Republican Party

[SezMe]

This is a disturbing turn of events. While I don't usually subscribe to Newt's views, his analysis seems to be spot on.

Two wings of the Republican party are at loggerheads. One, the big tent wing, wants to broaden party appeal by including moderate conservatives. The other, call it the litmus wing, believes that Republicans have lost recently because they weren't conservative enough. The rise of Hoffman would seem to signal that the latter are ascendent.

I say disturbing because I think the Palin/Pawlenty/Army/etc wing of the party is wrong and is likely to doom to Republicans more losses. And while not a Republican, I do not want it to become the party of only the South and Mormonlandia.

Discuss.

 

[applecorped]

Mormonlandia?

 

[Magyar]

I will read the article, but the problem I see with the analysis is that the real difference between the 2 segments of the republican party

is that the one side Palin et al is that they are just plain ◊◊◊◊◊◊* loony, totally ignorant fundy biggoted, pro big business at all cost to the middle class party

the other side is just fundy biggoted, pro big business at all cost to the middle class party.

The reality is that both sides are totally out of touch with or simply don't give a sh8 about reality and it's long term effects on this country as long as they can get theirs.


This is not to say the dems are all that much better it's just that the reps are rushing to the front seats of the bus going over the cliff.

 

[GreNME]

Mormonlandia?

See politics in Utah, and you'll get the reference.

 

[McHrozni]

I say disturbing because I think the Palin/Pawlenty/Army/etc wing of the party is wrong and is likely to doom to Republicans more losses. And while not a Republican, I do not want it to become the party of only the South and Mormonlandia.

Don't worry. They will resurge, if only because the Democrats will become too corrupt to contemplate. Another Republican defeat is possible, two are unlikely, three next to impossible.

McHrozni

 

[EireEngineer]

I guess it depends

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision. Look at what they did with Joe Lieberman. There really is no opposition party at the moment, specifically because of the big tent politics in the GOP. What we have now is progressive on one hand, and progressive lite on the other.

 

[willhaven]

The other, call it the litmus wing, believes that Republicans have lost recently because they weren't conservative enough.

If they think that, they're insane. McCain is more centrist than other popular republicans. He pandered to the right and picked an insane running mate and probably lost the election as a result.

If they want to go further right, they can go right ahead. It'll lead them right off a cliff.

 

[DavidJames]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision.

Do you actually follow politics? Have you followed the health care debate? Tell me again about no such derision.

And what exactly have the done with Joe, please be specific.

 

[SezMe]

Mormonlandia?

GreNME is right: Greater Utah.

 

[SezMe]

... specifically because of the big tent politics in the GOP.

The event I cited in the OP demonstrates just exactly the opposite. I'd like to see your evidence that the GOP is a big tent party.

 

[SezMe]

Don't worry. They will resurge, if only because the Democrats will become too corrupt to contemplate. Another Republican defeat is possible, two are unlikely, three next to impossible.

100% agreement.

 

[EireEngineer]

The event I cited in the OP demonstrates just exactly the opposite. I'd like to see your evidence that the GOP is a big test party.

Olympia Snow for one.

 

[Dr Adequate]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision. Look at what they did with Joe Lieberman. There really is no opposition party at the moment, specifically because of the big tent politics in the GOP. What we have now is progressive on one hand, and progressive lite on the other.

Wow.

 

[Brainster]

As one of the moderate Republicans who supported McCain for the GOP nomination, I can tell you that Scozzafava's fate doesn't bother me at all. She's just plain too liberal for her district, and the party bosses who nominated her should have known that.

 

[Tricky]

On whether or not you define a "moderate Republican" as one that votes almost exclusively with the Democrats. Certainly the Democrats don't allow such derision. Look at what they did with Joe Lieberman.

I don't understand this example at all. This shows, as much as anything else, that Democrats are very tolerant not only of variations within the party, but with former members of the party that stab them in the back. After all, Lieberman did not get elected without a whole lot of Democrats voting for him. Even after he was elected, he could have been stripped of his prestegious committee charmanship of Homeland Security, but he wasn't. Indeed, even though the democrats hold fairly large majorities in both houses, legislation is not being railroaded through, principally because of objections by some Democrats who disagree with other Democrats.

Compare and contrast to the first years of Bush II rule, where Republican disuinty was virtually unheard of and some Democrats crossed the aisle to pass tax cuts and such. Right now, Olympia Snowe is remarkable because she is practically alone a Republican willing to act in a bipartisan manner.

Whether it is admirable or damnable that Republicans are able to control their rank and file and get them to vote party line, one must admit that they are much better at it than Democrats.

 

[SezMe]

She's just plain too liberal for her district, and the party bosses who nominated her should have known that.

Newt says the Reps had four local meetings and Scozzafava came in first in all four. That doesn't sound like a party bosses did the nominating. And she is a state representative so she has won elections in the past. So, on what basis do you make your assertion?

More importantly (in this thread) what do you think of her "ouster" by outsiders - especially the Club for Growth?

 

[SezMe]

Wow.

Yeah. Maybe he's BAC's brother.

 

[leftysergeant]

I love it when dingbats go straight for the ad hominem, so I give it right back to them lol.

You don't get away with it that easily. What did the Democrats do to the snivelling little twit Liebermann?

 

[Brainster]

Newt says the Reps had four local meetings and Scozzafava came in first in all four. That doesn't sound like a party bosses did the nominating. And she is a state representative so she has won elections in the past. So, on what basis do you make your assertion?

More importantly (in this thread) what do you think of her "ouster" by outsiders - especially the Club for Growth?

Scozzafava's "ouster" seems mostly due to the polls. I have no trouble spotting her moderate credentials; it's the conservative credentials that are not apparent. On another thread she was described as a fiscal conservative. If that were the case, would the CfG have opposed her? Note the endorsement from the Daily Kos:

He enthused that Scozzafava has “been willing to raise taxes when budgets require it, and is to the left of most Democrats on social issues.”

She seems a classic case of someone getting the nod because it was her turn. Yes, she was elected as a state rep; I assume but don't know that the districts are not identical. Hoffman is a relative neophyte to politics; is it really surprising that the County Chairmen selected her?

If this were a liberal year, or if this were a liberal district I'd feel different. But neither of those conditions apply here. The district has gone Republican since 1871.

 

[leftysergeant]

On another thread she was described as a fiscal conservative. If that were the case, would the CfG have opposed her?

Because they are hard-core partisan morons who see the survival of their version of America dependant on party unity under the same old discredited banner that Reagan gave them.