Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[Skeptic]

It's typical of human beings to excuse the (in this case minor) excesses from "their" side as a just reaction to the evil lying scumbags on the other side, while looking at similar minor excesses (if they ARE excesses -- the most I can see here is somewhat rude behavior in a public meeting; not exactly gestapo tactics...) form the other side as a reason for the other side to hide in shame.

 

[Piggy]

You can't make a party out of moderates in a two-party system; inevitably they will become marginalized.

First, there's no commandment from Heaven that we must have a 2 party system. That's been the way it is for some time now here b/c the 2 dominant parties have managed to absorb splinter groups whenever they became large enough to threaten viability.

Second, if you define the middle correctly, there's no reason it can't dominate the fringes, especially in a country this large. If you capture the center, removing those votes from the other parties, then they tend to fracture into special interest niches who don't particularly like each other and therefore are reluctant to form workable coalitions among each other.

That's not to say that a new Conservative Party would actually work. It would be very risky, and you'd need some serious heavyweights to start it, and it might fail even then. But it's certainly not impossible.

 

[Piggy]

isn't it Obama who's in Reagan's shoes right now?

And btw, yes, that was the entire point of that part of my post.

 

[Piggy]

And god forbid a voter ever express anger to their elected representative. Oh, the humanity! What is this world coming to?

Why, the plebes should know their place! How dare they demand that their representatives actually represent their desires! What do they think this is, a democracy? And how dare the RNCC encourage people to voice their anger! Everybody knows only progressives are allowed to protest.

Protesting is fine. If people want to paint up a bunch of posterboard and hoot and holler, well all right. It's their right.

But that's not what this thread is about.

If any voter wants to stand up at a town hall and say s/he's angry, and explain why, and put that out on the table, and ask what their representatives are going to do about it, and then hold them to it, that's fine.

But that's not quite what's going on here.

What's going on here is a coordinated effort to merely disrupt. The strategy is to shout and holler so that certain answers can't be heard and discussion does not take place on certain points.

It's ridiculous. These people were even shouting during the introductions of Sibelius and Specter. That accomplishes nothing. It turns these meetings -- which are important for democracy -- into something like a pro wrestling match.

And what's the takeaway for the leadership who are trying to hear what people have to say and to explain their positions, but instead end up getting an earful of noise and can't make important points over the shouting? It's not, "Oh, boy, well, now I understand how I was wrong and these folks are right, so I'd better get cracking and change my vote." It's "These idiots are wrecking the town hall process."

The difference between you and me, Zig, is that you look at what these people are doing and think it's appropriate and fine. Therefore, you have no problem w/ the NRCC's stance on it.

I look at what these people are doing and find it shameful. If they protested outside, that would be different, but they came out intentionally to disrupt the process. That's childish, ignorant, and counterproductive. That's why I find NRCC support and encouragement of these yahoos to be disturbing, especially when combined with the other bad choices they're making right now.

 

[Piggy]

These protests did not halt (or even attempt to halt) the business of those town hall meetings.

Of course they did. There's no way to read that literature and watch the videos of these events and not see that they intended to disrupt these meetings, and that this is precisely what they did.

Some points simply could not be made because these cranks raised a ruckus any time they came up. They stopped the process at several points during these meetings, intentionally. They were not involved in a legitimate, adult discussion of the issues.

 

[Piggy]

Let's also remember that McCain was not the candidate of the committed base in 2008, which shows that the rank and file of the GOP may be smarter than the supposed poobahs like Rush and Ann Coulter.

Well, that's what I'm saying, now, isn't it?

McCain lost the election when he changed strategies, stopped fighting for the center, and instead began to "energize the base". This made folks like me conclude, reluctantly, that we could no longer support him.

The problem now is that Rush and his ilk are, for all intents and purposes, in control of the party now. They can say what they like virtually without criticism, but no one who's in office dares oppose them. (Or very few.) Policy is being driven by their audience.

That's why I think it's time for the rank and file to consider splintering off and joining up with other centrists who aren't affiliated with the Democrats, or maybe who are but would leave if given a viable choice.

 

[Piggy]

But what is it that worries you about the people who like her, these Palinistas?

Well, let's see.... It's that they support a person who tells outrageous and dangerous lies on the stump, who isn't even remotely qualified for national office, and who is politically undisciplined enough to get into pop media shouting matches with a teenage boy.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The GOP is so marginal now that Obama can not possibly screw up enough for them to come back in force anytime soon. Even if Obama starts eating puppies during press briefings, the GOP wingnuts will still look bad in comparison.

I've learned not to misunderestimate the think-tank full of fail the Dems have at their disposal. The GOP looks likely to hit bottom approaching at .9c right now however...

 

[Monketi Ghost]

No, I don't believe that.

What I'm saying is that it would be better for conservatism if moderates like Powell and Snow, as well as rank and file members who aren't on the far right fringe, were to leave the party to the birthers and Palinistas and let it wither on the vine.

Suppose you did have pragmatic Republicans forming a Conservative Party, along with some Democratic defectors who don't care for that party's left wing, and a few independents and maybe some 3rd party folks who have only been where they are by default.

With the right platform, it could be the new home for reasonable conservatives who see where the GOP seems to be headed and don't like it, along with Reagan Democrats, McCain swing voters, etc.

Given a rational pro-business policy, a willingness to compromise to get things done (no insistence on ideological purity), more openness toward minorities, a distaste for obstructionism, a balance of social conservatism with personal freedom, an inclusive stance on religion, a tempered fiscal conservatism rather than a mere tax-cut mantra, a realistic environmental policy, a firm stance on illegal immigration that doesn't lapse into race baiting, and an explicit disavowal of conspiracy theories and paranoia, at this moment such a party could do very well.

If the best moderates left the party and formed their own, I could vote for that.

 

[Piggy]

@Piggy - I also don't necessarily agree that the GOP brass are completely behind it. I think they're quite content, if not delighted, that it's going on, but I do believe it's the same make-believe "grass roots" movement they tried to invent with Fox News' assistance, for the Tea Bag Day, or whatever it was called. It also just happens to merely coincide with a major financial effort to stop Healthcare/Insurance reform, so I'd tend to look for my suspects in that area.

Oh, I don't think they are, either. And the Democrats are rightly getting spanked for jumping out and saying that these crowds were organized by the Republicans.

There are a few small groups that are organizing these shout-downs. What disgusts me is the NRCC response, which is to paint these folks as noble citizens out to participate in the process, and the folks holding these meetings as somehow attempting to silence their voices, in the sense of preventing them from expressing their views, when all they're trying to do is to make a mini-mob shut up so the meeting can be held.

 

[The Painter]

Ok, it's gone too far.

Not content to cast reckless accusations during the campaign and fail to consistently repudiate nutjob conspiracy theorists, unashamed at being unable to muster the stones to speak a word of criticism against the worst excesses of the muckraking right-wing pundits, the GOP leadership (if it can still be called that) has resorted to openly encouraging mob actions in order to scuttle orderly discussion, debate, and compromise.

It's time for sane Republicans to abandon the party en masse.

Radical? Yeah. But it's likely the only way to put a stop to this.

I really hate to say it -- until now I've advocated the opposite strategy -- but I think we've reached a tipping point. The only solution now, it seems to me, is to abandon the party to the wingnuts and make it utterly irrelevant.

The kicker, of course, is... where to go from there?

Is it time for a new, sane conservative party?

Should rational conservatives simply remain independent then regroup?

Regardless, it's time to starve the cancer.

It's nice to see that you are carrying the Party Banner. You've even got the key phrases in there. I know it must be purely coincidence that your post and a new Democrat video are out at the same time. Unless you are on the text message list. Hmmm.

"Enough of the Mob"

 

[Denver]

The GOP is so marginal now that Obama can not possibly screw up enough for them to come back in force anytime soon. Even if Obama starts eating puppies during press briefings, the GOP wingnuts will still look bad in comparison.

I think it depends a lot on what the GOP does with itself over the years. If all their dire predictions (or at least the predictions of the media elements that seem to speak for the GOP) turn out correct, then by 2012 the Obama administration could be seen as a failure, and the GOP prophets, as visionary.

But that's the risk. The predictions (socialism/communism, failed health system changes, crashed economy, terrorist attacks on US soil because of weakened security, etc) are very loud and very dire. And if they don't come to pass, you can bet the DEMs will be pointing that out very clearly, and the GOP will continue to lose ground.

 

[Piggy]

It's nice to see that you are carrying the Party Banner. You've even got the key phrases in there. I know it must be purely coincidence that your post and a new Democrat video are out at the same time. Unless you are on the text message list. Hmmm.

"Enough of the Mob"

I haven't seen any of the Democrat propaganda on this on YouTube, although I've read some of their responses, many of which are, imo, ill advised.

But it shouldn't be surprising that people call these mobs "mobs".

I wasn't aware that the Dems were making any sort of pitch for Republicans to defect. But of course, it's not my position that anyone should join the Democrats. I'm for the formation of a Conservative party that disavows the pitchforkers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yep. Never been a conservative who started a fight... ever. Not one. Not a single one.

Strawman. I didn't say any violence, I said mass political violence. Which means if the violence isn't political, or if it's carried out by a lone nutjob, it doesn't fall under the category I referred to. Mass political violence in the US is now (and has been for some time) almost exclusively the domain of the left.

You see, here's how it goes.
>People make speeches at meetings.
>Then people ask questions of the people who make speeches.
>And then the speakers answer those questions.
>And quite often the questioners then ask a follow up question and even get a little peevish and into an argument with the speaker.

Yes. And that's essentially how it went much of the time.

You seem to know all about all of these meetings (at least that's what I get from your earlier exchange with Piggy)

The main point of my early exchanges with Piggy was actually that he didn't back up any of his claims.

And let's not get into dueling "you made the claim you provide the evidence" - you made your claim then I made my claim, so we're even

No, we are not. I posted links to everything I've referred to regarding these protests. You have posted nothing. In fact, I linked to video from exactly the meeting in question earlier in this thread. The meeting was in the Long Island district, but the town itself is Setauket.

Perhaps this is the account you refer to:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090731/pl_politico/25646
But note what is absent from this account: the claim that the meeting was halted. It's not there. The only thing it says was halted was further meetings, which was Bishop's decision. As far as the police escort, the story says he was escorted by police, it does not say he had to be escorted by police. There's a difference, you know.

 

[Ziggurat]

If any voter wants to stand up at a town hall and say s/he's angry, and explain why, and put that out on the table, and ask what their representatives are going to do about it, and then hold them to it, that's fine.

But that's not quite what's going on here.

Yes, actually, it is. You can argue that this isn't exclusively what's going on, but doing exactly that is one of the major points of these efforts.

And what's the takeaway for the leadership who are trying to hear what people have to say and to explain their positions, but instead end up getting an earful of noise and can't make important points over the shouting? It's not, "Oh, boy, well, now I understand how I was wrong and these folks are right, so I'd better get cracking and change my vote." It's "These idiots are wrecking the town hall process."

No, Piggy. This is politics. The message that voters need to convey to politicians is NOT that this or that plan is more rational, meritorious, or whatever. If you think that's what politicians listen for when they listen to constituents, you're kidding yourself. What politicians listen for, and what WILL be conveyed, is what the voters want. They try to sell a course of action to the voters based on higher principles, but the feedback they get from the voters, the feedback that really matters in a democracy, regardless of the forum, is what the voters want. And I think that's coming through rather loud and clear.

 

[Denver]

...Everyone who tried to criticize Limbaugh ended up having to apologize and kiss his ring, to the despair of moderates who were (and are) rightly horrified at a leadership so weak that they couldn't stand up to a radio talk show host. He became the symbolic leader of the party. Powell is just about the only one who dares to criticize Rush, and he's not in office.

I keep going back and forth on this issue. While it does seem to me that Rush speaks for the party, I am still holding on to the hope that it just looks that way because he is in the media so often. It's just hard for me to accept a significant amount of conservatives will allow themselves to be led by a guy who, just today, presents this comparison regarding Obama's health care logo on his web site and radio show:



I sure there is a lot of substantial debate to be done regarding healthcare. But does it really help anyone to Godwin your party in the middle of it?

 

[Piggy]

Yes, actually, it is. You can argue that this isn't exclusively what's going on, but doing exactly that is one of the major points of these efforts.

That's ridiculous.

These people pipe down when one of them wants to get up and speak, and when they're waiting for the cue words to come from the speaker, but when the cues come, they disrupt the meeting by shouting so no discussion can happen.

Plain and simple. A child can see that.

That's not discussion. It's not how responsible adults behave, or how anyone gets anything done.

If they want to be part of the process, they'll speak and listen, not unleash a chorus of incoherent noise so that particular points can't be made.

I listened to the Hoyer meeting. At one point, he said "Let me tell you the facts" and was met with shouts of "No!" and "Lies!"

These yahoos were shouting "Traitor!" when the host was merely introducing Specter.

Give me a break.

No, Piggy. This is politics. The message that voters need to convey to politicians is NOT that this or that plan is more rational, meritorious, or whatever. If you think that's what politicians listen for when they listen to constituents, you're kidding yourself. What politicians listen for, and what WILL be conveyed, is what the voters want. They try to sell a course of action to the voters based on higher principles, but the feedback they get from the voters, the feedback that really matters in a democracy, regardless of the forum, is what the voters want. And I think that's coming through rather loud and clear.

I'm not politically naive. But neither am I politically paranoid.

Town hall meetings in home districts are not stunts. These representatives do want to inform their constituents and hear what they have to say.

The only thing coming thru loud and clear from these folks is "I'm an idiot!"

 

[Piggy]

But note what is absent from this account: the claim that the meeting was halted. It's not there. The only thing it says was halted was further meetings, which was Bishop's decision.

You've got a strange set of standards.

So Bishop stayed for the duration -- he did not allow the mini-mob to end the event early and send everyone else home who'd come to be civil and express coherent views and learn something.

Because of that, you say there was no disruption or intent to disrupt.

Ridiculous.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's ridiculous.

These people pipe down when one of them wants to get up and speak, and when they're waiting for the cue words to come from the speaker, but when the cues come, they disrupt the meeting by shouting so no discussion can happen.

You keep saying this, and yet I saw on the video that discussion DID happen. Your description just does not comport with what I saw and heard. And I believe my lying eyes, not you.

The only thing coming thru loud and clear from these folks is "I'm an idiot!"

That's the only message you choose to hear. But any politician with sense is going to hear there are voters who are dissatisfied and passionate. Whatever the politicians might think of those voters, I guarantee you that they get that message, even if you choose to blind yourself.

 

[dudalb]

I've learned not to misunderestimate the think-tank full of fail the Dems have at their disposal. The GOP looks likely to hit bottom approaching at .9c right now however...

Agreed. I already see problems for the Dems..there seems to be a great deal of anger among the hardcore Liberal Dems toward the Blue Dogs in the Healh Care fights and the Dems are world class at the circular firing squad...but right now no way they can do worse then the GOP.