"Rebellion brewing" in GOP base

[Chaos]

If a secular republican party is going to be taken seriously by the electorate, they need to be able to say with a straight face that they are a party of low taxes and small government and a real alternative and opposition to Obama style big government nanny-statism.

These are politicians we are talking about. They can could claim to be the Founding Fathers reincarnated and accuse Obama of murdering the Dead Sea, all the while keeping a perfectly straight face.

Of course, since we are also talking about voters here, chances are a considerable part of the electorate would buy that - after all, they know for sure the Democrats must be worse.

 

[Father Dagon]

The thing is that because of our election process we will always be a two party system. In america you will have two main parties and a bunch of loons who will rarely be significant other than splitting the vote and causing their postions to lose.

Ok, but speaking of R&D, is there any way that these parties could become more "european"? Am I misunderstanding it completley, or is it possible to join R or D and having no special talents or skills, just work your way up to the top?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The thing is that no GOP politician on the national level has been a serious fiscal/small government conservative since... well, since Barry Goldwater. Hollering about porkulus and smaller government increasingly only fools those who have been fooling themselves.

Doubt it if you may, but the religious right has a stranglehold on the GOP. Stuff like this is happening way too much for anyone to deny it:

You simply don't get that kind of crazy by being secular.

Congratulations on discovering a crazed fanatic amongst a sample of 55 million voters.

Did you hear about the crazed religious fanatic who Barack Obama went to church with for 20 years and didn't seem bothered by it until the rest of the country found out?

Why don't we hear from moderate democrats who are trying to wrest control of their party from religious loonies like the representative from "God Damn America"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ok, but speaking of R&D, is there any way that these parties could become more "european"? Am I misunderstanding it completley, or is it possible to join R or D and having no special talents or skills, just work your way up to the top?

Well I suspect that one would need to be good at playing the game of the political parties, but competent in any other feild would seem an unlikely nessecity.

And it is not Republicans and Democrats, it is that there will always be only two main parties, the parties themselves can change. If the Republicans totaly fell appart then in a few elections we would have a new major party.

It stems from having every ellection fall to who ever gets the most votes, if you have to significant candidates who are close in their appeal they will split the vote between them and both lose.

 

[Praktik]

Why don't we hear from moderate democrats who are trying to wrest control of their party from religious loonies like the representative from "God Damn America"?

I listened to that whole Wright speech. In context ":God Damn America" made sense to me: he said it directly after referring to the japanse internment camps, slavery, and the native american genocide.

Have you listened to the whole speech?

Sound bite politics at its worst: "Oh noez - he said "god damn America!""

License to turn your brain off I suppose and react instinctively and emotionally.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Snowe just published an Op-Ed in the NYT discussing Specter.

Yup, I saw that.

I read it as a warning shot at RNC.

Ditto. The GOP leadership better watch their ass.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I listened to that whole Wright speech. In context ":God Damn America" made sense to me: he said it directly after referring to the japanse internment camps, slavery, and the native american genocide.

Have you listened to the whole speech?

Sound bite politics at its worst: "Oh noez - he said "god damn America!""

License to turn your brain off I suppose and react instinctively and emotionally.

You missed the part where he said AIDS was invented by the CIA to wipe out the black race.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You missed the part where he said AIDS was invented by the CIA to wipe out the black race.

Yup, Rev. Wright is a wedge - the simplest of all the tools

 

[Praktik]

You missed the part where he said AIDS was invented by the CIA to wipe out the black race.

No I've been all over that. Been doing a lot of research on "Dr." Leonard Horowitz lately due to him coming up on another board over and over again.

I don't think that changes the context of his "god damn america' remarks all that much - just goes to show what those who perceive persecution (legitimately and illegitimately) will dip into the woo-well from time to time..

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

QFT

You're either a conservative, or you're not. I don't understand this notion of "updating conservatism". Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Depends on what you define conservatism as first of all. Typically speaking conservatism is relative to the area you live in, spectacularly so if we're talking social conservatism. Really the only thing you need to be a conservative is to be advocating values that are in line with whatever traditional viewpoint holds sway there, these beliefs can be updated but pretty much this just ends up seeing splinter groups form up and fall off, same with liberalism. Modern or neo-liberalism seems to have embraced government control in economies for varying degrees but there are still a few splinter groups such as classic/market liberals who may support many of the social issues neo-liberals do while maintaining a laissez-faire approach to the economy.

I made a big to-do over that conservative kid, who wrote a book on conservatism, can't actually remember his name because he's a political non-entity as far as I'm concerned, and including in his definition a respect for life. This as everyone knows is code for anti-abortion. I thought it was silly of him to attempt to give strict definition to something like conservatism and attempting to do so will always end in a no true Scotsman, IMO. Especially considering that if a person met every definition of his but even went so far as to say that abortion is something he finds morally repugnant but permissible considering privacy rights he would have been a de facto liberal.

Conservatism and liberalism are vague utterances for the most part and very few individuals seriously can find themselves completely identifying with one political ideology in some form without simply being another useful idiot, such as the anti-Zionist Jews who proudly march next to the guy dressed as a Palestinian terrorist shouting Intifada. Myself for example, I find myself socially progressive while advocating for a free market and my opinions on foreign policy are closer towards modern conservatism despite my sincere belief that military spending should be cut as much of it is largely unnecessary, IMO.

We're talking very complex stuff here; updating conservatism to me just seems as if many conservatives are now facing the reality that the values they hold today are going to change tomorrow. Along with that reality comes that sense of political self-preservation that if they don't update along with them then they're going to be left behind, form up as a splinter group, fall off, and then be as ridiculed today as isolationists and segregationists are. So yes, it is a contradiction in terms because eventually every morality and traditional value goes through a make-over. The anti-gay marriage element of the Republican party is going to be considered just as kooky and wooful as the segregationists in a few decades.

 

[fuelair]

Yup, Rev. Wright is a wedge - the simplest of all the tools

Sometimes the simplest tool is the most effective in skilled hands.

 

[Whiplash]

Yes but if the only tool you have is a wedge, everything starts to look like something you have to wedgify.. or something.

 

[applecorped]

Sometimes the simplest tool is the most effective in skilled hands.

That's the best description of masturbation I've ever read.

 

[shecky]

Congratulations on discovering a crazed fanatic amongst a sample of 55 million voters.

Just an example. How many more do you want me to find? Not anonymous freepers or such. Real card carrying GOP members, and politicians. Won't be hard. You realize they pop up in the news with such regularity that finding a Republican who isn't a wacko bible thumper is the man-bites-dog story.

Just admit it. The GOP is mortally tied to the religious right. I do not see how this declaration is in any way controversial or somehow a reflection on me.

 

[Tricky]

Just admit it. The GOP is mortally tied to the religious right.

No they are not. They have only been tied to the Religious Right since the eighties. Before that, Democrats were more likely to vote based on religion. Republicans were more concerned with business.

It was an unholy alliance forged by Jerry Fallwell and the handlers of Ronald Reagan. It is not irrevocable. It is an addiction. Like many addictions, it brings short-term rewards at the expense of long-term losses. The world has changed. Religiosity is now more of a turn-off for voters than it is a draw. Can Republicans get the monkey off their backs? That remains to be seen, but there are signs that they are moving in that direction.

For one, I hope they do. There was a day when I had to ponder long and hard before deciding which candidate to vote for. I would welcome that day back again.

 

[drkitten]

Read the statement by Romer again and tell me what applies now that didn't apply in September:

Quite a bit.

For example, we had not yet seen large job loss. But in context, that's actually a very BAD thing in September, because job loss is an example of what economists call a "lagging" indicator; you don't see it until the economy has already been tanking for a while, and you still see it after the economy turns around.

By every possible measure the economy is much worse off today that it was in September. The Dow? Was at 10,917 after the fall of Lehman and Merrill.

... and falling. Today it's at 8,000 and rissing. The Dow is an example of a "leading" indicator; the fact that the Dow was in free fall should have panicked any competent observer -- which McCain demonstrably was not. And the fact that he didn't observe this is one clue the electorate took.

 

[SezMe]

Part of the problem with the GOP is that the leadership is so used to the idea that the religious right is the linchpin of the Party that they cannot see it has become a liability. Not until some new blood gets in the leadership will that change. And I don't see that happening until another major defeat.

Here is the latest attempt by the GOP to rebrand itself. Note that two of the principle players are McCain and Jeb Bush. How in the world can they see this as a rebranding with the most recent loser and a guy named "Bush" playing prominent roles? One would think that no matter how attractive Jeb is within the party, they would not put the name Bush on the national stage for a couple of years at least.

No women. No latinos. No blacks. Absent Jindel this would be pure white. Absent McCain nobody from the west. No moderates. The south predominates.

Ugh. This is the type of thing the GOP needs to do, but like W, they just don't seem to be able to actually do things right.

I think dualb is right that they are going to need another spanking before the GOP ship starts to turn. Baring a catastrophic event (terrorism, economic collapse, etc) I don't see it happening in 2010 and not likely 2012.

 

[Whiplash]

Here is the latest attempt by the GOP to rebrand itself. Note that two of the principle players are McCain and Jeb Bush. How in the world can they see this as a rebranding with the most recent loser and a guy named "Bush" playing prominent roles? One would think that no matter how attractive Jeb is within the party, they would not put the name Bush on the national stage for a couple of years at least.

I have to admit, there is a sick part of me that would love to see Jeb Bush run, even knowing he'd lose, just because I think it would be highly entertaining to watch the conniptions and nervous breakdowns that would ensue.

But I recognize that would be imature of me.

 

[CapelDodger]

No they are not. They have only been tied to the Religious Right since the eighties. Before that, Democrats were more likely to vote based on religion. Republicans were more concerned with business.

Those were the days of the Southern Democrats. Civil Rights and LBJ's Great Society broke that rather bizarre Democratic coalition (bound only by shared anti-Republicanism) and put the Religious Right in play.

It was an unholy alliance forged by Jerry Fallwell and the handlers of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was the first fruit of a plan that can be traced back to Barry Goldwater's run - and it was a neo-con plan, not a religious one. Karl Rove was the genius who saw it to completion.

It was an intelligently designed alliance, not an evolved one, which is why its wreckage is so absolute.

It is not irrevocable. It is an addiction. Like many addictions, it brings short-term rewards at the expense of long-term losses. The world has changed. Religiosity is now more of a turn-off for voters than it is a draw. Can Republicans get the monkey off their backs?

I think the monkeys are now "the Republicans". The religious were cynically brought in as vote-fodder but they've ended up defining the party. The tail has become the dog.

 

[dudalb]

Uh, Barry Goldwater did not like the religous right at all.
Capel, I get the feeling you think that anybody who does not see the European style Welfare State as the Ideal Solution is a little crazy.