"Rebellion brewing" in GOP base

[ponderingturtle]

The open rejoicing about the collapse of the GOP and the coming of de facto one party rule scares the hell out of me. A democracy without a viable opposition party is no democracy at all.

There is a difference between hating the republican party and wanting one party rule.

 

[Chaos]

Somehow, the people who self-evidently assume the alternative to Democrats to be the Republicans (or assume that, without the Republicans there will never be a second party) remind of the people who self-evidently assume the alternative to evolution to be creationism.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I agree 100%.

And locally I see first-hand what happens when you have one-party rule, and it ain't pretty. I'm pretty sure Mattus would agree.

Tch, give Daley some credit, it is one-man rule.

 

[Brainster]

After 2004 people were writing obituaries for the Democrats as well. Each party has an up and a down phase that more or less coincides with the stock market.

The GOP does have a problem with its base, but so do the Democrats, so it's not some debilitating issue that only affects them. Whenever either party loses an election that they think they should have won (however invalid that argument may be), they tend to go back the next time with a candidate from the wing:

In 1960 Nixon barely lost; in response the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater the next time around.
In 1968 Humphrey barely lost; the Democrats responded by nominating McGovern in 1972.
In 1976 Ford barely lost; the GOP responded by nominating Reagan.
In 2000, Gore barely lost; the Democrats responded by flirting with Howard Dean before settling for the supposedly more electable John Kerry. Arguably this breaks the mold, but I would say that only compared to Howard Dean could a liberal senator from Massachusetts look electable.

Now, you or I might note that the GOP really has no reason to think that they should have won in 2008. The problem is that a very large percentage of the "base" does not agree. They are furious that they didn't get their nominee in 2008 and they are going to make it happen in 2012.

None of which really matters all that much. If I were asked to guess right now, I'd certainly put my money on Obama getting reelected. Most presidents do win second terms and of course we know the media will pull out all the stops for him. The economy is very likely to be roaring in 3 years given all the gas that Obama's sending into the engine.

But if the GOP does win in 2012, expect it to be a pretty conservative administration.

 

[dirtywick]

Best case, they've got about three years to get it together, possibly more like six. One good screw up from the Obama administration is all they need. Hopefully he won't though and after about five years they'll realize they need to be more moderate.

 

[dudalb]

I agree 100%.

And locally I see first-hand what happens when you have one-party rule, and it ain't pretty. I'm pretty sure Mattus would agree.

Mexico, where since the 1920's pretty much one party had control without much in the way of real competition, until recently, is a even better object lesson.

 

[dudalb]

On the other hand, there is a pattern. After a severe defeat, the defeated party generally does a whole "Back To The Basics" routine, and turns sharply to the Left or Right (depending on the Party's ideology) and suffer a even worse debacle in the next election. It's only after that the changes are made.
Labor in Britian is a good example. The Party turned sharply to the Left after the first Thacther win, and suffered a huge defeat in the next election where ,because of the economy, they should have had an advantage over the Conservatives.It was after that debacle that "New Labor" begun.

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.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I agree 100%.

And locally I see first-hand what happens when you have one-party rule, and it ain't pretty. I'm pretty sure Mattus would agree.

Definitely. The entrenched corruption of the Chicago Democratic Machine demonstrates perfectly the danger of single-party rule. The irony is that no matter which party controls Springfield, the Machine corrupts them - Democrats & Republicans alike.

 

[leftysergeant]

The well-earned demise of the GOP would not mean the end of a two-party system. If the Democrats cannot make some progress quickly, some other party not burdened by the same old sociopathic war criminals and wild-eyed Bible-thumpers will start gaining new members really fast and become the opposition.

Unless and until the GOP purges itself of the dross it has accumulated,. they do not deserve even to be an opposition party any more.

 

[Tricky]

Definitely. The entrenched corruption of the Chicago Democratic Machine demonstrates perfectly the danger of single-party rule. The irony is that no matter which party controls Springfield, the Machine corrupts them - Democrats & Republicans alike.

It's different in Texas. Republicans control everything except local elections in big cities or poverty areas (like the Rio Grande Valley). But they're not as organized and sleazy as the Chicago machine, mostly because they haven't had as long to work at it. Its only been less than 30 years since the state was controlled by Yellow Dog Democrats. But they're learning quickly. The abysmal state of education in Texas is almost completely a result of "no tax" Republicans cutting back funding. Plus, they are tacitly allowing and encouraging fundamentalists to control school boards. Now we have a governor who is talking about refusing stimulus money and even seceding from the US. This is a government completely out of control. Maybe we don't have a Blago yet, but I think we could give Illinois, and Louisiana a run for "most corrupt".

But it was much the same when the Democrats were in control, except without the fundies.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Bill Maher: "They used to be the party of the big tent. Now they're the party of the sideshow attraction."

 

[davefoc]

From Politico, yet more evidence that the Republican party continues to crack up...

In GOP base, a 'rebellion brewing'


Long story short, expect the Republican party to "purge the unbelievers" from its ranks, and in the meantime it will go even further to the right. I predict more craziness as the GOP eats its own.

And to think that at one time I supported the Republican party

I'm still a registered Republican although I haven't voted for one for national office in awhile.

But I think you're right. The Republican Party has shown no signs that I've noticed of doing anything about the fiscal irresponsibility and cronyism that dominated the party during its time in power.

The strategy right now seems to be to pander to social conservatives, alienate secular fiscal conservatives and put out a constant patter of BS attacks on Obama. It is difficult for the Republicans to attack Obama for his big spending ways when they are the biggest spenders of all times. But that doesn't stop them from doing it, but mostly they're making up issues and feigning indignation about their BS issue of the weak.

It might be nice to think that out of this mess might arise a significant counter movement in the Republican Party to resist some of the nuttiness. I think there is almost no chance that will happen any time soon. Moderate, fiscal conservative Republicans are marginalized by the right wing pundits as RINO's and other less tactful epithets. They might still rise to power in swing states where many of the overtop right wing kooks that make up the Republican Party today couldn't get elected, but the Republcian party on the national level seems ever more likely to retain the power they have by appealing to the Religious, the militaristic and the social conservatives. In addition the Republican Party will continue to hang on to a percentage of the fiscal and economic conservatives with a constant stream of lying hypocritical speeches about how fiscally responsible the Republican Party is. It is obvious that this is a sad pathetic lie, but some how it succeeds in attracting a significant percentage of the secular fiscan conservatives, which proves it politics it's not what you do, it's what you say you do that people care about.

 

[Brainster]

I would simply point out that the grownups are still mostly in charge. Despite the antipathy directed towards John McCain by the talk show hosts and most major conservative blogs, McCain cruised easily to victory.

Why? Because the Republican voters are mostly sensible people even if some (and I emphasize some) of the people they send to congress and listen to on the radio are not.

 

[Father Dagon]

But is it really correct to speak of the Democrats and the Republicans as two parties? Aren't they more like election platforms? Yes I know that the US is different from any european country and that the state governor is a far more important person than the president will ever be etc.

But in terms of consistency and long-term thinking, most swedish parties are running a much more tighter show than R&D. (And I guess that it also applies to the rest of the european parties and the smaller parties of the US.) Of course the swedish parties aren't alike. It's only if you are in for the long haul that you will get to the top of Socialdemokraterna and Moderaterna, the two biggest parties. But Folkpartiet and Vänsterpartiet can "enroll" celebrities as they see fit.

 

[Beerina]

From Politico, yet more evidence that the Republican party continues to crack up...

In GOP base, a 'rebellion brewing'


Long story short, expect the Republican party to "purge the unbelievers" from its ranks, and in the meantime it will go even further to the right. I predict more craziness as the GOP eats its own.

And to think that at one time I supported the Republican party

From a political point of view, it's all a non issue. The real movers and shakers know the last election was driven by Iraq and everything else was a distant, distant second. To pretend otherwise, and thus the GOP is in "crisis" is sophistry.

 

[Praktik]

From a political point of view, it's all a non issue. The real movers and shakers know the last election was driven by Iraq and everything else was a distant, distant second. To pretend otherwise, and thus the GOP is in "crisis" is sophistry.

Strange, I thought most polls in the runup to the election were showing the economy as the number one issue, not Iraq.

Is it your contention that "the economy" was a "distant, distant" second to the Iraq war in the 2008 presidential election?

Who are the "movers and shakers" you mention as supporting the view that Iraq was the overriding issue of the election - and that this is the sole reason for the GOPs stinging defeat?

 

[drkitten]

Strange, I thought most polls in the runup to the election were showing the economy as the number one issue, not Iraq.

It may depend on what time frame you're looking at.

The recession technically (according to most economists) started in Q4 2007, but even in Q3 2008 the evidence that the country was in recession was still moderate enough that it was a debatable proposition. With nine months of hindsight, that debate looks positively twee.

For most of the primary campaign season Iraq was the major issue, and that was the environment in which McCain secured the nomination. The economy didn't tank until late Q3 2008 (August/September, IIRC) when AIG hit the skids. And McCain lost whatever chance he had of winning the election in his totally botched response to the economic crisis.

So you're both right.

 

[marksman]

I think it would be a mistake to assume a reconstituted opposition party (whether Republican or other) would be uninfluenced by the Religious Right.

For better or worse (and I think worse), the Religious Right is a significant segment of the voting population. By significant, I don't mean majority. I don't even mean plurarilty. I think it's probably somewhere around 20%.

That's a sizeable chunk of votes. Most importantly, what motivates them -- abortion, gay marriage, immigration, school vouchers, etc. -- is something most voters find to be a tertiary (at best) consideration. The primary consideration for most people is the economy, and secondarily military prowess. When we're attacked or at war, the second consideration becomes co-equal or, briefly, more important, than the economy.

The problem recently is that the Religious Right has had its expectations too high. They wanted their influence to be primary, when really, based on their numbers, they really should be content with influencing judicial appointments and filibustering movement in the federal government on the issue of gay marriage and immigration.

But they didn't. They decided they were kingmakers and the kingmakers wanted someone who would put their issues first. They disliked McCain, not because he disagreed with them substantively (he disagreed substantively only on immigration), but because he seemed to think of those conservative issues as less important as things like healthcare, foreign policy, and campaign finance. So they supported him tepidly and essentially abandoned him to the candidates. (The rest of the populace abandoned McCain on the issue of the economy.)

All the right-wing needs to do is go back to their role in the Reagan Coalition -- quietly accepting a slow transformation of the judiciary, and an occasional Cabinet appointment. Then they can bring back the economics voters who are willing to stomach the Religious Rights' social agenda.

They will be back. This is a democracy and the numbers dictate the politics. And the Religious Right simply has the numbers to influence any party that rises in opposition to the Democrats. After all, the Whigs fell apart on the issue of slavery. The abolitionists didn't disappear when the Whigs fell apart. They joined the nascent Republican Party.

The resurrection of the party will require two things.

First, Obama-fatigue. Right now, that seems pretty remote. Obama is popular. Chances are, the recession will be over by his next election and he can (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter as far as politics is concerned) claim credit for the resurgence. He seems less likely to engage in the same sort of personal scandals that plagued Clinton's tenure. But it's still early. Who knows what may come?

Second, the Republicans have to find an economic theory that counters the Democrats. It will happen. Invariably, the ruling party overreaches. How will that manifest? Union resurgence? Nonsensical regulations? Trade barriers? Overfederalization? Only time will tell, but, eventually, it will happen and the nation will begin looking for someone to take an axe to whatever the Democrats do wrong. And then all it takes is a charismatic Republican who looks like he can "set things right" again and it all starts over.

Then we can start speculating about whether the Democratic Party is going to disintegrate.... again.

 

[headscratcher4]

Speaking of rebellion, Specter just switched parties....

from the AP:

Specter says he's switching from GOP to Dems
By DAVID ESPO Associated Press Writer
Apr 28th, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement could come later in the day or Wednesday.

Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said the White House as well as leaders in both parties had been involved in discussions leading to his move.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat.

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

"I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me," Specter said, when asked in a Capitol corridor about abandoning the GOP.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has yet been made, said at 10:25 a.m. EDT Tuesday President Barack Obama was handed a note while in the Oval Office during his daily economic briefing. The note said: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." At 10:32, Obama reached Specter by phone and told him "you have my full support" and that the Democratic Party is "thrilled to have you."

Specter had publicly acknowledged that to win in 2010, he would need thousands of Pennsylvania voters who switched from Republican to Democrat last year to vote for Obama to flip back to the GOP to cast ballots for him.

------

 

[marksman]

Speaking of rebellion, Specter just switched parties....

Wow!