Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[Piggy]

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.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

O boy.

I'll cautiously second that about five years ago.

 

[brodski]

I would suggest that given the lock the two party system has in many places in the US- especially with regards to the difficulty which many third parties have getting on ballots in some locations, that enrtyism would be a much more effective tactic than a mass exodus.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Mob action? What mob action?

Oh, you mean people exercising their constitutional right to free speech and petitioning their government. No, mob action looks a little different.

And as for conspiracy theories, have you been paying any attention to the last eight years? Yeah, I'd like it if the republicans did more to disavow right-wing nuttery, but you've really got blinkers on if you think that this is a peculiarly right-wing, or recent, problem. Oh, and don't talk to me about muckrakers.

 

[Vermonter]

This is the cancer that is killing /gop/

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sure I'm being a contrarian liberal here, but for what it's worth. . .

Oh, now it's too crazy for you? Back in the Bush era the theocratic rhetoric, editing of NASA's work, outright lies about the Iraq War, and paranoia so intense google isn't allowed to see your house were regretable difficulties one could redeem the party from. . .but now the party's gone to seed?

What is it about the Republican party today that is more rephensible than it has been any time in the past several decades?

 

[GreyICE]

I found an oxymoron in the OP.

 

[Piggy]

I would suggest that given the lock the two party system has in many places in the US- especially with regards to the difficulty which many third parties have getting on ballots in some locations, that enrtyism would be a much more effective tactic than a mass exodus.

But how? The leadership has become beholden to the the pitchforkers.

 

[Denver]

Party exodus seems to already have been predicted (even promoted) by the conservative media (Beck for certain, and I don't listen to Limbaugh). So it seems to put the more mainline republicans in a hard spot: to stay, where the face of the party is the minority who have the media spotlight, or to exit, to fall into the new American party, being proposed by those same people in media.

So I don't think changing parties will work. I think promoting more conservative mainline media people, to eclipse the voices of such as Beck, would work better.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I found an oxymoron in the OP.

*squints, reads OP carefully*

No you di'n't!

 

[Piggy]

Mob action? What mob action?

Oh, you mean people exercising their constitutional right to free speech and petitioning their government. No, mob action looks a little different.

And as for conspiracy theories, have you been paying any attention to the last eight years? Yeah, I'd like it if the republicans did more to disavow right-wing nuttery, but you've really got blinkers on if you think that this is a peculiarly right-wing, or recent, problem. Oh, and don't talk to me about muckrakers.

Yes, I mean people exercising their Constitutional right to free speech... by disrupting meetings as an expressed political strategy.

Look, we can either be part of the process, or we can engage in mere anarchic shouting. The current non-leadership has endorsed the latter. Legal. Constitutional. Stupid.

And I'm not at all concerned about nutjobs among the Democrats. As if their faults were justification for doing them even better.

As for petitioning our government, shouting people down does no such thing. I'm advocating for abandoning a party that has abandoned any meaningful method of petition in favor of mere disruption.

 

[elbe]

Mightn't the Republican politicians who aren't a part of the lunatic fringe be hesitant to abandon said fringe? While they may not like them, or may even fear them, their loss may force the republicans to sacrifice more elections for some of the precariously close national elections. While I agree that excising the damaging fringe elements would be better in the long run, current officeholders may not be willing to risk their seats if the conservative vote becomes split.

 

[Piggy]

I'm sure I'm being a contrarian liberal here, but for what it's worth. . .

Oh, now it's too crazy for you? Back in the Bush era the theocratic rhetoric, editing of NASA's work, outright lies about the Iraq War, and paranoia so intense google isn't allowed to see your house were regretable difficulties one could redeem the party from. . .but now the party's gone to seed?

What is it about the Republican party today that is more rephensible than it has been any time in the past several decades?

I did speak out against the Bush excesses, as did many others, and against the lockstep Congress.

The difference today is that the party is on its way to being run by the mob. That was not the case then.

Once you get to that point, there's little hope of recovery.

 

[brodski]

But how? The leadership has become beholden to the the pitchforkers.

Create a base outside of the party, organise and gain power within your party- which is just what the evangelical Christian right did.

You may wish to start your own newspaper.

Either way you will have a long hard fight ahead of you, but history seems to show that take -overs of existing US political parties by one faction or another are easier than establishing new parties.

 

[Drysdale]

Yea, because there's never been any democrat party protesting.

Democrats complaining about community organizing,when the guy they elected is proud of being a community organizer.

In his own words

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...cs/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics#ixzz0NKb3egNc

Holy cow, this is surreal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I mean people exercising their Constitutional right to free speech... by disrupting meetings as an expressed political strategy.

Disrupting meetings? Where? I've seen lots of people show up to meetings, often voicing opinions contrary to that of the politician holding the townhall meetings. But that's not disrupting a meeting. In fact, that's the nominal purpose of such meetings: so that politicians can speak directly to, and hear directly from, their constituents. What, pray tell, is wrong with doing just that?

No, disrupting a meeting is doing what Code Pink does when it shows up at congressional hearings and starts chanting so that the hearings can't proceed until they're ejected.

Look, we can either be part of the process, or we can engage in mere anarchic shouting. The current non-leadership has endorsed the latter.

You've presented zero evidence that it has. And I don't believe it has. People going to town hall meetings is part of the process. People contacting their representatives and voice their opinions is part of the process. Who, pray tell, is advocating "mere anarchic shouting"?

No, the closest I've seen to a major politician advocating that didn't come from the republican leadership. Can you guess who said this:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

Edit: Drysdale links to a print story on the same incident as my video link.

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, I'd like it if the republicans did more to disavow right-wing nuttery, but you've really got blinkers on if you think that this is a peculiarly right-wing, or recent, problem.

For what it's worth, practically all mainstream conservative magazines either (a) simply ignored the "birthers", or (b) made quite clear they're just nutty conspiracy theorists (the National Review, for instance, followed the second route).

As a whole I find unblinking dogmatism far more prevalent on the left than on the right. Again taking the National Review as an example, is very critical of Obama. But hardly a day passes without them saying at least something good about something he did. For example, only today they praised his African speech and also his behavior in a recent press conference.

Or take MEMRI. It is an invaluable tool for exposing what the dictators of the Arab and Muslim world really think about the Jews, or the "peace" process (actually the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction), and so on, to the great dismay of those who prefer not to know. But on any given day, it is virtually certain that it will also contain works by Arab or (more generally) Muslim (yes yes yes, I know not all Arabs are Muslim, but most are, so don't write in) calling for democracy, freedom, and reform.

Compare this to, say, Harper's magazine, which would not print anything except "Bush is a war criminal" and "conservatives: are they evil, or just stupid?" stuff if its life depended on it. I like Harper's book reviews and similar features, but its political analysis would make Stalin proud in its unwavering dogmatism.

 

[Upchurch]

For what it's worth, practically all mainstream conservative magazines either (a) simply ignored the "birthers", or (b) made quite clear they're just nutty conspiracy theorists (the National Review, for instance, followed the second route).

How do they feel about deathers?

 

[Piggy]

Party exodus seems to already have been predicted (even promoted) by the conservative media (Beck for certain, and I don't listen to Limbaugh). So it seems to put the more mainline republicans in a hard spot: to stay, where the face of the party is the minority who have the media spotlight, or to exit, to fall into the new American party, being proposed by those same people in media.

So I don't think changing parties will work. I think promoting more conservative mainline media people, to eclipse the voices of such as Beck, would work better.

A breakaway by the Palinistas and their ilk would be a good thing, certainly.

We'll see if the moderates can manage to regain control. It's looking unlikely at this point, however, I must admit.

 

[Piggy]

Mightn't the Republican politicians who aren't a part of the lunatic fringe be hesitant to abandon said fringe? While they may not like them, or may even fear them, their loss may force the republicans to sacrifice more elections for some of the precariously close national elections. While I agree that excising the damaging fringe elements would be better in the long run, current officeholders may not be willing to risk their seats if the conservative vote becomes split.

Oh, I don't think there's any chance that the leadership will abandon ship. They'd be cutting their own throats. I think they have to stay.

I was speaking of rank and file.

ETA: I mean rank and file membership, not those in office.