Future of the GOP?

Tricky said:
That is exactly correct. It does not benefit the Republican Party, nor is he popular among all Republicans. Yet he is the one making the headlines. He is the one speaking for conservatives. They should replace him as quickly as possible with somebody moderate and rational, but until that happens, like it or not, he's their spokesman.

You want him out, Repubs? Then get out and start loudly and widely disavowing his statements. So far, no prominant Republican seems to have the cojones to do that, except for Megan McCain. She's got big cojones, bigger than O'Reilly, Hannity, Palin, Steele, Huckabee, Romney or her dad. Too bad that so many in the party treat her as a leper. Their loss.
Click to expand...

She's still a kid when it comes to politics, and I say that as someone who applauded her smackdown of Coulter. The idea that she can be some kind of leader of the GOP at this point in her life is silly.

Look, 2010 and 2012 are going to be referendums on the Democrats, not on the Republicans. The conservatives spent a good part of the 1990s calibrating the Clinton Death List, while the liberals spent 2001-2008 talking about how Bush was Hitler. Didn't hurt them when the country got sick of the other party.
 
GreNME said:
And where does Republican Senator Lindsey Graham sit with those two types?
Click to expand...
He's not stupid at all - in fact, I think he's pretty sharp cookie. But other than his performance on Judicary, I'd have to put him in the "obstructionist Republican" box.

He's also pretty articulate. I think he is one the GOP should be looking to as a leader/spokesman other than McConnell, Cantor, Barbor, etc. He is not going to be president but he can surely be a king-maker by trying to pull the GOP back from the nutters.
 
Brainster said:
Look, 2010 and 2012 are going to be referendums on the Democrats, not on the Republicans.
Click to expand...
Not sure, Brainster. My guess the Dems will try to make 2010 (at least) about Republicans being the party of No. Whether they will succeed is another matter.

ETA: In checking my post for typos, etc. it occurs to me that here we are talking about 2010 and 2012. Gawd, this country is one continuous election campaign. I wish it were not so.
 
Last edited:
I think Tricky demonstrated, probably with a grin while he typed, why the democrats persist the "Rush leads the GOP" meme. It drives partisans like marc39 nuts. That is why Rahm Emmanuel pushed that strategy to begin with I am guessing.

Thanks for the demonstration.
 
Last edited:
corplinx said:
I think Tricky demonstrated, probably with a grin while he typed, why the democrats persist the "Rush leads the GOP" meme. It drives partisans like marc39 nuts. That is why Rahm Emmanuel pushed that strategy to being with I am guessing.

Thanks for the demonstration.
Click to expand...
Oh good. It's working. :D
 
I think I can guess their business plan.

First they tell you that terrorists will kill you if you don't buy their pizza. Then they bill you a trillion dollars for the pizza. And then when your pizza doesn't arrive, they hang up a big banner saying "PIZZA DELIVERED".
 
corplinx said:
I think Tricky demonstrated, probably with a grin while he typed, why the democrats persist the "Rush leads the GOP" meme. It drives partisans like marc39 nuts. That is why Rahm Emmanuel pushed that strategy to begin with I am guessing.

Thanks for the demonstration.
Click to expand...

True. I'm sure many Republicans are not happy about it, but it takes a leader to bring you in from the deep weeds. Until one appears and Republicans anchor their party in saner waters, Rush is the man they will all be apologizing to. Someone with clout has to call Rush to the mat and slam him.

If the people in your party with power have to genuflect in front of a loudmouth rhetorician, your party is full of fail.
 
SezMe said:
He's not stupid at all - in fact, I think he's pretty sharp cookie. But other than his performance on Judicary, I'd have to put him in the "obstructionist Republican" box.

He's also pretty articulate. I think he is one the GOP should be looking to as a leader/spokesman other than McConnell, Cantor, Barbor, etc. He is not going to be president but he can surely be a king-maker by trying to pull the GOP back from the nutters.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't see him as being obstructionist, but that's mostly because he tends toward having a consistent argument to put forward (even if I find it disagreeable) on most issues. As for the GOP looking toward him, I doubt that'll be a consideration since he was working (unofficially) on king-making with McCain just last year. I do agree he'd make a better spokesman for the GOP than those doing the jabbering currently, but I doubt that the majority of the party would have sufficient faith in him.
 
GreNME said:
I do agree he'd make a better spokesman for the GOP than those doing the jabbering currently, but I doubt that the majority of the party would have sufficient faith in him.
Click to expand...

And so we're back to the two camps, and by your own admission, the Republican party is trying to marginalize those that don't fit into the stupid and obstructionist subgroup.
 
SezMe said:
Not sure, Brainster. My guess the Dems will try to make 2010 (at least) about Republicans being the party of No. Whether they will succeed is another matter.

ETA: In checking my post for typos, etc. it occurs to me that here we are talking about 2010 and 2012. Gawd, this country is one continuous election campaign. I wish it were not so.
Click to expand...

Off-year elections generally favor the party out of power; the only major exceptions I can recall are 1998 and 2002, but in each case there were good reasons. The off-year phenomenon arises because presidents usually sweep into office a number of otherwise marginal seats for his party. In 1996 and especially 2000, this did not happen; although Clinton won reelection and Bush was elected for the first time, neither of them brought into office a significant class of freshman ripe for the other side to cull in the off-year.

In 1996, the Democrats, while seeing Bill Clinton reelected, lost two seats in the Senate, and only gained 3 seats in the House. Clinton's lack of coattails in 1996 was much remarked upon.

In 2000, the GOP lost 4 Senate seats and 2 House seats, even thought Bush became President. Ergo they didn't have much to lose in 2002.

On the other hand, as you may have heard, the Democrats did quite well in 2008, picking up a net 7 seats in the Senate and 21 seats in the House. Now it is fair to point out that the GOP's going to be defending more seats in the Senate than the Democrats in 2010, because the 2004 class is coming up for reelection. The Republicans won 19-15 that year. So it's possible that the GOP will lose a seat or two in the Senate, but I would expect them to gain in the House.
 
Tricky said:
That is exactly correct. It does not benefit the Republican Party, nor is he popular among all Republicans. Yet he is the one making the headlines. He is the one speaking for conservatives. They should replace him as quickly as possible with somebody moderate and rational, but until that happens, like it or not, he's their spokesman.
Click to expand...

Of course, Rush is the one making the headlines. Rush makes hundreds of millions by being a clever businessman, one with a microphone, and he's exploiting a fantastic opportunity for a level of free-publlicity that all the PR firms in the world, combined, could not generate. His Ditto Heads are the sheep falling for the ploy.

You want him out, Repubs? Then get out and start loudly and widely disavowing his statements. So far, no prominant Republican seems to have the cojones to do that, except for Megan McCain. She's got big cojones, bigger than O'Reilly, Hannity, Palin, Steele, Huckabee, Romney or her dad. Too bad that so many in the party treat her as a leper. Their loss.
Click to expand...

Rush isn't in. Republicans are not obligated to start disavowing his statements just as Dems are not obligated to disavow Olbermann's or Rev. Wright's statements.
 
drkitten said:
And so we're back to the two camps, and by your own admission, the Republican party is trying to marginalize those that don't fit into the stupid and obstructionist subgroup.
Click to expand...

No, you infer that based on your own confirmation bias. I'm pointing out that the oversimplifications don't pan out when applied on a granular level. The "two camps" theory only works in broad generalizations, if even at that.

Also, I'd like it kept in mind that I'm not a Republican, I voted for Obama over McCain, and do agree that there are many in the Republican camp right now who are obstructionist (just as there were many Democrats after the 2006 elections who were obstructionists). I'm simply pointing out that the characterization being made isn't quite so simple or black-and-white as was presented.
 
Brainster said:
On the other hand, as you may have heard, the Democrats did quite well in 2008, picking up a net 7 seats in the Senate and 21 seats in the House. Now it is fair to point out that the GOP's going to be defending more seats in the Senate than the Democrats in 2010, because the 2004 class is coming up for reelection. The Republicans won 19-15 that year. So it's possible that the GOP will lose a seat or two in the Senate, but I would expect them to gain in the House.
Click to expand...

This is similar to what I expect come 2010, as well. I doubt the Senate seats will change all that much, though, and there's a good possibility that the GOP will actually gain at least one or two seats, in my estimation (Illinois, I'm looking at you).
 
Perhaps a distinction should be made between those who lead the GOP and those who are leading their base.

Technically, Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP. (whether or not he actually leads them right now could be a matter for debate) Limbaugh, on the other hand, appears to have a very large influence on the base. Perhaps the biggest influence held by a single person or group.
 
Upchurch said:
Perhaps a distinction should be made between those who lead the GOP and those who are leading their base.

Technically, Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP. (whether or not he actually leads them right now could be a matter for debate) Limbaugh, on the other hand, appears to have a very large influence on the base. Perhaps the biggest influence held by a single person or group.
Click to expand...

I see it as Steele being in charge of the GOP's budget, and Limbaugh being in charge of their media face. So while Limbaugh does not run the GOP (in that he does not allocate resources), he SEEMS TO speak for them. It's a very bad situation, that if not taken in hand by Steele and others, can only lead to cross-purposes in priotities, which in itself, leads to failure of goals.
 
Marc39 said:
Rush isn't in. Republicans are not obligated to start disavowing his statements just as Dems are not obligated to disavow Olbermann's or Rev. Wright's statements.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but when they disagree with them, do they later come back hat in hand and appoligize the way republicans do with Rush? Look at how Rush made Steele his bitch.
 
The future of the GOP:

The future of the Dems will be that they will stop
ruling the country as soon the majority of people
are sick and tired of the ruling Dems.

The future of the GOP will be that they will stop
ruling the country as soon the majority of people
are sick and tired of the ruling GOP.


________________________________________

Oh my, 2 party systems are so predictable. :(
_____________________________________________________


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom