or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0

post #1 of 3422
Thread Starter 

Four years ago, I created a thread about where the GOP goes from here.  Feels like a good time to make another thread following the 2012 elections.  

 

Back in 2008 I was cautiously optimistic last time about the Republicans moving toward the center but not so much now.   I think the GOP is going to go even further right before the ship is righted.   What I do see happening is the Tea Party losing some power.   They've cost the Republicans the Senate and through the crazy primary season, possibly the presidency so I expect them to be sidelined.   Who fills the power vacuum is anyone's guess.   I know my choice would be the moderates who could make the case that Romney only gained traction when he presented himself as center-right in the first debate but really, I think I'm giving the GOP too much credit.   They'll probably go full retard like last time.

 

The GOP nominee 4 years from now?   If they get their shit together, Chris Christie.   If they follow the path they're on and continue the "next in line" tradition, Santorum.

 

Your predictions?

post #2 of 3422

They're not going further right, or at least if they flirt with it they will have come back around by 2016 if not the midterms.  Christie is the frontrunner now, but that doesn't mean anything this far out.  Santorum is out of contention entirely; he was too white and evangelical for the height of the GOP's white/evangelical phase, he's only going to be older and whiter by the next time when they're main focus will be younger, sexier candidates to pull some young and minority votes.  

 

They got beat by a black guy, resoundingly, in two straight elections.  Motivating white Christians to vote was great while it lasted, but it is not paying the bills anymore.  Baby boomers are dying off, and the crop of voters coming of age now don't have any personal recollection or nostalgia for the Reagan years, much less the Eisenhower ones.  They need to repackage, big time.  I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a single face from the 2012 primary running in the 2016 one.

post #3 of 3422

There will be a small contingent of the GOP that are pondering one avenue.....

 

post #4 of 3422

I think the GOP stands at a crossroads.

 

1) They go Right. Already the Right Pundocracy are arguing that Romney was too moderate and that's why they lost. Expect Congressional Republicans to be obstructionist, leading to a potential wipe out in the mid-terms, because I don't believe the country at large is willing to tolerate that type of behavior.

 

2) They go Moderate. When Romney pivoted to the Center during the debates he brought a lot of undecideds over to his side. Had he campaigned that way right out of the primaries we may well be looking at a Romney Administration now.

 

The major problem the GOP faces is that what works for local, state and Congressional races has (to date) worked, and what works at the national level isn't. So it's an open question whether the Republicans can re-organize as a party for either option listed above. In which case, look for 2016 to be just like 2012.

post #5 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

There will be a small contingent of the GOP that are pondering one avenue.....

 


Dammit.  I'd have to vote Republican then.....

post #6 of 3422

As I said in the other thread, I think the party bosses in the GOP want to move to the center, especially on immigration, gay marriage, and the like. But there's this big seething mass of reactionary conservatism that will actually be voting in the GOP primaries, and it looks like they think McCain and Romney's problem was that neither was conservative enough.

 

The problem in part is that this is the logical end result of the Southern Strategy: the rich low-tax people who run the GOP have completely captured what used to form the base of the Democratic party up until about 1930. The trouble is that in doing so, they've completely purged most of the rest of the party out. In the past, that wouldn't be a problem, because who they have now would have been a huge majority in 1968. But right now, it's only about 45% or so of the electorate, plus a few odds and ends that they'll only sometimes capture, and it's shrinking by a few percentage points a year.

 

There might be a candidate who can nudge the party back to the center and who can appeal to the base. Jeb is probably the most likely. But he may be unelectable, and he may not even want to try, and if he fails, he gets thrown into the RINO pile with McCain and Romney over his position on immigration. Christie is probably too moderate to survive a primary; he'd probably end up like Giuliani.

 

The base may need some sort of 1964-1972-1984 type total rejection of their agenda before the GOP can try to sane itself up again. It may be nearing the position the Democrats were in around 1968 (which was closer than this past election). In 1968, the Democrats had dominated electorally, but had also overextended themselves in some ways and rot was setting in.

 

The Democrats might also be in a better position in 2016, not just because of demographic drift, but because the economy is probably going to be much better in four years, and because racism probably won't be driving the members of the electorate it has this time. Especially if the nominee is someone like Hillary Clinton, who the GOP has spent the last 4 years showering with praise, the Democrats could have a huge year potentially.

 

2014 may tell us a lot. If the Tea Party loses the GOP any more senate seats (it's cost them at least two an election so far) and the Democrats take back the House, especially if that's combined with a strong economic recovery, it may either prompt some shifts in the GOP that allow moderates to step up their role, or it may lead to a 2016 where none of the GOP's a-list want to run.

post #7 of 3422

Is it really a given that Hillary runs in 2016?  I must be reading the wrong tea leaves as I don't see that happening.  

post #8 of 3422

THe repubs will still have the South for a while so they aren't going away.  The will be in danger of losing ever National/Statewide races everywhere else. 

 

THeir big problem is social issues.  They didn't matter as much 20+ Years ago but are in the forfront now.  THey have to realize abortion isn't a winner and let it go as a main selling point.

 

They also have to be the party that introduces immagration reform and passes it.  Steal the Hispanics from the Democrats.  Or atleats make it as close to 50/50 as possible.  Eat as much shit as you have to but pass a bill and take credit for it.  You can beat the Dems with whites/45-50% of Hispanics.

 

Don't let the Tea Party ass holes near a microphone/tv camera for the next 4 years.

 

Have Moderates in the next Presidential debate.  Or make these people moderates.  Rubio, Martinez, Jindal, Some sane white guy frm the midwest.  Don't let a Soutern White male in the next primary.

You are going to win the South anyway.

 

Kill Donald Trump.

 

But if Hilary Clinton runs I don't think it will matter.  They love the Clintons in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkamsas...Plus she'd be the first woman with legit shot at the Execurive branch.

post #9 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post

Is it really a given that Hillary runs in 2016?  I must be reading the wrong tea leaves as I don't see that happening.  

 What else is she going to do, retire?  You think Bill campaigned for Obama becase they like eachother?  He wants payback when Hilary runs.  He wants the Prez to endorse her early and have an easy primary.  He wants Obama to tell his people it's ok to vote for her.  His supporters were livid at the thought of her as his VP.  He wants Obama to smooth out any bad blood.

post #10 of 3422

It's not a lock Hilary runs, but she'd probably get the nomination fairly easily and there aren't any other strong, obvious candidates. A hell of a lot can happen in four years, though, and someone else may emerge.

 

Biden would be her biggest competition, and that's only because traditionally a sitting veep gets first crack at it. But he'll be 73 and has a terrible case of foot-in-mouth disease. I don't think most people see him as president material. I suspect party bigwigs would try to quietly talk him out of running.

 

There are others besides that (Andrew Cuomo, Martin O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren is frequently mentioned) but none are really national names and probably could only get it without an heir apparent. Obama was able to dislodge her mainly because of a) her Iraq War vote and b) the fact that he's a preternaturally talented politician, much like Bill Clinton. None of the others on that list are that good.

post #11 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

Four years ago, I created a thread about where the GOP goes from here.

 

Your predictions?

 

post #12 of 3422

If the GOP is smart, and given that changing demographics is going to demand changes going forward if they want to remain relevant, they'll get behind some version of the Dream Act and take a "states' rights" stance on pot legalization and gay marriage. They might even want to look into seeing if their "fiscal and personal responsibility" platform might not be compatible with some environmental issues like building in flood plains or wetlands and then offering subsidized flood insurance. Perhaps some proposals to deal with gang violence in northern Mexico as well.

 

It's probably also worth pointing out that foreign affairs is a potential wild card. Russia, China, Iran, a shaky European Union, the potential for a post-Fidel Cuba, the aforementioned Mexican violence, the post-Arab Spring nations, Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, etc. could all rear their heads in unexpected ways.

post #13 of 3422

The GOP will control the House for a long time. Those longing for massive change in two years are kidding themselves. The GOP controls 60% of state governor's offices as well. 

 

I do predict that the GOP will smarten up and heavily court the Hispanic/Latino vote. They have two things going for them in that regard: 1. The increasing influence of Protestantism within that community which Romney overwhelmingly carried and 2. the place they can increase their votes in already GOP dominated districts based on current demographic distribution rely heavily on legal and illegal immigrant workers. 

post #14 of 3422

I like Hilary Clinton, but I really hope we see a next generation Democrat running in 2016. On the Republican side a Marco Rubio candidacy would be interesting.

post #15 of 3422
Thread Starter 

I think Cylon Baby has the right of it.

 

On the local and Congressional level, I can see the Republicans thriving using their current model for a good long time.   Factor in Gerrymandering in the state houses and you have a recipe for long term GOP control of Congress.    In terms of presidential politics, there's the problem of appeasing a base with toxic and extreme viewpoints during the primaries and then somehow getting to the general without being labeled a nutjob.   I think Romney did the best he could but he was still on record with "self deportation", the Ryan Budget, and FEMA.   At least it's better than "Moon Base" and "Underage Janitors"

post #16 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I think Cylon Baby has the right of it.

 

On the local and Congressional level, I can see the Republicans thriving using their current model for a good long time.   Factor in Gerrymandering in the state houses and you have a recipe for long term GOP control of Congress.    In terms of presidential politics, there's the problem of appeasing a base with toxic and extreme viewpoints during the primaries and then somehow getting to the general without being labeled a nutjob.   I think Romney did the best he could but he was still on record with "self deportation", the Ryan Budget, and FEMA.   At least it's better than "Moon Base" and "Underage Janitors"

 

The test of the party leadership is the extent to which it can reign in the rank and file and force them to take the long view even if it hurts them with their current base.  Because the fact of the matter is, that base is no longer big enough to carry national elections and is only shrinking from here.  

 

Can they continue as they have and keep some statehouses and a tenuous grasp on Congress?  Yes, and it will be tempting because it will be the easiest, safest way to log some short-term victories after last night's embarrassment.  But is it worth it if it means ceding the executive branch (and through it, the judiciary) to the competition for another decade plus?  Certainly not.  Can they convince their down-ticket candidates to make their personal campaigns harder on themselves for the sake of broadening the party's national viability?  Probably not in time to help for the next election cycle, but then a lot can happen in 4 years.

post #17 of 3422

Young white republicans riot, scream racial slurs, burn Obama signs at Ole Miss university: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/university-mississippi-students-riot-obama-election_n_2088176.html

 

Quote:

 

Pictures posted on Twitter showed people burning Obama campaign signs. The Clarion Ledger reports that some students were heard shouting racial epithets about Obama and African Americans in general.

 

 

Most schools I know would expel you without a second thought if you were shouting racial slurs on campus. It creates an atmosphere of fear, hatred and violence. Somehow I don't think the party of white anger will be going away any time soon.

post #18 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Young white republicans riot, scream racial slurs, burn Obama signs at Ole Miss university: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/university-mississippi-students-riot-obama-election_n_2088176.html

 

 

 

Most schools I know would expel you without a second thought if you were shouting racial slurs on campus. It creates an atmosphere of fear, hatred and violence. Somehow I don't think the party of white anger will be going away any time soon.

 

My dad was asking me the other day why I root against Ole Miss in football games. I should just send him this article.

post #19 of 3422

I think Chris Christie has either planted himself firmly as the standard bearer of the future, more moderate GOP--which I would be in favour of, since step one would have to be giving some ground to Obama in congress--or he's doomed himself.

 

I'm honestly intrigued by the possibility of the Tea Party becoming a third party. I'm starting to think this is going to happen eventually, whether it's sooner or later. And while there'd be some potentially awful fallout, in the long run it'd be a good thing. Possibly even in the short term, if they push the other parties further left.
 

post #20 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I think Chris Christie has either planted himself firmly as the standard bearer of the future, more moderate GOP--which I would be in favour of, since step one would have to be giving some ground to Obama in congress--or he's doomed himself.

I'm honestly intrigued by the possibility of the Tea Party becoming a third party. I'm starting to think this is going to happen eventually, whether it's sooner or later. And while there'd be some potentially awful fallout, in the long run it'd be a good thing. Possibly even in the short term, if they push the other parties further left.

 


Hmmmm yeah after this election I could see that happening. The Tea Party really doomed the GOP with there horrible primary picks. So the Tea Party splintering away and forming a strong third party dominating the plains states, South and mountain west would be good for everyone involved. The GOP could go more centrist with elements of Libertarianism and the Democrats keep doing what there doing right now. The GOP need to compete in big metropolitan areas and as long as they have the TP dragging them down they won't be able to compete nationally.

Really a win/win the Tea Party dominates there own party and get some voice in congress but aren't much a threat nationally and sanity comes back to the GOP gets rid of the social conservatives and get a real dialogue back in this country.

The only downside is if both candidates suck we may get a Tea Party president. Though that wouldn't be vastly different than W, the only thing I'd wish for though is a real progressive party added to the mix allowing for everyone's voice be heard. Dammit I want a real Socialist Party to be in the congress!
post #21 of 3422

I've said it before. If the GOP can't win national elections and destroy the country from the top down, the powers that be in the GOP (Rove, Norquist, et al) will re-double their effort to capture political seats at the state level.

 

If they can win enough state Governorships, state senate seats, city council, mayor, etc. ...they will proceed to dismantle government from the bottom up. They'll go about trying to destroy public education, infrastructure, unions, etc. Fuck shit up enough and then come back with the bullshit meme of "government can't do anything right so we should allow the 'free market' to take over and privatize everything because they can do it better".  

 

I'm sure almost everyone here is familiar with ALEC and the shit they they've already pulled.

 

National elections are very, very important , but local elections need to be watched with a keen eye as well.

post #22 of 3422

The Libertarian party pulled had their largest gains in voters this election. I could see the fiscally oriented Tea party types gravitating to them. The Social Conservatives, I dunno. They seem to lack the motivation to form their own party. I think they'll continue to agitate within the GOP, but be sidelined, much as the more wacky Leftward types were sidelined once Bill Clinton gained ascendancy.

post #23 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Blank View Post

Ann Coulter and Other Social Conservatives Resist GOP Reform Attempts
post #24 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I think Chris Christie has either planted himself firmly as the standard bearer of the future, more moderate GOP--which I would be in favour of, since step one would have to be giving some ground to Obama in congress--or he's doomed himself.

I'm honestly intrigued by the possibility of the Tea Party becoming a third party. I'm starting to think this is going to happen eventually, whether it's sooner or later. And while there'd be some potentially awful fallout, in the long run it'd be a good thing. Possibly even in the short term, if they push the other parties further left.

 

The Tea Party wouldn't want for funding, seeing as how it's essentially the creation of the Koch brothers through their majordomo, Grover Norquist. What about the rest of the party, if they did? Would Roger Ailes stay married to these guys and make his media apparatus a third party propaganda machine? If this third party kept its focus on dragging Nixon's increasingly obsolete Southern Strategy into the 21st Century, what new identity would the GOP find for itself? Imagine a person who has had a 1,000 pound tumor all his adult life, learning how to live again once it's removed.
post #25 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

The Tea Party wouldn't want for funding, seeing as how it's essentially the creation of the Koch brothers through their majordomo, Grover Norquist. 

 

You have to wonder, however, how much good money the Kochs are willing to throw after bad.  They aren't in this for a few House seats and or red state governorships, at least not for the same amounts they've been putting in since Obama got elected.  Ailes will go wherever the money is, and I could see the Tea Party being left to twist unless the major financiers are just as self-deluded as Fox's on air talent.  

 

I was actually surprised that the conservative punditocracy was as taken aback by the results as it was. I figured most of them were knowingly shoveling horseshit, but the failure to hedge their bets in the lead up to the inevitable (and even after, in Rove's case) suggests that maybe they started believing their hype somewhere along the way.  What I'm trying to say is, Dick Morris is the most loathsome sack of grease that has ever oozed across land or sea, and I hope some spills salt on him.  

post #26 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

 What I'm trying to say is, Dick Morris is the most loathsome sack of grease that has ever oozed across land or sea, and I hope some spills salt on him.  

 

Look, that is completely unfair. Grease can be useful. It has a function. It has value.

post #27 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

You have to wonder, however, how much good money the Kochs are willing to throw after bad.  They aren't in this for a few House seats and or red state governorships, at least not for the same amounts they've been putting in since Obama got elected.  Ailes will go wherever the money is, and I could see the Tea Party being left to twist unless the major financiers are just as self-deluded as Fox's on air talent.  

 

 

 

I suspect the Koch brothers might just feel it's worth the money if they can intimidate the Congress into letting them keep certain tax loopholes, not regulate some of their activities, and get some love from the Federal Government via kickbacks and the like. Ideology and practicality are tied together for these folks.

post #28 of 3422

You don't get to be a billionaire by letting your heart lead your wallet.  I presume, anyway.  My credit score is like a 7.

post #29 of 3422

I do see the GOP fragmenting further.  A third party made up of Libertarian and Tea Party remnants seems likely.

post #30 of 3422

really good interview with Norman Ornstein on Fresh Air/NPR the other day.

 

Quote:
In his latest book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, co-authored with Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, Ornstein says that although he has no partisan agenda, "it's time to acknowledge how far the Republican Party has veered towards tolerating extreme ideological beliefs and policies, and how the GOP has embraced cynical and destructive means to advance political ends over problem-solving."

<excerpt>

 

Quote:

 

GROSS: I think it's fair to say one of the strategies Republicans have used is to weed out moderates in the party and try to replace them with people further to the right. What do you think has been the most effective strategy the Republicans have used to accomplish that?

 

ORNSTEIN: Well, a large part of it is the use of money. It started with the Club for Growth, which raised a significant sum of money and put it into primaries. And now it's happening in a much larger way, including at the state level.

 

And I have to tell you, what really disturbs me the most about the post-Citizens United, bleak world we live in now - it it's not just Citizens United. It's many other things. It's not at the national level. You know, we had all of this money thrown in by these superPACS and the 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups and other outsiders, this time, it didn't affect the presidential campaign. It didn't affect the Senate campaigns as much as we might have expected. But you start to get down to the state legislative level, where they're used to having no campaigns and no money, and then even more disturbing to the judicial level, and we've got a problem.

 

I was out in Kansas a few weeks ago, and I saw it firsthand. The Koch Brothers, who have a base in Kansas, put several million dollars into a set of primary elections a couple of months ago in Kansas, and basically they bought the state. A few million dollars, and they targeted the moderate Republicans, and they've hollowed out the Republican Party. Now they're aiming at Arkansas. A fellow named Art Pope did the same thing in North Carolina.

And you create a higher level of polarization, but, you know, part of the tactic is we take the majorities, and then we can use the redistricting process, voter ID laws and other ways of tilting the electorate and basically do a hostile takeover of a state. You go state-by-state, and it starts to become a big problem, and at the national level, we're seeing it happen with these primaries.

 

And one of the things that concerns me is you get a guy like Lindsey Graham, who is plenty conservative, but is one of the big problem solvers in Congress, senator from South Carolina. The Club for Growth has said he's their number one target in 2014. You know, they may bump him off just as they managed to bump off Richard Lugar and Bob Bennett in Utah before him, push Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party.

They can create a purist party. It will be a minority party, but it could also be a party that will create enough division in the country that you lose the ability to come together to solve problems. This is not healthy.

post #31 of 3422
After talking to people at work I change my opinion. I thought that there base would realize they went to far to the extreme but now after talking to them reading stuff on the net I'm convinced that they were bunker down and go further to the right (yes I know!) and go full retard with the social issues.

It's freightning but I think this will be the case. Hilarious how they felt there candidates were weak because they were too radical but not ideological enough, and electing Barack Obama has destroyed America! What the hell are these people's problem. I despised Bush but never thought that his presidency ruined this country. Jeez! These people are going to send the GOP into ruin. They are headed for McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis style beat down! They really need a Nixon/Clinton style moderate that could unite all the crazies and moderates together or they'll be doomed! Seriously send the Social Conservative Teabaggers back to the shortbus before they do anymore damage! What will it take a Rick Perry or Santorum nomination till they figure people don't like extremism!

Also I want to say maybe embracing more libertarian-esque principles might be smart. A lot of people seem to find this attractive and the LP made significant gains and maybe if they had more media attention and money they would have won something big. There are a bunch of people that like the elements of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.
post #32 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

really good interview with Norman Ornstein on Fresh Air/NPR the other day.

 

<excerpt>

 

 

I listened to this interview over lunch when it aired. It honestly scared me.

post #33 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
What I'm trying to say is, Dick Morris is the most loathsome sack of grease that has ever oozed across land or sea, and I hope some spills salt on him.  

He always makes me think of that scene on Seinfeld where they're discussing Newman.

 

JERRY: What would anyone possibly see in him?

 

GEORGE: (Shrugging) He's...merry?

 

(pause)

 

JERRY: He is merry. I'll give him that.

post #34 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

 

I listened to this interview over lunch when it aired. It honestly scared me.


I can only hope there will be some people listening when a 30+ year (non-partisan) political insider offers up a dose of reality. 

post #35 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


I can only hope there will be some people listening when a 30+ year (non-partisan) political insider offers up a dose of reality. 

I don't always seek out non-partisan insight, but when I do I consult conservative thinktanks. While I do appreciate the insight of Mr. Ornstein,  must we also consult David Barton for a more complete picture of things?

 

EDIT: This is a fascinating discussion, but I just think it's kinda fucked up to specifically identify someone who works with a conservative thinktank as non-partisan, not so much you but NPR doing so. It reminds me of my friend telling me how Greg Gutfeld was apolitical. Like "Oh yeah it's this guy's job to find out how to keep gay marriage illegal and outlaw abortion but lol he's a maverick like McCain/Palin". Like he's gonna go "sure I mapped out how to get Prop 8 through, but I'm not the bad guy."


Edited by jduncan - 11/10/12 at 1:40pm
post #36 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by jduncan View Post

I don't always seek out non-partisan insight, but when I do I consult conservative thinktanks. While I do appreciate the insight of Mr. Ornstein,  must we also consult David Barton for a more complete picture of things?

 

EDIT: This is a fascinating discussion, but I just think it's kinda fucked up to specifically identify someone who works with a conservative thinktank as non-partisan, not so much you but NPR doing so. It reminds me of my friend telling me how Greg Gutfeld was apolitical. Like "Oh yeah it's this guy's job to find out how to keep gay marriage illegal and outlaw abortion but lol he's a maverick like McCain/Palin". Like he's gonna go "sure I mapped out how to get Prop 8 through, but I'm not the bad guy."


Did you listen to the show?  FWIW, when Ornstein was asked what party he belongs to, he was hesitant to say but when pressed, he admitted to being a registered Dem.

 

I think that Ornstein in addition to some of the other conservatives have finally gotten fed up with how batshit insane the GOP has become and is calling them out on it.

 

And let it be known, I'll be the first person to point out how sketchy I find the AEI and those other Rovian thinktanks when it comes to offering up opinions from some of it's members, but in this case Ornstein is right on the mark. The book he wrote with Thomas Mann apparently pissed off some of his fellow AEI members quite a bit.

 

Also, comparing Ornstein to that delusional hack Barton is highly disingenuous.

 

I think I or someone else here posted a link to this piece by Mann & Ornstein awhile back. It's worth a read.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

 

and their appearance on TDS

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/exclusive---norman-j--ornstein---thomas-e--mann-extended-interview-pt--1

post #37 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Did you listen to the show?  FWIW, when Ornstein was asked what party he belongs to, he was hesitant to say but when pressed, he admitted to being a registered Dem.

 

I think that Ornstein in addition to some of the other conservatives have finally gotten fed up with how batshit insane the GOP has become and is calling them out on it.

 

And let it be known, I'll be the first person to point out how sketchy I find the AEI and those other Rovian thinktanks when it comes to offering up opinions from some of it's members, but in this case Ornstein is right on the mark. The book he wrote with Thomas Mann apparently pissed off some of his fellow AEI members quite a bit.

 

Also, comparing Ornstein to that delusional hack Barton is highly disingenuous.

 

I think I or someone else here posted a link to this piece by Mann & Ornstein awhile back. It's worth a read.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

 

and their appearance on TDS

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-4-2012/exclusive---norman-j--ornstein---thomas-e--mann-extended-interview-pt--1

Now that I've listened to it, which was what led to the edit, I wouldn't have made the Barton joke. Well, I might have, I find David Barton hilarious. But I agree this guy isn't David Barton. However, I think giving someone who works for AEI, takes money for them and does stuff for them, collaborating with their objectives in some substantial form. the credential of nonpartisan is just as disingenuous. 

 

On the topic of the Daily Show, it's downright creepy how Jon Stewart treats David Barton with kid gloves. If you watch Barton's appearance from this Summer you'd come away with the impression that he's just this folksy little guy who's brilliant but happens to have a different perspective on politics. Again that's completely irrelevant from however the Ornstein appearance went, I haven't watched it yet.

post #38 of 3422
Stewart treated Pervez Musharraf with kid gloves while grilling him over the location of Osama Bin Laden. Stewart is a lot of wonderful things, but an attack dog isn't one of them.
post #39 of 3422

If you listen more into that interview, Ornenstein says he is a Democrat because he lives in Washington DC. You can't vote in half the elections because everyone is on the Democratic ticket. To have a say, he is a registered Democrat. Like I mentioned in another thread, I would be a Republican if it wasn't for the backward social policies they espouse. However, Tennessee has open primaries, so I vote on what ever ticket I want to influence.

post #40 of 3422

I don't think it's happened, but I would love to see Barton on Colbert. Stephen is great at subtly raking his more 'questionable' guests over the coals and oft times they are completely unaware that they've been burned.

 

This NPR piece does a nice job of making mincemeat of Barton's "history".

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of 

post #41 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by jduncan View Post

Now that I've listened to it, which was what led to the edit, I wouldn't have made the Barton joke. Well, I might have, I find David Barton hilarious. But I agree this guy isn't David Barton. However, I think giving someone who works for AEI, takes money for them and does stuff for them, collaborating with their objectives in some substantial form. the credential of nonpartisan is just as disingenuous.

 

David Barton is hilarious...until you realize that there have been a lot of people that have bought into his literary snake oil.

 

As far as Ornstein, being nonpartisan...when compared to some of the other members of AEI, he could be considered a pagan. :)

post #42 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

David Barton is hilarious...until you realize that there have been a lot of people that have bought into his literary snake oil.

 

As far as Ornstein, being nonpartisan...when compared to some of the other members of AEI, he could be considered a pagan. :)

David Barton is one of the most dangerous man around. But works a lot to adopt an appearance of being folksy, scholarly and impartial. "This is just history". That's why I was so suspicious of Ornstein given his connections and gimmick.

post #43 of 3422

just read this Frank Rich piece...

 

Fantasyland

Denial has poisoned the GOP and threatens the rest of the country too.

 

<excerpt>

Quote:

The rude jolt administered by the election does not mean that the GOP will now depart from its faith-based view of reality—though it will surely heed Laura Ingraham’s postelection call for changing “the language of dealing with Latinos.” (Marco Rubio—¡Él habla español!—is already suiting up to lead the karaoke.) No sooner did Obama win reelection than Charles Kraut­hammer laid down the new party line for denying reality, asserting that the president had “no mandate” despite his large victory in the Electoral College and his clear-cut margin in the popular vote (a victory not achieved by modern presidents as varied as JFK in 1960 and George W. Bush in 2000). Two days after the election, Rove was already blaming the defeat in part on “the anonymous New York Times headline writer” who supposedly twisted Romney’s suicidal stand on the auto-industry bailout and the “hotel employee with a cell-phone camera” who had the gall to capture Romney’s candid take on the “47 percent.”

 

Nor, for all the panicked Republican talk about trying to make the party more inclusive and rational, is there any evidence that the GOP base wants to retreat a whit, whether on immigration or gay marriage or reproductive rights or the reinstatement of Jim Crow–era roadblocks to voting in states like Florida and Ohio. Or that any Republican leaders with actual power (as opposed to the out-of-office Jeb Bush) want to, either. The right is taking solace from exit-poll findings that more Americans still label themselves conservative than liberal and still think government does too much. A moderate putsch led by Olympia Snowe in exile, or David Frum, David Brooks, and Michael Gerson from op-ed pages, or Meghan ­McCain on Twitter, is not going to get very far.

 

Does anyone else see this new "Latino's are our friends" line from the GOP as anything but desperate pandering?


Edited by VTRan - 11/10/12 at 5:47pm
post #44 of 3422

At least Krauthammer recognized Mitt was the only guy remotely Presidential in the Republican group.  But lol at the rest of it.  Run Jindal or Ryan against Hillary. Please.  She will fucking CRUSH them in the debates.

post #45 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


 

Does anyone else see this new "Latino's are our friends" line from the GOP as anything but desperate pandering?

 

 

Oh hell yeah. I hope they do the right thing by helping to pass positive immigration reform but it still blows up in their face because everyone will think (correctly) it is blatant pandering to Latinos and not a legit change of heart.   

post #46 of 3422
I still get a chuckle out of the GOP pinning its hopes on Latinos being Catholic, and therefore socially conservative, as if South America isn't home to a leftist, pro-worker "Liberation Theology" that the Vatican wishes would dry up and blow away. There's a reason why we aren't going to see a Latino Pope in our lifetime.
post #47 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I still get a chuckle out of the GOP pinning its hopes on Latinos being Catholic, and therefore socially conservative, as if South America isn't home to a leftist, pro-worker "Liberation Theology" that the Vatican wishes would dry up and blow away. There's a reason why we aren't going to see a Latino Pope in our lifetime.

 

Also, it's not like Catholic=Republican among non-Hispanics either. The GOP needs to learn that lecturing people that they're voting for the wrong party has never worked for anyone ever.

post #48 of 3422

I have no reason to believe that the GOP won't go further to the right. They may think that since in worked for them in the 2010 mid term, it could work again. What I think they should do is admit that Bush was a disaster of a president, drop all the social issues, and quit believing that trickle down economics works. I'm not holding my breath that they will do such things.

post #49 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I still get a chuckle out of the GOP pinning its hopes on Latinos being Catholic, and therefore socially conservative, as if South America isn't home to a leftist, pro-worker "Liberation Theology" that the Vatican wishes would dry up and blow away. There's a reason why we aren't going to see a Latino Pope in our lifetime.

 

This is so true.  I just wanted to underscore that.  This is a huge impediment for the GOP.

post #50 of 3422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

I have no reason to believe that the GOP won't go further to the right. They may think that since in worked for them in the 2010 mid term, it could work again. What I think they should do is admit that Bush was a disaster of a president, drop all the social issues, and quit believing that trickle down economics works. I'm not holding my breath that they will do such things.

 

Except if they did that, they'd be Democrats.

 

Not that this is a problem exactly, but I don't care for the idea of living in a de-facto totalitarian state, even if the single party is the Democrats.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0