.


The maths of politics aren’t very complicated. If you want to win and you don’t have enough votes from people who agree with you, you have to win support from people who don’t by accommodating their views. You cannot win elections by getting the same people to vote for you by pulling the lever harder. This, however, is the strategy the Republicans seem to be embarking upon.

Footnote: I think Mr Finkelstein's copy editor may have missed a mistake, since this sentence doesn't make sense (at least to me) unless the examples are placed the other way round: "The experience of the British Conservative Party is that trying to sack your voters — effete chattering-class liberals — and replace them with a new set — hard-working strivers — doesn’t work very well." :shrug:

is that a reference to conservative threats to sack some of labours client electorate (the public sector) by reducing public spending?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The GOP needs to recapture the votes of adults. We need to open the door to the youth eventually crossing over by not having some ignorant boogyman fear of one of the 2 main political parties in the nation. We should stand for interesting things, like calling for more libertarian laws on digital copyright - because the Democrats use that one to placate their financial base and it would piss off musicians and hollywood types; backing up on marijauna legislation before the Democrats eventually do it.

I don't care about marijana, but it sounds pretty dumb that the party defending smoking ciggarettes and drinking booze is attacking marijuana which is just as dumb.

Democrats in power will make themselves the party against freedom on their own. Republicans have the opportunity to play up the freedom strangling of the majority governemnt and show themselves to be a real alternative sensistive to Americanisms. To get adults back we need to put money in their pockets after the democrats take it away.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The GOP needs to recapture the votes of adults. We need to open the door to the youth eventually crossing over by not having some ignorant boogyman fear of one of the 2 main political parties in the nation. We should stand for interesting things, like calling for more libertarian laws on digital copyright - because the Democrats use that one to placate their financial base and it would piss off musicians and hollywood types; backing up on marijauna legislation before the Democrats eventually do it.

I don't care about marijana, but it sounds pretty dumb that the party defending smoking ciggarettes and drinking booze is attacking marijuana which is just as dumb.

Democrats in power will make themselves the party against freedom on their own. Republicans have the opportunity to play up the freedom strangling of the majority governemnt and show themselves to be a real alternative sensistive to Americansims. To get adults back we need to put money in their pockets after the democrats take it away.I'm not getting any sleep tonight, so pardon me if I sound inarticulate, but I have some commentary.


The GOP needs to recapture the votes of adults. We need to open the door to the youth eventually crossing over by not having some ignorant boogyman fear of one of the 2 main political parties in the nation.

This sounds like the GOP just needs voters to survive politically; talking about demographic groups they need to improve in, rather than why those groups would have an interest in supporting the GOP. Are there groups that the Republican platform naturally represents that are under-represented in the party? Adults may be too generic a group, as all voters would have to be adults anyway. Are there "family values" voters who have temporarily jumped ship to the Democratic party that you're looking for? After the Bush administration becomes more of a memory, and the recent rash of Republican governors and congressmen caught in scandals becomes forgotten, those family values votes will return and vote along abortion/gay marriage/etc lines once again. I don't think the current Democratic party will ever support a more conservative morality platform, so voters who disagree with the Democrats on those issues will head back, if they ever really left to begin with.

As for fear of political parties; that won't go away anytime soon. It is far too lucrative a business on both sides of the aisle to stir up passions and incite division in our society by playing on fears. Conservative talk radio and liberal media outlets will still be there, books and op-eds will be written, talking heads will continue to paint the United States into red and blue camps. Almost any kind of controversy gets ratings and is therefore valuable. Not to mention both parties are at war with one another and will use every resource at their disposal to win the war for the sake of winning. Looney liberal will keep voting for the more liberal party, uptight conservative will keep voting for the more conservative party, and the major parties will continue to jump through hoops for the undecideds who can't make up their mind and are attracted to shiny things, scandals and controversy, and of course, promises that can't be kept without bankrupting the country or worse. And so the sane people who are simply voting in their best interest won't shift around too much, and the nation will continue to see-saw based on the whims of those with amnesia or attention deficit disorder or chronic indecisiveness, as well as the occasional moderate whose views aren't properly represented by either party.


We should stand for interesting things, like calling for more libertarian laws on digital copyright - because the Democrats use that one to placate their financial base and it would piss off musicians and hollywood types;

I think the things the GOP currently stands for are plenty interesting. Nothing more lively/unruly than the abortion debate or the gay rights debate or the gun rights debate... I doubt the prospect of more lax copyright laws will attract many voters. It would absolutely cause many in those industries to become single-issue voters and vote against the Republicans closer to 100% of the time. That's almost like asking the oil industry to give up it's right to charge for oil, something it expends considerable resources producing, refining, and distributing. I am no expert but it sounds like a bad idea if you're looking to gain voters. It's not important enough an issue to the mainstream to really cause people to jump from one party to another, except those who will have a real big fat problem with it, such as those in the industry who are already less interested in voting Republican than the average voter. You're also looking at provoking those upper class, rich, and obscenely wealthy types to dump a considerable amount of money on opposing such "libertarian" laws, further strengthening the Democrats or anyone else opposed to the changes.


backing up on marijauna legislation before the Democrats eventually do it. I don't care about marijana, but it sounds pretty dumb that the party defending smoking ciggarettes and drinking booze is attacking marijuana which is just as dumb.

:inquisitive:

You could end up splitting the GOP along "morality" voter lines. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea, but it will get progressively harder and harder to raise the banner of "goodness and decency" while promoting less restrictions on vice and "sin". But I would certainly agree that current drug policies don't make sense. It would be quite a shift though to go from being more conservative than Democrats on an issue to more liberal, and I am not sure how realistic that is.


Democrats in power will make themselves the party against freedom on their own.

So far as I am aware, the Republican platform against abortion, gay rights, the ongoing campaign for abstinence-only education, and conservative social policies in general mean that they are the more restrictive party on a slew of personal freedom issues. The Democrats seem to support slightly more taxation and more restrictive gun control laws.... not sure what else qualifies the Republicans to market themselves as being for more "freedom" than the Democrats. It does seem to be a very superficial marketing campaign that you're talking about... there's not much you're proposing in terms of serious policy changes, more like flipping sides on a couple issues and attempting to market that as being a real libertarian shift.


Republicans have the opportunity to play up the freedom strangling of the majority governemnt and show themselves to be a real alternative sensistive to Americansims.

That would certainly be different from their current strategy... seems like they are engaging in a move to the "base" which is more (ugh... I hate this terminology) "right-wing", and attempting to market themselves as being for fewer taxes and economic regulation, yes... but perhaps even more conservative than before; the recent campaign seems to be very centered on fears of whites regarding affirmative action, which doesn't do much to build the GOP a broader base of support among non-whites. As for being sensitive to Americans (?) the GOP seems to be almost stubborn in its refusal to back down on clearly unpopular policies that were recently rejected at the ballot box. Indeed, the marketing has been geared towards trying to sell the same product as before, and telling the voters that that's what they REALLY want, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The deregulation and lower taxes the Republicans are suggesting is the exact same thing they supported during the Bush administration, and before. The temporary boost in consumer spending caused some short term economic stimulus, but the lack of revenue and no significant drop in spending caused massive budget problems, and then having to bail out several industries which failed due to corruption and deregulation caused even more problems... there isn't much support for more of the same.


To get adults back we need to put money in their pockets after the democrats take it away

Mostly what's taking away our money is the rampant unemployment, lack of affordable healthcare, rising cost of living, and collapse of the housing market along with several industries. It's hard to put money back in people's pockets without addressing those issues, and the Republican platform seems to be vehemently against doing much of anything about any of those issues.

Perhaps my reaction here is predictable, but... I am trying to look at this from a very neutral and nonpartisan standpoint and see what you're saying, and it just doesn't seem to match the facts of what is going on. I have no idea if what the Democrats are doing will turn the country around, and I'm not using this post to advocate for what they have in mind. I'm just saying, from my perspective, where the GOP currently stands on these issues is not very popular, and I don't believe it will be popular anytime in the near future. It seems to be ignoring the huge disconnect between what the GOP wants to do and what the public wants the government to do, which is something besides lowering taxes. More Bush-era policies which people seem to think caused many of these problems is not what the public is clamoring for, and minor changes on some libertarian causes probably won't unite the Republican party, and it in fact may alienate certain groups even more and divide values voters from libertarians. And it still ignores the meat of the entire policy debate: How to address the main problems the country is facing in a way that is different from before. So far, the GOP has come up with nothing truly innovative. Feel free to correct me on this, if you have examples of any real shift in policy since Bush left office.

[Furunculus]

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5852138/David-Camerons-a-clear-winner-in-the-States.html

[Banquo's Ghost]

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/5852138/David-Camerons-a-clear-winner-in-the-States.html

The article doesn't really seem to canvas serious commentary from the Republican party leadership. It's very wishful thinking, mainly aimed at British Conservatives.

David Cameron is somewhat left of President Obama on most policies. Whilst the GOP might need to appeal more to the centre ground, one hopes that they won't adopt the vacuous pseudo-socialism of the UK Tories under Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne are, much like Brown and his cronies, merely flirting with the idea of fiscal constraint. No-one is finding the courage to talk about real, long-term fiscal responsibility in the light of the massive public debt that has been rung up. There is some light in the area of reducing the state's erosion of individual liberties but since David Davies has been cast into the darkness, and the rhetoric is very flimsy, one cannot believe that once in power, the Tories won't follow the same route as Labour.

Social conservatives in the GOP would be horrified at Cameron's "conservatism". Personally, I think the Republicans would benefit from laying off the hard-line social controls they have boxed themselves into, but I'm not American and have never really understood the paradox between the States' libertarian soul and the desire for the state to force fellow citizens into one brand of Christian morals.

I believe that many of the Western democracies would embrace parties that guarantee hard-line fiscal conservatism alongside more libertarian principles. Governments that really design smaller government, not just fire a few civil servants. Get out of the business of legislating morals (with the costs that incurs). Jeffersonian democracy, if you like.

But that also means getting shot of expensive foreign military ventures and reducing the power of corporations to influence public spending - and in so doing, removing the taxpayer "guarantee" for those corporations currently deemed "too big to fail".

I have yet to see a really "conservative" platform. It would be good to see the GOP taking this line. To do so however effectively, I suspect they might need to address the rampant anti-intellectualism that is another baffling aspect of the US political scene.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

[Lemur]

Yup, 2012 is Obama's to lose, and lose it he may.

[seireikhaan]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.
Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election. :dizzy2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election. :dizzy2:


We need a businessman/woman. I suspect that a "feel good" candidate isn't going to get too far in the event that the worst "recession that isn't a depression" stretches. That means tokens are out, so first women, indians, trannys etc probably own't have a chance - and Barry can't guilt us into voting for the first black president to be re-elected this time. If a woman comes around blasting through with business acumen, maybe she has a shot, but the novelty of her privates probably won't stir much when pensions are drying up and America is becoming more testosterone filled and less sensetive.

[Lemur]

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

[seireikhaan]

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?
Well, I can't speak for every state, but in Iowa, its basically for the reasons I listed, with a bit of the mormon thing thrown in to boot. People here view him as plastic model of a 60-ish year old man who's dishonest to the core. His ability to make people think he genuinely cares and relates to them is severely lacking, and you pretty much need that in Iowa. If he's not in his comfort zone, he's very clearly very far away from it, as evident by his "who let the dogs out" debacle in Florida.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, I can't speak for every state, but in Iowa, its basically for the reasons I listed, with a bit of the mormon thing thrown in to boot. People here view him as plastic model of a 60-ish year old man who's dishonest to the core. His ability to make people think he genuinely cares and relates to them is severely lacking, and you pretty much need that in Iowa. If he's not in his comfort zone, he's very clearly very far away from it, as evident by his "who let the dogs out" debacle in Florida.

I like the campiness. I don't trust people who are too slick and "i'm your best friend" ish. I like Romney because he is and seems like a business man. He seems like an executive and has gotten things done and righted listing ships in his lifetime, sometimes forgoing pay for a cause.

[Xiahou]

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work,So true! :laugh4:


In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice? Count me in as one of the "cool" kids. Romney has a little bit of an issue with flip-flopping and then there's his legacy to Massachusetts, Romneycare, which has resulted in exploding healthcare costs (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811121310853037.html) for the state since he implemented it.
"They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006."

Now, to me, he's not political dead meat by any stretch, but he's got enough question marks to keep me from running to him with open arms. But really, he probably is the best candidate we have on the table right now. :sweatdrop:

[Askthepizzaguy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090806/pl_politico/25863

Please replace Chairman Michael Steele before I injure myself with laughter; he is a Democrat's wet dream, a walking parody. I do not quake with fear with this man leading the Republican party. He makes Howard Dean look sane (http://hurricanedeanpath.ytmnd.com/).

[Lemur]

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in weeks, Republicans organizing against WND (http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/organizing-against-worldnetdaily).


In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration. For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list. They should stop.

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable.

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is the most encouraging thing I've seen in weeks, Republicans organizing against WND (http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/organizing-against-worldnetdaily).

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration. For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list. They should stop.

No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable.

I think it's time to find out what conservative/libertarian organizations support WND through advertising, list rental or other commercial collaboration (email me if you know of any), and boycott any of those organizations that will not renounce any further support for WorldNetDaily.


Lemur, is it still your position that Republicans are in decline? Or has your position changed as the times have?

[Lemur]

I think the Republican Party is in some trouble, certainly, and there are some worrisome long-term trends. On the other hand, it is normal for the party that does not hold the White House to pick up seats in the interim elections, so we will probably see some sort-term gains in 2010. I don't hold out much hope for them in the 2012 presidential elections, but then again that's a political lifetime away. We shall see.

But on balance I fear the Republicans are pandering to trends that will hurt them in the long run. I really, really want them to re-grow their moderate wing (you know, the group currently dismissed as RINOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only)).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the Republican Party is in some trouble, certainly, and there are some worrisome long-term trends. On the other hand, it is normal for the party that does not hold the White House to pick up seats in the interim elections, so we will probably see some sort-term gains in 2010. I don't hold out much hope for them in the 2012 presidential elections, but then again that's a political lifetime away. We shall see.

But on balance I fear the Republicans are pandering to trends that will hurt them in the long run. I really, really want them to re-grow their moderate wing (you know, the group currently dismissed as RINOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only)).


Arlen Specter was clearly a Democrat in disguise.

[Shaka_Khan]

Why are you using that title to attract people with erectile disfunction? Do you think we're all Republicans!?



Just kidding.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the Republican Party is in some trouble, certainly, and there are some worrisome long-term trends. On the other hand, it is normal for the party that does not hold the White House to pick up seats in the interim elections, so we will probably see some sort-term gains in 2010. I don't hold out much hope for them in the 2012 presidential elections, but then again that's a political lifetime away. We shall see.

But on balance I fear the Republicans are pandering to trends that will hurt them in the long run. I really, really want them to re-grow their moderate wing (you know, the group currently dismissed as RINOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only)).


What is going to happen is that people are going to start feeling betrayed and disgusted with Democrats for botching everything even worse than the Republicans botched things.

THEN

In order to win increasingly conservative or just plain angry districts, Democrats are going to give in to xenophobic trends and other populist stuff - all while looking weak and losing anyway. Hispanics ae goping to increase their Republican numbers, put off by the populist drivel and you won't think that the trend looks as dangerous. The GOP will then solidify its sway over religious or conservative hispanics to a greater extent and come in for a win in 2012. The demographics will change.

The GOP is inclusive to all except blacks really. They are the only demographic group that is practically shut out to the Elephant. Hopefully as black cultural leaders start to wake up and stop poisoning the wells, nroads can be made to a greater extent.

Fingers crossed.

[Lemur]

A plausible scenario, TuffStuff, if not the most probable.

The call for a WND boycott has raised hackles and ruffled feathers (http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/worldnetdaily-responds):


Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily...

He says my call for right-of-center organizations to stop supporting WND's conspiracy peddling is "bullying tactics".
He says he has never heard of me.
He says that WND didn't say they were "concentration camps"; they just said that the legislation "appears designed to create the type of detention center" that people "fear" could be used as "concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany." He calls this "nuanced".
He claims I have called "for an all-out jihad against WND."
He says, "Am I scared? No, folks. I'm not." and says he's just standing up for "truth".

In The Washington Times, Farah "questioned Mr. Henke's motives and standing", arguing that The Next Right is "pretty much a Republican establishment group who has worked for the RNC and the Republican Party and I can certainly understand why a group like that would have problems with World Net Daily." He added "these are not journalists, they are political activists who have their own agendas."

So, he's taking the "you can't handle the truth!" approach so beloved by true believers and conspiracy theorists. He also seems to think I'm part of the "Republican establishment" and aligned with the RNC. This is an interesting argument, considering the fact that I'm trying to get the RNC to stop working with Joseph Farah.

The RNC also responds (http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/the-rnc-responds-but-will-not-distance-itself-from-worldnetdaily), sorta.

[Lemur]

I find myself in complete and utter agreement with Newt Gingrich (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/):

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, the 23rd congressional district in New York -- you're getting heat from Glenn Beck and others because you have endorsed the Republican candidate, and many Republicans, like Tim Pawlenty, former governor Sarah Palin -- Governor Pawlenty, former governor Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Dick Armey -- they've all endorsed the independent, and you're getting heat.

GINGRICH: Sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: And?

GINGRICH: Well, I just find it fascinating that my many friends who claim to be against Washington having too much power, they claim to be in favor of the 10th Amendment giving states back their rights, they claim to favor local control and local authority, now they suddenly get local control and local authority in upstate New York, they don't like the outcome.

There were four Republican meetings. In all four meetings, State Representative Dede Scozzafava came in first. In all four meetings, Mr. Hoffman, the independent, came in either last or certainly not in the top three. He doesn't live in the district. Dede Scozzafava...

VAN SUSTEREN: He doesn't live in the district?

GINGRICH: No, he lives outside of the district. Dede Scozzafava is endorsed by the National Rifle Association for her 2nd Amendment position, has signed the no tax increase pledge, voted against the Democratic governor's big-spending budget, is against the cap-and-trade tax increase on energy, is against the Obama health plan, and will vote for John Boehner, rather than Nancy Pelosi, to be Speaker.

Now, that's adequately conservative in an upstate New York district. And on other issues, she's about where the former Republican, McHugh, was. So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they're from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don't think so. And I don't think it's a good precedent. And I think if this third party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. We will not have strengthened the conservative movement.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is it that they have identified as why they think the independent candidate...

GINGRICH: Well, there's no question, on social policy, she's a liberal Republican.

VAN SUSTEREN: On such as abortion?

GINGRICH: On such as abortion, gay marriage, which means that she's about where Rudy Giuliani was when he became mayor. And yet Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor. And so this idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent -- that guarantees Obama's reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party.

[Vladimir]

You crazy progressives. Trying to poison us with your moderate-left ways. Hrumph.

[Fisherking]

Shrinkage!???

I am fed up with the two party system.

They always say they are going to do good things but look at what we get.

I am fully in favor of selecting our government officials in the same way we select our jurors.

Just send them to Washington and tell them to do something good for the country...

Can they do much worse?

:laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Shrinkage!???

I am fed up with the two party system.

They always say they are going to do good things but look at what we get.

I am fully in favor of selecting our government officials in the same way we select our jurors.

Just send them to Washington and tell them to do something good for the country...

Can they do much worse?

:laugh4:

Yes. That's like saying "these referees are terrible, let's pick random fans".

[Fisherking]

Yes. That's like saying "these referees are terrible, let's pick random fans".

And sending a bunch of rich lawyers to Washington to write laws is a better idea?
:inquisitive:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And sending a bunch of rich lawyers to Washington to write laws is a better idea?
:inquisitive:

If they are rich then they are less likely to accept bribes, and if they are lawyers they have a certain level of intelligence. Understanding the law would help in writing new ones...

Palin/Plumber 2012!

[Fisherking]

Sorry but I tend to disagree with all but the intelligence part.

It is rather a conflict of interest for those who make money from the law to make new ones...

Being wealthy never stopped greed.

Those are the last people you want representing you, yet they seem the most likely to want the job...

Think about it.

By the way, a Quote I love;


When the white man discovered this country Indians were running it. No taxes, no debt, women did all the work. White man thought he could improve on a system like this.


:laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sorry but I tend to disagree with all but the intelligence part.

It is rather a conflict of interest for those who make money from the law to make new ones...

Being wealthy never stopped greed.

Those are the last people you want representing you, yet they seem the most likely to want the job...

Think about it.


The presidential salary is lower today than it was it 1789.

So did all the rich lawyers make greedy laws to benefit themselves whereas poor garbage collectors would have no conflicts of interest?

I'll go back to my original example. The refs in the NFL should be the best in the country, yet they still make mistakes. Is the solution to improve the instant replay system and change some of the more arbitrary rules, or is it to pick random people from the crowd and have them referee?

Cynicism is a cop out for the disillusioned :whip:

[Fisherking]

The presidential salary is lower today than it was it 1789.

So did all the rich lawyers make greedy laws to benefit themselves whereas poor garbage collectors would have no conflicts of interest?

I'll go back to my original example. The refs in the NFL should be the best in the country, yet they still make mistakes. Is the solution to improve the instant replay system and change some of the more arbitrary rules, or is it to pick random people from the crowd and have them referee?

Cynicism is a cop out for the disillusioned :whip:

Your analogy is a bit off.

The referees don’t make the rules of the game. They act as a police force to enforce the rules.

At its inception the Governing Bodies of the United States were not conceived as partisan camps.

We were to select Representatives to act on behalf of the people, all the people and not on behalf of a third party (the Party).

They represent the interests of the Party that got them elected and if they have higher notions of their position they are soon shown the way it really is.

Along the way they have restyled them selves not as Representatives of the People but as their Leaders.

It is no about service to the community and nations but instead about power and prestige.

They are beholden to special interests who gave them money and to the Party that sponsored their election.

The Parties have their own interests and agendas. Some times these may serve the people but first and foremost they serve the Party.

Furthermore, the laws that govern the people need not be written in such a way as to be unintelligible to those without legal training. In fact it started out in the other extreme.

Laws were not meant to be ambiguous, unintelligible, or to require someone with legal training to interpret them.

The original “final arbiter” of the law was meant to be the jury and not the courts. When the Supreme Court took upon its self the right to judge laws it did not draw it from the courts but because it was also the supreme jury of the land.


I am not being cynical. I would like to see Representative Government. At the same time I know that this thread is not going to change the world.

It is just a discussion.

The Republicans are having problems. The Democrats have recovered form the problems they were having. At worst a new Party will arise to take the place of one that fails but the system will go on giving power to an Elite who do not represent their constituents but their own interests and that of their party.

Selecting candidates from the voting base and making the final selection by vote might rid us of Parties but it is not going to happen because it does not serve the interests of those in power.

[Lemur]

Man, what the heck is up with South Carolina (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuSiTw3HUCQ)? Is there something in the water (http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/1535058.html)?


SC state attorney caught with stripper, sex toys in graveyard

A deputy assistant attorney general who said he was on his lunch break when an officer found him with a stripper and sex toys in his sport utility vehicle has been fired, his boss said Wednesday.

Roland Corning, 66, a former state legislator, was in a secluded part of a downtown cemetery when an officer spotted him Monday. [...]

As the officer approached, Corning sped off, then pulled over a few blocks away. He and the 18-year-old woman with him, an employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club, gave conflicting stories about what they were doing in the cemetery, Officer Michael Wines wrote in his report, though he did not elaborate.

Corning gave Wines a badge showing he worked for the state Attorney General's Office. Wines, whose wife also works there, called her to make sure Corning was telling the truth.

He then searched the SUV, where he found a Viagra pill and several sex toys, items Corning said he always kept with him, "just in case," according to the report.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Man, what the heck is up with South Carolina (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuSiTw3HUCQ)? Is there something in the water (http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/1535058.html)?

SC state attorney caught with stripper, sex toys in graveyard

A deputy assistant attorney general who said he was on his lunch break when an officer found him with a stripper and sex toys in his sport utility vehicle has been fired, his boss said Wednesday.

Roland Corning, 66, a former state legislator, was in a secluded part of a downtown cemetery when an officer spotted him Monday. [...]

As the officer approached, Corning sped off, then pulled over a few blocks away. He and the 18-year-old woman with him, an employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club, gave conflicting stories about what they were doing in the cemetery, Officer Michael Wines wrote in his report, though he did not elaborate.

Corning gave Wines a badge showing he worked for the state Attorney General's Office. Wines, whose wife also works there, called her to make sure Corning was telling the truth.

He then searched the SUV, where he found a Viagra pill and several sex toys, items Corning said he always kept with him, "just in case," according to the report.



In South Carolina, I would most likely be a Democrat. Wherever a party is in power it tends to ellicit more corruption. I tend to trust blue state Republicans in practice more often than Red state Republicans. Purple state Republicans are good too.

If they are the kings of the castle, they are corrupt and would most likely be Democrats if that was the party in power. They seek power and use stale politics, rather than come up with new ideas that serve the people.

[Lemur]

As many suspected, Ron Paul (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/31/missing-gop-ballots-counted-in-nev-after-months/) wuz robbed.


Eighteen months later, Nevada Republicans have completed a count of all delegate ballots from last year's state convention.

A group of disaffected Republicans says it feels vindicated after a Friday night count of missing ballots from the April 2008 gathering showed three delegates for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul should have been sent to the national convention. [...]

Party leaders say the count will have no impact on the state's role in nominating U.S. Sen. John McCain as the party's presidential nominee last year.

But they said they hope it brings closure to Paul supporters and others who had pressed for the count.

"This should have been done a long time ago," said Nancy Ernaut, state party chairwoman.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I find myself in complete and utter agreement with Newt Gingrich (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/):

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, the 23rd congressional district in New York -- you're getting heat from Glenn Beck and others because you have endorsed the Republican candidate, and many Republicans, like Tim Pawlenty, former governor Sarah Palin -- Governor Pawlenty, former governor Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Dick Armey -- they've all endorsed the independent, and you're getting heat.

GINGRICH: Sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: And?

GINGRICH: Well, I just find it fascinating that my many friends who claim to be against Washington having too much power, they claim to be in favor of the 10th Amendment giving states back their rights, they claim to favor local control and local authority, now they suddenly get local control and local authority in upstate New York, they don't like the outcome.

There were four Republican meetings. In all four meetings, State Representative Dede Scozzafava came in first. In all four meetings, Mr. Hoffman, the independent, came in either last or certainly not in the top three. He doesn't live in the district. Dede Scozzafava...

VAN SUSTEREN: He doesn't live in the district?

GINGRICH: No, he lives outside of the district. Dede Scozzafava is endorsed by the National Rifle Association for her 2nd Amendment position, has signed the no tax increase pledge, voted against the Democratic governor's big-spending budget, is against the cap-and-trade tax increase on energy, is against the Obama health plan, and will vote for John Boehner, rather than Nancy Pelosi, to be Speaker.

Now, that's adequately conservative in an upstate New York district. And on other issues, she's about where the former Republican, McHugh, was. So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they're from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don't think so. And I don't think it's a good precedent. And I think if this third party candidate takes away just enough votes to elect the Democrat, then we will have strengthened Nancy Pelosi by the divisiveness. We will not have strengthened the conservative movement.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is it that they have identified as why they think the independent candidate...

GINGRICH: Well, there's no question, on social policy, she's a liberal Republican.

VAN SUSTEREN: On such as abortion?

GINGRICH: On such as abortion, gay marriage, which means that she's about where Rudy Giuliani was when he became mayor. And yet Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor. And so this idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent -- that guarantees Obama's reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party.

Well Gingrich is an idiot. The 'Republican' candidate dropped out (since she was last in the polls) and endorsed the Democratic candidate (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/NEWS09/911019992).

This is the same candidate who wouldn't sign the tax pledge at first, supported card-check (IE Union thug handout legislation), and wouldn't commit to running as a republican in the next election. Years and years of doing whatever it took to get reelected instead of giving a damn about passing GOP platform legislation lead the GOP to where they are now.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well Gingrich is an idiot. The 'Republican' candidate dropped out (since she was last in the polls) Well one would find oneself last in the polls if under fire from one's own party.


Good development though. Let the GOP alienate the centre by purging the party from moderates and putting hardliners in their place.

Palin / Plumber for president 2012! :cheerleader:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let the GOP fall. Then let the Democrats fall with them, and fall hard.

[CountArach]

Well Gingrich is an idiot. The 'Republican' candidate dropped out (since she was last in the polls) and endorsed the Democratic candidate (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091101/NEWS09/911019992).
... who then went on to win (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/11/hoffman-concedes-in-ny-special-house-race.html)...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Dems picked up a Congressional seat guys, this must mean that the GOP is shrinking.

What does the fact that a Conservative candidate polled over 45% against the democrat's 49% tell you about that race? Wikipedia doesn't even have Hoffman's picture up.

I'm OK with Republicans losing races, just as long as Conservatives can make a strong showing. I'm registered in that guys party up here.

[CountArach]

What does the fact that a Conservative candidate polled over 45% against the democrat's 49% tell you about that race? Wikipedia doesn't even have Hoffman's picture up.
The district is rated Republican +1 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and in a race where the Republican had pulled out of his run then that tells you that the Democratic base isn't quite as disillusioned as some have claimed. In an odd-year election where a party is largely in control this is quite a rarity.

Still, people shouldn't read too much into it - but I'm just saying, there are conclusions in there.

Results from 2009 election night here (http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/other.html)... Maine has narrowly rejected gay marriage (Despite polls showing the opposite - Conservatives are more fired-up this season whilst Democrats remain complacent) and a law granting domestic partnership equality to gay spouses in Washington is close.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The district is rated Republican +1 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index and in a race where the Republican had pulled out of his run then that tells you that the Democratic base isn't quite as disillusioned as some have claimed. In an odd-year election where a party is largely in control this is quite a rarity.

Still, people shouldn't read too much into it - but I'm just saying, there are conclusions in there.

Results from 2009 election night here (http://elections.nytimes.com/2009/results/other.html)... Maine has narrowly rejected gay marriage (Despite polls showing the opposite - Conservatives are more fired-up this season whilst Democrats remain complacent) and a law granting domestic partnership equality to gay spouses in Washington is close.


Republicans won the Governorship of New Jersey. That's New Jersey, right next to New York. That's with Pro-Life views and being a supporter of George Bush for 8 years.

If you don't see the hint of rebuke, I don't know what to tell you.

People are pissed now, if the system hits any more major bumps any time soon, the mid-term elections will be interesting. Partisan Conservatives were out in force this election and I didn't even vote, I'm moderate enough to give it some time. Moderates won't look so kindly on the administration or the Congress unless there is a major turn around before the mid-terms.

Decreasingly massive unemployment numbers arn't enough of a sign for some people, I know, crazy right?

I'm just happy to see Republicans pick up Governor spots. That's where we draft Presidents. Even if this election season wasn't a rebuke of the Dems, ever hear of the adage "fake it til ya make it"? Maybe it's a rebuke of the dems now, even when it wasn't before.

People have an interesting reaction when they've missed what they percieve as the bandwagon. Most of cultural movement comes from insistence by media and popular culture, the rest comes from the actual impact of policies and good ideas... at a margin of 10:1

[drone]

The GOP took the Dems back behind the woodshed here in Virginia. Governor, Lt. Gov, Attorney General, and at least 5 more state delegates to cement their majority. A lot of papers are saying that this really means nothing for next year's national mid-term elections, but the Dems better get on the ball if they want to continue to enjoy their majority.


I'm just happy to see Republicans pick up Governor spots. That's where we draft Presidents.
Not the new VA gov, he's unelectable on the national stage. :clown:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not the new VA gov, he's unelectable on the national stage. :clown:

Why is that? I'm pretty sure you could have said the same thing about GWB. Things change when you are the Governor of a State.

[drone]

Why is that? I'm pretty sure you could have said the same thing about GWB. Things change when you are the Governor of a State.

The US is not going to elect another fundamentalist president for a while.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The US is not going to elect another fundamentalist president for a while.


You you remember how GWB was elected the first time? Do you remember him being a fundamentalist?

[drone]

You you remember how GWB was elected the first time? Do you remember him being a fundamentalist?

Yes to both. And the stench of W's reign will prevent a repeat for a long time.

[CountArach]

Republicans won the Governorship of New Jersey. That's New Jersey, right next to New York. That's with Pro-Life views and being a supporter of George Bush for 8 years.
That was Corzine's personal fault (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/04/silver.election.analysis.local/index.html)

But Obama was the least of Corzine's problems: Voters in Tuesday's election approved of Obama's performance 57 percent to 43 percent, according to exit polling. It was Corzine they didn't like; 27 percent of the voters who approved of Obama nevertheless found someone other than the Democratic incumbent to vote for.

Corzine, for his part, ran a polarizing campaign; every time Christie's name appeared in one of his commercials, it came with a scarlet (R) -- for Republican -- attached. Republicans are not popular in New Jersey, but local issues drove the race.

Whereas three-quarters of Corzine's voters cited a national issue -- health care or the economy -- as their primary reason for voting for him, two-thirds of Christie's picked a local one (property taxes and corruption).

[ICantSpellDawg]

That was Corzine's personal fault (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/04/silver.election.analysis.local/index.html)

But Obama was the least of Corzine's problems: Voters in Tuesday's election approved of Obama's performance 57 percent to 43 percent, according to exit polling. It was Corzine they didn't like; 27 percent of the voters who approved of Obama nevertheless found someone other than the Democratic incumbent to vote for.

Corzine, for his part, ran a polarizing campaign; every time Christie's name appeared in one of his commercials, it came with a scarlet (R) -- for Republican -- attached. Republicans are not popular in New Jersey, but local issues drove the race.

Whereas three-quarters of Corzine's voters cited a national issue -- health care or the economy -- as their primary reason for voting for him, two-thirds of Christie's picked a local one (property taxes and corruption).



So you expect Democrats to win or lose seats at the mid-terms?

[CountArach]

So you expect Democrats to win or lose seats at the mid-terms?
Lose maybe 10-20 in the house and two or three senate seats, mostly because I think that Bush has inflated the Democrat's majority to an unrealistic extent. However, that is based on the assumption that only a weak healthcare reform bill is passed, as opposed to the much more progressive option. If a more progressive one is passed I would say that it is much harder to call. The public option is much more popular than many would have us believe, but if it is passed that will really annoy a lot of Conservatives and is likely to get health insurance lobbyists investing even more money into the Republican funds. So that would be a harder election to call, though I would tend to think the result would be a bit better for the Democrats.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Voter turnout for obama really helped the dems in congress.

[CountArach]

Voter turnout for obama really helped the dems in congress.
That too, which will make 2012 a really interesting election.

[Lemur]

So you expect Democrats to win or lose seats at the mid-terms?
It would be exceptional for the party in power not to lose seats in a mid-term election. Without some sort of extraordinary circumstances, I'd say it would be impossible.

The salient question would be how many, and in which regions.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It would be exceptional for the party in power not to lose seats in a mid-term election. Without some sort of extraordinary circumstances, I'd say it would be impossible.

The salient question would be how many, and in which regions.


Well unless they are losing them and the position is phasing out, it seems likely that they will be replaced by Republicans.

That would suggest that Republicans are not shrinking in office and are in fact growing. The past few years are allowing us to reflect, realize that we DO need to target non-whites and make sure that those people that we target are family oriented and believe that the government in principle should be the last one we go to to solve our problems.

That's all. Its simple really. The GOP isn't a White party - they used to consist entirely of White protestants. Now, the majority of Catholics are Republicans (although the lead is small). Clearly we evolve and grow and arn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Our growth in this country comes from pro-family immigrants who tend to be religious. The bulk of our population is ageing without replacement levels of reproduction. The GOP has traditionally had a pretty easy time of getting the votes of religious pro-family and elderly (40 - 80) voters.

Marc Rubio is a rising star, I hope to see more legislators and Governors like him in the GOP, and by that I mean Hispanics and others who wouldn't have fit in 10 years ago.

The answer is to get Republicans like Mitt Romney and Chris Christie elected throughout the Northeast, mid-west and Cali. They need to be Pro-life but not push the issue much. They need to be Pro-business and push that hard.