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 - Page 2

post #51 of 3787

The biggest problem the Republicans face is that their money comes from people even further right than their current nutjob platform. This is -already- the moderate version of the modern Republican party.

 

They've spent a lot of time and money drilling into their rank and file that compromise is weakness and that there is no line of decency and civility that cannot be crossed. Any movement off that will look soft... because they've screamed repeatedly that it is soft.

post #52 of 3787

One thing I've been hearing on some right wing talk shows during the past week is that the reason Latinos have broken towards the Democrats is not because of immigration stances but rather because Latinos "see government as a source of wealth". The point in them bringing that up, apparently, was to show that appealing to that demograph was going to be much harder than simply supporting the left's view on immigration.

post #53 of 3787

The Republican Party's past:

"I am the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense power!"

 

The Republican Party's future:

"I want to be the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense pants!"

 

(yes it's another fat joke.  sorry.)

post #54 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

The Republican Party's past:

"I am the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense power!"

The Republican Party's future:

"I want to be the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense pants!"

(yes it's another fat joke.  sorry.)


Ha yeah truth! Very sad that the Republicans went from Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower to W, Mitt Romney and possibly Chris Christie as the standard bearer. Hell, Nixon would look better than these clowns. I mean how do you go from Lincoln as your first president to George W. Bush as your last? Talk about a mammoth drop in credibility!
post #55 of 3787
Thread Starter 

What constitutes a tricky question for Republicans?    How about " Is the Earth billions or years old or just thousands of years old?"

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/marco-rubio-earth-age_n_2158555.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

 

 

Quote:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) isn't qualified to answer a question about how old the earth is, he told GQ in a recent interview.

 

"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States," Rubio told GQ's Michael Hainey. "I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."

 

Rubio continued, refusing to take a stance on the planet's age, which scientists have long estimated at 4.54 billion years.

 

"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that," he said. "It's one of the great mysteries."

 

 

Forget all the talk about the GOP evolving after the election.   If saying the Earth is quite older than 6000 years is a minefield for your base, you have a real problem.

post #56 of 3787
Rubio's definitely running in 2016, then. You don't pretend to not have graduated elementary school like that unless you're swinging for the fences.
post #57 of 3787

Yeah agreed plus he was recently seen around Iowa, so he definitely is running. So the unofficial candidates seem to be Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. Wonder who are debating running on the Democratic side. I doubt Hillary but can see Deval Patrick and Martin O'Malley. Other than that not really sure. Kind of more interested to see who the Dems pick to succeed Obama than who gets the nom for the GOP.

post #58 of 3787
Oh, and Rubio sits on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. So that's great. It's a good thing science has nothing to do with, say, economics. Or industry. Or technology. Or public health.
post #59 of 3787

there will be much palming of the face....

 

 

bonus video- http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/47145/detail/

post #60 of 3787
Thread Starter 
Hillary is running for sure. The very fact that Bill eas so front and center during the campaign had the feeling of "You scratxh my back, I scratch your back." I doubt Bill would have been so out there for Obama if a deal wasn't made to clear the way for Hillary. The one wrinkle might be Benghazi but that doesn't seem to be gaining traction. Anyway, the names I can see on the Dem side popping up...

Hillary: She's in. The timing will never be better for her.

Biden: He'll run but I don't see him getting far. Even if the second Obama Admin is successful, people just can't seem to take the guy seriously.

Elizabeth Warren: She's popular with the Left and grassroots so there might be some campaigns to get her to run.

Overall, I think it will be a prettu quick primary season for the Dems with Hillary wrapping things up by Super Tuesday.
post #61 of 3787

I'm actually a little worried that Biden and Hillary might cannibalize each other if they both decide to run. Both will be riding in the wake of Obama, both are charismatic (and, I'd argue, more progressive than Obama or indeed the average Dem), both are fighters. I'd love to have either as president in 2016 (I have issues with the Clintons, but I have issues with Obama, too, and this is trivial shit compared to keeping the GOP out of the big chair unless they evolve pretty radically in the next four years). Gun to my head, I sorta like Biden over Hillary--he's unapologetically liberal on a lot of stuff, at least in terms of what he's said (he spoke out in support of transgender people, which is damn ballsy with American politics being the way they are) and isn't afraid to take it to the right, as the Ryan debate showed. Plus, he definitely has a solid grasp of the working class, and he's a magnetic personality who might actually be able to win people over within the halls of power (Hillary apparently has a tendency to alienate people).

 

That said, he is pretty damn old, and he's pretty gaffe-prone as well. If he doesn't seriously have a shot I'd prefer him to step aside and grant Hillary a smooth path to victory, rather than rehashing some of the dirty fighting of 2008. Hillary comes with a lot of baggage but I think that will matter less and less as people take the right less seriously and Obama's rep as a guy who fixed the Bush administration's mistakes is cemented. While I'm a little worried she might continue some of the technocratic policies of the Obama admin, I think she's more of a reconciliator than Obama, who's followed more of the "speak softly and carry a big stick" mode for foreign policy. Plus, she comes with her husband, who's a remarkable diplomat and stateman.

 

Castro is a little too young, I think, and Warren's too inexperienced (plus I honestly think she can do more good in the senate). It's basically down to these two.

 

Rubio, Jindal and Christie are all SMART candidates for the right to be running, which is a bit worrisome. I think Obama's historic appeal is part of what got him into office, so that's something else Hillary has over Biden, if she's up against Rubio or Jindal. Of course, those two guys might see some serious pushback from the right-wing base, what with their skin colour and all, but if they make it past the primaries they could be a serious threat. Christie? He actually might face the same opposition from the loonies thanks to his acting like a fucking adult for five seconds and thus "handing" the election to Obama, and he's got a pretty shaky track record otherwise. Also, sadly, Americans tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to the overweight (and I kind of fear being slightly disgusted with the American left if Christie runs--they already make too many stupid fat jokes).

 

Basically, if it's Hillary vs. Christie, I'd say Hillary's got it. Biden vs. Rubio would worry me.

post #62 of 3787

I've still got my issues with Hillary, and was a Biden man before I gave my sword/bow/axe to Obama, so between those two I'd love to see Biden run, but he is going to be pretty up there in years by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary...it depends on what she does with these next four years. She did a pretty great job as SoS, but I can very easily see it as being a "But what have you done for us lately" when the primaries get here. 

 

On the GOP side, it really depends on how they want to act this term. If they run Christie out for being a grown up, they will have effectively just killed themselves--I disagree with the guy on a lot of things, but someone who can put bullshit aside and get something done automatically gets more notice from me than yet another Tea Party nutjob. 

post #63 of 3787

Hilary Clinton would be 69, Joe Biden 73. Clinton would be a little younger than Reagan was (about six months), whereas Biden is in McCain/Dole territory.

 

Biden probably has too many strikes against him. The age and the gaffes might not keep him out if he was the presumptive nominee, but I think he'd lose to Clinton in a straight fight.

 

Christie is likely the Giuliani of 2016. He's too non-crazy on issues important to crazy people. And he's too unapologetic and stubborn to pull a Romney 180 on those positions. Rubio is very very overrated (I saw him a lot in the Florida Legislature, and he's a nothing). Jindal is a charisma vacuum. None of those three particularly worry me.

post #64 of 3787

Age wise...right now, Biden is 69, Hillary is 65. They're both getting up there in age and we need to have people in government that don't have one foot in the grave. A lot of these really old fuckers don't give a shit about what's going to happen in 20 years and usually have a "fuck it" attitude to the general populace. :)

 

IMO, this should be kinda like selecting a Doctor. I want a Dr. that is young enough to be open to new ideas and procedures but old enough to have some actual 'real world' experience.

 

Between Hillary and Biden, I would give the nod to HC. If nothing else for the reason that I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime. She definitely has domestic as well as international experience.

Warren 'could' be good, but I think she needs more Wash. DC experience...which she will be drowning in very soon. (she's 63 yrs old FWIW)

 

But there will no doubt be other hats thrown in the ring. I just read this today- Cuomo 

post #65 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

Jindal is a charisma vacuum.

 

that's an awesome description !

post #66 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

I've still got my issues with Hillary, and was a Biden man before I gave my sword/bow/axe to Obama, so between those two I'd love to see Biden run, but he is going to be pretty up there in years by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary...it depends on what she does with these next four years. She did a pretty great job as SoS, but I can very easily see it as being a "But what have you done for us lately" when the primaries get here. 

 

On the GOP side, it really depends on how they want to act this term. If they run Christie out for being a grown up, they will have effectively just killed themselves--I disagree with the guy on a lot of things, but someone who can put bullshit aside and get something done automatically gets more notice from me than yet another Tea Party nutjob. 

 

The one thing you just cannot take away from the Clintons is that they're savvy operators and know how to campaign.  They're not going to just walk into 2016 without having considered something as basic as "what have you done for me lately."

 

Christie's not going to be run out of anything for Sandy.  To the extent that anyone remembers a single storm 4 years from now, it will work in his favor.  Even the nuttiest of jobs knows that you don't position yourself as anti-disaster relief, even in a frothy, silly primary.

post #67 of 3787
God this talk of 2016 is killing me. Our nation is so fucking hopeless, locked into these endless scam elections while the business of the people is left to rot on the vine.

Not criticizing anyone here for talking about it, but damn, it's soul crushing.
post #68 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

Christie's not going to be run out of anything for Sandy.  To the extent that anyone remembers a single storm 4 years from now, it will work in his favor.  Even the nuttiest of jobs knows that you don't position yourself as anti-disaster relief, even in a frothy, silly primary.

 

Sandy won't be Christie's problem. He's attacked the GOP on Muslim-bashing, and he's not orthodox GOP on some social issues. And he may have to tack to the left on a few of them next year when he runs for reelection.

 

In short, he's a Republican who's electable in the Northeast. That means he's not going to be a member of the Tea Party tribe. Republican like him for the same reasons they liked Giuliani - he's charismatic, loud-mouthed, and unafraid of attacking Democrats. But GOP primary voters tend to want doctrinaire, orthodox, conservatives, and Christie isn't one.

 

If the Republicans want a pure conservative in 2016, Christie may have a chance in 2020 after said conservative loses by 300 electoral votes and the party starts to actually move to the center.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

God this talk of 2016 is killing me. Our nation is so fucking hopeless, locked into these endless scam elections while the business of the people is left to rot on the vine.
Not criticizing anyone here for talking about it, but damn, it's soul crushing.

 

I agree, but it's a car crash I can't look away from.

post #69 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

 

Sandy won't be Christie's problem. He's attacked the GOP on Muslim-bashing, and he's not orthodox GOP on some social issues. And he may have to tack to the left on a few of them next year when he runs for reelection.

 

In short, he's a Republican who's electable in the Northeast. That means he's not going to be a member of the Tea Party tribe. Republican like him for the same reasons they liked Giuliani - he's charismatic, loud-mouthed, and unafraid of attacking Democrats. But GOP primary voters tend to want doctrinaire, orthodox, conservatives, and Christie isn't one.

 

If the Republicans want a pure conservative in 2016, Christie may have a chance in 2020 after said conservative loses by 300 electoral votes and the party starts to actually move to the center.

 

We'll see.  I think that 2 consecutive losses to a candidate that should have been as beatable as they come according to the current paradigm may shake them up enough to see a change in tack by 2016.  Not by 2014 though, as they'll want to at least squeeze one more midterm bump out of the Tea Party before they throw them under the bus to start courting the moderates and minorities they need to take the White House.

post #70 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

We'll see.  I think that 2 consecutive losses to a candidate that should have been as beatable as they come according to the current paradigm may shake them up enough to see a change in tack by 2016.  Not by 2014 though, as they'll want to at least squeeze one more midterm bump out of the Tea Party before they throw them under the bus to start courting the moderates and minorities they need to take the White House.

 

The thing is, a lot of the conservatives have already jumped on the "Romney isn't conservative enough" bandwagon, and believe conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

 

Plus, Christie supports gun control, and the republicans would vote for a Muslim gay-married to an illegal immigrant before they nominate someone who supports gun control.

post #71 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

The thing is, a lot of the conservatives have already jumped on the "Romney isn't conservative enough" bandwagon, and believe conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

 

Plus, Christie supports gun control, and the republicans would vote for a Muslim gay-married to an illegal immigrant before they nominate someone who supports gun control.

 

A lot of conservatives are going to find themselves increasingly marginalized in the party as it realizes they can't deliver the demographics they need anymore.  They may get to run their guys in the midterms, but we won't be seeing a Santorum or a Gingrich as a frontrunner in the 2016 primary.  

 

Gun control is the easiest position in the world to walk back, and he's got time.  Gun nuts aren't voting Democrat come hell or high water anyway.

post #72 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

A lot of conservatives are going to find themselves increasingly marginalized in the party as it realizes they can't deliver the demographics they need anymore.  They may get to run their guys in the midterms, but we won't be seeing a Santorum or a Gingrich as a frontrunner in the 2016 primary.  

 

Gun control is the easiest position in the world to walk back, and he's got time.  Gun nuts aren't voting Democrat come hell or high water anyway.

 

The thing is, I think you're completely right on the party leaders. But they've completely lost control of the republican voters at this point, and I don't think they'll be able to push Christie through if there's a plausible conservative candidate in the race. It'll be Mourdock/Akin/Angle/McDonnell on a national scale.

 

And the NRA actually does endorse Democrats if they've got a better gun control method; it's part of their strategy of completely shutting down gun control at a national level. And it's worked, 100%. There are enough single-issue voters on this in the GOP that they are not going to risk having these people defect for an election.

post #73 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

 

The thing is, I think you're completely right on the party leaders. But they've completely lost control of the republican voters at this point, and I don't think they'll be able to push Christie through if there's a plausible conservative candidate in the race. It'll be Mourdock/Akin/Angle/McDonnell on a national scale.

 

 

That didn't even work on the local scale. 

post #74 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

 

That didn't even work on the local scale. 

 

I mean the tea party will get their nominee in over the electable, more moderate republican. That did work on the local sense, in that they got their nominee in. It didn't, in that they lost winnable elections as a result. It's what I expect to happen on a national scale in 2016.

post #75 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

 

I mean the tea party will get their nominee in over the electable, more moderate republican. That did work on the local sense, in that they got their nominee in. It didn't, in that they lost winnable elections as a result. It's what I expect to happen on a national scale in 2016.

 

We lefties should be so lucky.

 

But I don't see it.  The Republicans went home with the moderate after flirting with the wingnuts in 08 and 12, and the narrative coming out of it is that they still weren't inclusive enough (which happens to be true, imo, but that's practically incidental in our Brave New Cable World).  I could see there being more of a push to double down on the crazy next time if they hadn't gotten their downticket asses handed to them too this time, but even Lindsay Graham sees the writing on the wall.  

post #76 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

We lefties should be so lucky.

 

But I don't see it.  The Republicans went home with the moderate after flirting with the wingnuts in 08 and 12, and the narrative coming out of it is that they still weren't inclusive enough (which happens to be true, imo, but that's practically incidental in our Brave New Cable World).  I could see there being more of a push to double down on the crazy next time if they hadn't gotten their downticket asses handed to them too this time, but even Lindsay Graham sees the writing on the wall.  


For which he's the number one primary target of the Club for Growth. He'll be out of the Senate in 2015.

 

These people care more about purity than winning. And the lesson they took from losing wasn't "we need to be more inclusive" but "McCain and Romney were too moderate."

post #77 of 3787
I see a lot of window dressing-level attempts in the short term, but the thing about the Tea Party and the GOP getting in bed with them is that they are straight up evangelical about their nutjob beliefs, and while more traditional Republicans are trying to slide back to the center, the Tea Party isn't going to just roll over and vanish. Much like Palin in 08, the GOP at large has given birth to a movement they can't completely control, and I expect things to get worse (and messier) over on the right before it gets better.
post #78 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

God this talk of 2016 is killing me. Our nation is so fucking hopeless, locked into these endless scam elections while the business of the people is left to rot on the vine.
Not criticizing anyone here for talking about it, but damn, it's soul crushing.

I feel like this a lot of days also. Yet I'm still optimistic that if the right people are in office that things can change for the better. This election was a boost as several of the bad guys lost. It could turn out that in four years those individuals are back in power, or they sink further into madness and irrelevancy. Just have to wait and see.
post #79 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post


For which he's the number one primary target of the Club for Growth. He'll be out of the Senate in 2015.

 

These people care more about purity than winning. And the lesson they took from losing wasn't "we need to be more inclusive" but "McCain and Romney were too moderate."

 

Again, we should be so lucky.

post #80 of 3787
One word- "evangelicals"
If the GOP really wants to join the 21st century, they are going to have to throw the xtian evangelicals under the bus....which isn't going to be easy to do.
The xtian fundamentalists "won't be ignored"

Quote:
Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss

Evangelical leaders and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.

After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party’s losses in November.

“The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

The conservative backlash sets up an internal fight for the direction of the Republican Party, as many top leaders in Washington have proposed moderating their views on citizenship for illegal immigrants, to appeal to Latino voters. In addition, many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

Ted Cruz, a tea party favorite, trounced Texas’s establishment candidate in a primary on his way to becoming the second Hispanic Republican in the Senate, and the battle he waged in the Lone Star State epitomizes the fight between the two sides. Although he is considered a rising star with a personal biography that GOP leaders wish to promote, Cruz falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except during the first presidential debate.
post #81 of 3787
I know this I shouldn't be surprised but....
The GOP is really trying their hardest to complete the full transformation into the worlds biggest group of assholes!!
I do know that it's possible for the political process to work with the 2 major political parties that we have here in the US, but if the GOP keeps going down this road, fuck 'em!
I hope they wither away into the dust of history
Quote:
Boehner Reverses Course, Promises To Repeal Obamacare Through ‘Oversight’

After President Obama’s decisive re-election, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) starkly admitted that “Obamacare is the law of the land.” Facing backlash from fellow Republicans and critics of the landmark health reform law, the Speaker’s office softened that stance, asserting that “full repeal” still remained the GOP objective. But with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bulk of the law, Democratic control of the Senate, and President Obama’s victory, some have wondered what — if any — recourse Republicans have at the federal level to undo Obamacare.

On Tuesday, Boehner explained how, exactly, Republicans would go about dismantling the law in an op-ed on Cincinnati.com. In his piece, Boehner contends that House Republicans will conduct “vigorous oversight” of the law’s implementation in an effort to neuter its provisions:
post #82 of 3787

Jesus. These fuckers really want to see it all crash and burn rather than face the possibility of being voted out by their nut followers by actually negotiating with the other side. Go back into the corner and cry Republicans. Let the adults handle things.
 

post #83 of 3787
Thread Starter 

It looks like the Republicans are going to be crying more if Elizabeth Warren and 6 other Democratic Senators get their way the first day of the new Senate in January.   She's proposing Filibuster Reform which will change the rules and make those who want to hold legislation up actually Fillibuster (ie talking for hours, reading the phone book, breaking out the diapers)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/filibuster-reform_b_2136800.html

 

 

Quote:

Remember Jimmy Stewart's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? I love that movie. That's what most of us think of when we hear the word "filibuster" -- a single passionate senator speaking for hours about legislation they fiercely oppose until they literally collapse with exhaustion.

 

But that's not what today's filibuster looks like. In reality, any senator can make a phone call, say they object to a bill, then head out for the night. In the meantime, business comes to a screeching halt.

 

Senate Republicans have used this type of filibuster 380 times since the Democrats took over the majority in 2006. We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies -- you name it, there's been a filibuster.

 

And here's the best part...

 

Quote:

 

On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.

 

Imagine how many bills would get passed if this happens.   I can't see many Senators willing to take the floor and oppose the "Veteran's Jobs" bill for hours.   If you want to kill a good bill, then face the political whirlwind.   God I hope Harry Reid passes that shit.

post #84 of 3787
Thread Starter 

This was posted in my FB feed.   Didn't know where it should go but here's the pic...

 

 

And the caption reads, "Now THIS is a Commander-in-Chief"

 

Do I need to state how hilarious that picture in particular was chosen?

post #85 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

This was posted in my FB feed.   Didn't know where it should go but here's the pic...

 

 

And the caption reads, "Now THIS is a Commander-in-Chief"

 

Do I need to state how hilarious that picture in particular was chosen?

"Valarie Plame is the kind of  CIA agent Bush wishes he was, when he isn't pretending to be a jet fighter pilot or a cowboy." Bill Maher

post #86 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

It looks like the Republicans are going to be crying more if Elizabeth Warren and 6 other Democratic Senators get their way the first day of the new Senate in January.   She's proposing Filibuster Reform which will change the rules and make those who want to hold legislation up actually Fillibuster (ie talking for hours, reading the phone book, breaking out the diapers)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/filibuster-reform_b_2136800.html

 

 

 

And here's the best part...

 

 

Imagine how many bills would get passed if this happens.   I can't see many Senators willing to take the floor and oppose the "Veteran's Jobs" bill for hours.   If you want to kill a good bill, then face the political whirlwind.   God I hope Harry Reid passes that shit.


This x 10000000.

 

My fingers have been crossed non-stop since the election hoping that this would happen.

post #87 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post


This x 10000000.

 

My fingers have been crossed non-stop since the election hoping that this would happen.

 

There'll probably be more than just that in their filibuster reform. I still don't completely understand it yet but apparently whether someone stands up there and talks or not isn't actually a structural part of the filibuster and it being there or not won't ultimately change the end result in itself.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/17/nows_the_time_to_fix_the_filibuster/

 

2. Please, please, please: Forget about Jimmy Stewart. The urgent question is whether a supermajority should be needed to get things done. What’s wrong isn’t that a silent minority can block things; it’s that any minority can block anything it wants. There’s simply no reason to believe that “live” talking filibusters — senators preventing a vote by speechifying endlessly on the floor —  have anything to do with it. Nor should they. It’s just a distraction from the real issues involved.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-ghost-of-jimmy-stewart-and-the-live-filibuster/2012/11/15/e74c2830-2f6a-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_blog.html

 

 

The idea that Republicans would surrender if only they were forced to stand up and fight for their views is, well, totally divorced from the reality of what politicians are like. Republicans — any minority party, on almost any issue — would be very happy to hold the floor indefinitely. It’s free publicity for them. And they care little that nothing else can get done in the meantime. They’re in the minority; the things they want aren’t going to happen anyway!

That’s why it’s the majority party that benefits from avoiding live, talking, filibusters. Indeed, under current rules, the majority could force a live filibuster at any time; there’s just no point in doing it. The demise of live filibusters isn’t what caused the explosion of filibusters, and forcing live filibusters by itself isn’t going to end anything.

Of course, it is possible to change the rules to filibusters to defeat that way, but why would you want to do it? If you want majority-party rule, just pass it. If you want some modified system (which is what I favor), just pass it.

The thing is, any modified system — and regardless of what I or any other reformer wants, that’s what it’s going to take to get action in the incoming Senate — really does need careful design. What’s the real goal? How can you really preserve the protection for minorities that senators want, without giving a minority party an absolute veto on everything? How can you preserve the influence of individual senators and the ability of majorities to act? The truth is that those are actually very difficult questions.

And none of it has anything at all to do with Jimmy Stewart.

The funny thing is that the live filibuster does have a place in the Senate, and that place is totally secure. It’s not for winning; it’s not for blocking anything. It’s for a lone, solitary cry; it’s a way to shine a little publicity on something when a senator is faced with hopeless odds.

After all, that’s what Jimmy Stewart was doing in the movie.

But in real life, it’s not supposed to win; it’s just a short bid for attention, whether it’s used by Bernie Sanders or Al D’Amato or, yes, Strom Thurmond. Real filibusters have rarely (if ever) been “live” ones, and there’s absolutely no reason they should be.The idea that Republicans would surrender if only they were forced to stand up and fight for their views is, well, totally divorced from the reality of what politicians are like. Republicans — any minority party, on almost any issue — would be very happy to hold the floor indefinitely. It’s free publicity for them. And they care little that nothing else can get done in the meantime. They’re in the minority; the things they want aren’t going to happen anyway!

Like I said, I still don't get it all myself but from what I do get, there needs to be greater structural reform. Apparently, the potential problem has always been there but it's only been a recent thing where one party is just blocking everything so much, in the past, both parties were able to negotiate much more readily when one side had more than 50 and less than 60 votes.

 

For example, look at the DISCLOSE Act, whether or not you agree with it, the fact is that it passed the house and got a 59-39 vote in favour in the Senate but the Democrats had just lost the Massachusetts Senate seat (and their effectively only 6 week old supermajority - not 2 years old as some people might try to say) and then everything went downhill from there.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act

 

If the Democrats ever decided to act the same way as the Republicans as opposed to compromising, they could in theory paralyse just about everything, which wouldn't be good for anyone. I don't think they will though.

post #88 of 3787
god damn if this isn't the best visual metaphor for the current state of the GOP

post #89 of 3787

I think making senators actually speak for their filibusters would make a difference because many times over the last four years, the bills they filibuster are good bills and their opposition to them is unconscionable.  So, in these cases, the publicity would NOT be good for them.  They have gotten away with it because the media does not tell the real story--even NPR says "The bill was held up in the Senate" or other protective language.  If these filibusters were actually covered factually by the media and by some miracle regular people learned what Republicans were blocking--the Veteran jobs bill or the bill that would eliminate tax breaks for companies relocating to China and give them to companies relocating back here--I think it would hurt Republicans ultimately.  It would give them accountability.

 

And the only filibuster I've seen that in any way resembles Jimmy Stewart was Bernie Sanders' epic 8-hour filibuster, and that was mostly symbolic.

 

Meanwhile, my Republican friends have not opened their minds since the election.  If anything, they've dug into conspiracy world even further.
 

post #90 of 3787

Also, if you actually have to physically fillibuster a bill, at the very least you're not going to drag it out every single time. You're going to pick and choose which ones are worth putting in the effort rather than casually swatting every single bill you don't like with no consequences whatsoever. So at least *slightly* more legislation would get through.

post #91 of 3787

"The Republican Party Going Forward"

 

That's hilarious.

post #92 of 3787

John Boehner says Obamacare must be on the table for the fiscal cliff talks. The GOP clearly isn't going forward. Its the law; just accept it!

post #93 of 3787
Thomas Ricks, a member of the Center for a New American Security, author of several books on the military, and a Pulitzer Prize winner, went on Fox to talk about Benghazi today. Ninety seconds later, he called Fox "a wing of the Republican party" and the interview was immediately brought to an end.


Link goes to Daily Kos article with transcript and embedded video. Don't worry, it's short.
post #94 of 3787
Confirmation of what many had already suspected...
Quote:
Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law
Former GOP chair, governor - both on outs with party - say voter fraud wasn’t a concern, but reducing Democratic votes was.

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

post #95 of 3787

It would not surprise me to hear that Andrew Cuomo, current governer of NY, is laying the groundwork to run on the democratic ticket in 2016.

post #96 of 3787
nice bit of political heresy...

It could very well be a case of legitimate political redemption but I always approach anything former (hardcore) GOP members say/write with a big helping of skepticism.


Revenge of the Reality-Based Community
My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.
By Bruce Bartlett • November 26, 2012
post #97 of 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post

It would not surprise me to hear that Andrew Cuomo, current governer of NY, is laying the groundwork to run on the democratic ticket in 2016.

I posted this link about a week ago...
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/chris-hayes-democrats-dont-count-cuomo

I detect some serious political ambition with Cuomo, he's gotten a taste of the national stage and he liked it....
IMO, there's something 'sketchy' about him.
post #98 of 3787
As a New Yorker I'm okay with him staying as the govenor but there is something I don't really trust with him, especially in an office as high as president. Something really slimy about Cuomo. I'd feel far more confident with Clinton, Patrick and O'Malley. Same goes for Christie way too opputunistic to be really trusted.
post #99 of 3787

The only filibuster reform likely to change anything would be forcing all TV and cable networks to air those filibusters live.  A lot more Americans will want them to shut the fuck up and do their jobs if they have to miss Dancing with the Stars and instead watch some doddering old fucker pontificate for hours on end while pissing his pants.

post #100 of 3787

Morning Joe: Just what were GOP Senators expecting from Susan Rice? -   http://video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/4999141

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