What's Next for the Republican Party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It is quite unbelievable that Patrick Buchanan has been a mainstream commentator in American politics for as long as he has. His focus on the right kind of Americans and his obvious consideration of blacks, hispanics, jews et al over the years as the wrong kind has lost all of its subtlety.

I think Buchanan does not really take into account the potential for Hispanics not to vote in their existing patterns if Republicans stopped taking such a persecutory tone with them. I recall very well Proposition 187 in California during the 1990's when Republicans were trying to turn Hispanics into suspects for deportation. If I remember this I can only imagine that Mexican-American voters in the Southwest will take a while to forgive them.

I also think Robert Reich has it right. If the Republicans play to their base any more, they will not provide enough cover for those who want to present themselves as respectable Republicans.

---

I think you are right, Bronocfan, if there is a debate to be had about the Hispanic communities, Buchanan isn't contibuting anything positive to it; it seems hard to believe that you attract voters through attacks on other Americans. If there has to be a debate about immigration policy, it should be about what it means rather than who it selects to be 'afraid' of. It also reinforces a belied that 'white America' is being eclipsed by 'the others' as if the whole concept of America could only be understood in terms of colour.
If the demographic trends are right, then the opportunity to develop a strong voter base in Hispanic communities must be tempting, and it is odd that as we are told many of them are 'natural conservatives' it is even more important for the GOP to act on it, if it gets its act together at all. What do you think are the key issues over the next 4 years-would a rapprochement with Cuba mark an important boost for the Democrats if Obama can find a way to achieve it?

Whose Fault Was Romney Loss? Conservative Finger-Pointing - YouTube

Schadenfreude, anyone?

Here's Trump exploding on Twitter.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?...feature=relmfu

Life is like a box of really classy, super expensive gourmet chocolates__Forrest Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Life is like a box of really classy, super expensive gourmet chocolates__Forrest Trump.

---

Ha ha ha! And:

Donald Trump's Companies Filed for Bankruptcy 4 Times:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...3#.UJ3fUmdf9mA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Ha ha ha! And:

Donald Trump's Companies Filed for Bankruptcy 4 Times:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...3#.UJ3fUmdf9mA

---

Trump represents several of the things that make the Republicans dislikeable. He's loud, arrogant, hypocritical (rails against Chinese imports while having his own label clothes made there!), the living antithesis of trickle down economics, has an ego the size of his towers while being visibly ignorant (cf his twitter rants about the election result) and is convinced of the importance of his opinions. In short, a nasty, ignorant prick, and a salutary reminder of the nastiness that the GOP sadly now largely represents. As long as people like him retain influence, bolstered by the anti-women, anti-abortion, anti-gay, fundamentalist religious taliban that comprises the Tea Party, the hole they're digging for themselves is simply getting deeper every day.

PS. Where the fuck is OMK? We need his cool, measured and rational analysis of what went wrong.

Yes, that IS sarcasm.....:wiggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

PS. Where the fuck is OMK? We need his cool, measured and rational analysis of what went wrong.

Yes, that IS sarcasm.....:wiggle:

---

I'm not sure but I think he may be banned for editing the content of an article to suit his needs and posting it. Such behavior could've got him sued had he done such a thing in a venue with a less...shall we say...specialized audience. Start your investigation here ->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=567

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I'm not sure but I think he may be banned for editing the content of an article to suit his needs and posting it. Such behavior could've got him sued had he done such a thing in a venue with a less...shall we say...specialized audience. Start your investigation here ->
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=567

---

Ah, thanks Trish, I did wonder. I almost miss the lying bastard, well, not really....

Another batshit-crazy fundamentalist republican apologist. I don't know about you, but I find his holocaust analogy offensive in the extreme. And I'm also utterly amazed that someone like this commands a significant public platform in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Another batshit-crazy fundamentalist republican apologist. I don't know about you, but I find his holocaust analogy offensive in the extreme. And I'm also utterly amazed that someone like this commands a significant public platform in the USA.

---

Disgusting!
If there was divine Justice, if there was a God, I’m pretty convinced he would strike him…

"More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."
Pt Robertson.

I had NO idea.

So President Obama is just pretending he is a Christian? There we were thinking he was called Barack Hussein Obama when - really - the H stood for Hitler.

Gosh. So c'mon America where are the extermination camps? Utah?Somewhere in Nevada? Maybe in rural maryland? We should be told.

And all those Christians being forced to wear yellow crosses on their coats.

He's gotta be shitting us, right?

Not to mention the slave trade...

Reason and Robertson parted company long ago.

Extermination camps? I know nothing...:whistle:

one view

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think you are right, Bronocfan, if there is a debate to be had about the Hispanic communities, Buchanan isn't contibuting anything positive to it; it seems hard to believe that you attract voters through attacks on other Americans. If there has to be a debate about immigration policy, it should be about what it means rather than who it selects to be 'afraid' of. It also reinforces a belied that 'white America' is being eclipsed by 'the others' as if the whole concept of America could only be understood in terms of colour.
If the demographic trends are right, then the opportunity to develop a strong voter base in Hispanic communities must be tempting, and it is odd that as we are told many of them are 'natural conservatives' it is even more important for the GOP to act on it, if it gets its act together at all. What do you think are the key issues over the next 4 years-would a rapprochement with Cuba mark an important boost for the Democrats if Obama can find a way to achieve it?

---

About a rapprochment with Cuba you identified a blind spot for me. I know Florida has a large Cuban American population but I'm not exactly sure that's what they want. Our government for some time has had a very radical position on Cuba, and perhaps any departure from that is politically risky, because people have gotten used to the status quo. It has become one of those issues where politicans are afraid to act simply because they are not sure what the response will be. BTW, I think a rapprochment would be reasonable, absent politics, and perhaps politics notwithstanding.

I think you're right that thinking in terms of the effect of immigration policy on Republican candidacy (or voting patterns) is the wrong way to think about immigration to begin with. The Republican's approach to immigration is imo wrong regardless of the effect it has on how Hispanics vote. With millions of undocumented immigrants, it is simply impossible to mount an effective law enforcement effort to expel even a fraction of the "illegals". The result is an ineffective policy that results in harassment of Hispanics here legally, and the pushing to the margins of people who are here illegally who have no opportunity for provisional citizenship and will then be encouraged to engage in underground, criminal activity. Nobody wants to reward illegal behavior, but it is unhelpful to call any efforts to provide a provisional path to citizenship as an incentive to come forward and be part of the system "amnesty", which is what the Republican base has done.

But as for Buchanan's calculus, I think he has applied his cynical math incorrectly. That there are any Hispanics in border states who vote Republican speaks loudly to the fact that they have a minority culture that might be amenable to some of their policy choices. Their approach to our illegal immigration problem has encouraged active harassment of Hispanics on a local level. That they can expect Hispanic-Americans to ignore the fact that they are presented by Republicans as undesirables is unreasonable.

The Republican Party?

(Don't worry: no actual elephant was hurt in the making of that post; they saved the little guy)

This piece by Ross Douthat is in today's NYT.

"But Republicans are also losing because today’s economic landscape is very different than in the days of Ronald Reagan’s landslides. The problems that middle-class Americans faced in the late 1970s are not the problems of today. Health care now takes a bigger bite than income taxes out of many paychecks. Wage stagnation is a bigger threat to blue-collar workers than inflation. Middle-income parents worry more about the cost of college than the crime rate. Americans are more likely to fret about Washington’s coziness with big business than about big government alone."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/op...?smid=pl-share

Why did he wait until after the election to write that? Did he only come to this understanding as a result of Tuesday's trouncing? Or was he shilling lies up to election day?

Marco Rubio Drops Some Science About the Age of the Earth:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...the_earth.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Marco Rubio Drops Some Science About the Age of the Earth:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...the_earth.html

---

Oh well, at least that's something to dust off when he runs for the GOP in 2016.

Err, Ben, please change that avatar. It's obscene. Dicks are fine, but that's steroids gone mad.

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory
By Tom Cohen, CNN

November 21, 2012 -- Updated 0058 GMT (0858 HKT)



Die-hard conservatives blame Mitt Romney, electoral fraud and liberal conspiracies
Few discuss demographic shifts in America
Anti-Obama sentiments abound in conservative post-election commentary
One blogger proposes an Electoral College boycott

Washington (CNN) -- Step by step, die-hard conservatives are confronting their grief over President Barack Obama's re-election.

But judging from blog posts and other public pronouncements, many remain stuck somewhere between denial and anger, very far from acceptance.

So far this week, prolific blogger Judson Phillips on Tea Party Nation has called for boycotting the Electoral College to prevent validating the election result and lamented the triumph of liberalism in destroying national unity and therefore America's greatness.

Over at RedState.com, a more sophisticated political analysis echoes calls by Republican leaders to better communicate conservative principles instead of softening or dropping them.

"There'll be no hand-wringing here and there sure as hell won't be any apologies for fighting for what we believe in," founder and CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday.

"Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful," said another Erickson post Tuesday. "Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies."

Some acceptance has been necessary. On Tuesday, tea party favorite Rep. Allen West of Florida conceded in his race for re-election after initially alleging electoral fraud.

Little of the discussion focuses on the changing demographics of the country, identified by exit polls and many analysts as a major factor in both Obama's 2008 victory to become the nation's first African-American president and his re-election on November 6.

In particular, Obama received overwhelming support from the nation's fastest-growing demographic -- Hispanic Americans -- to cause some high-profile conservatives including Fox radio and television host Sean Hannity to soften their stance on immigration reform.
Lessons learned from the 2012 vote
Taking stock of tea party after election
LaTourette: Tea Party is not the GOP

Overall, though, hard-core conservatives continue to reject that they are a minority in a country built on the core principle of liberty that they embrace.

Instead, the initial reactions and subsequent attempts to explain what happened sought scapegoats, such as what right-wing critics describe as a deficient Republican challenger in Mitt Romney, electoral theft or a liberal-dominated media industry that is part of a broader Marxist effort dating back decades to undermine the nation.

Study: Fox, MSNBC got more extreme

On November 10, Phillips alleged that more votes than registered voters in several Florida precincts were part of Democratic efforts to "steal the election" against West.

There was no immediate posting Tuesday in response to West's concession.

Six days later, Phillips took aim at Romney, calling the former Massachusetts governor a "flip-flopping liberal who ran a content-free campaign."

In a response to Phillips' post, one writer ranted about what he alleged were "the sexual perversions and drug use of the Obamas," the president's "forged birth certificate" and "voter fraud of biblical proportions."

"Why are we talking secession instead of removing the New York Times and supporting citizens' Grand Jury indicments against this unbelievable treason, felonies and usurpations raining down on us on a daily basis?" said the post attributed to Royce Latham of Penngrove, California.

Timothy Stanley: Don't dismiss secession talk

On Sunday, Phillips proposed an action plan -- getting Electoral College voters in states won by Romney to boycott the validation of the election result by the December 17 deadline.

"The 12th Amendment specifies the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3," Phillips wrote. "In other words, if 17 states refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum."

Without a quorum to decide the presidency, he continued, the Republican-led U.S. House will decide and presumably choose Romney. Phillips acknowledged such a move would set a "dangerous precedent," but added that "the situation is so grim we really have no other choice."

"Does anyone really believe America can survive four more years of Barack Obama?" he wrote, saying the president will seek to "transform America from that shining city on a hill into a third world shantytown, with massive unemployment and a corrupt government."

What's next for Obama election organization?

The next day, Phillips sounded more resigned, lamenting what he called "the triumph of liberalism in America" that he said was "destroying our national unity and by extension destroying the freedom."

"In America, until now we have always identified ourselves as Americans," he wrote. "The balkanization that has been pushed by the hard left has one goal in mind. That is the end of America as a great nation. They are perilously close to succeeding."

Tuesday brought his attack on a carbon tax being discussed by some on both sides in Congress as a step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contributed to climate change.

While challenging "the mythical man-made global warming," Phillips also said a carbon tax would create a "massive new tax stream" for liberals bent on growing government.

U.N.: Greenhouse gases set record in 2011

The focus on a single issue certain to generate legislative and public debate signaled some change in the response to the election.

To Phillips and other conservatives, any increase in revenue goes against their goal of shrinking the federal government by cutting spending.

"It is time for conservative activists to make the case to the American people that we have far more government than we can afford, or than we want, no matter what our politicians may think, or what deals they may be willing to cut with each other to keep spending other people's money until we are all bankrupt," said a Tuesday post on Tea Party Nation by Bruce Donnelly of Fox River Grove, Illinois.

GOP, Dems seek common ground on fiscal cliff

Donnelly called for "organizing voters to rein in the politicians, rather than let them keep playing the game by their rules with our money."

"It's worth your effort to organize voters in your community and apply real political pressure for change, because if we just keep playing the game by their rules, your own financial situation will keep getting worse, rather than better," he continued.

"The politicians keep offering free stuff with other people's money, playing us all for fools. It's time to wake up the voters in every corner of America to the fact that they have been conned by these snake oil salesmen and their well-rehearsed lies and false promises," Donnelly said.

In the end, a reviled Democrat in the White House may mean more followers of conservative websites such as Tea Party Nation and RedState.com. No one seems happy about the better business prospects, at least for now.

That's a depressing read, RobertLouis. What hope for reconciliation with such noxious and divisive myths being propagated by the right and being believed by the gullible.

The "United" States of America...

The post mortems and the whining are of no importance. What matters is how the Republican Party behaves in Congress and how the RNC goes about re-defining its principles and policies, and with which intellectual leadership. I may have been wrong about Petaeus, and believe McChrystal is not interested, but the GOP could conceivably go for a military man, which hasn't happened for some years, and someone who would appeal to a broader range of Americans, though whether they can find someone who is charismatic, articulate and shares whatever brand of conservatism they want I cannot say. Otherwise, it would appear to be down to House representatives, Senators and Governors, as far as leadership goes, although one should not rule out the role played in the back office by gurus like Karl Rove, although I don't know how much influence he has these days. If the party is badly divided, of course, then visible movement is not likely in the near future.

Death

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The post mortems and the whining are of no importance. What matters is how the Republican Party behaves in Congress and how the RNC goes about re-defining its principles and policies, and with which intellectual leadership. .

---

Great post. I particularly like this last part where you ask with which leadership. For their own sake they don't want the people doing the whining to be the same people re-organizing their party. It's not just that the whining has shown a lack of political sense, and a lack of judgment generally, but the people who are whining in many cases represent the social special interests (pro-life, anti-gay, culture war fearmongers). I think any reorganized Republican party is best organized as a sort of pro-corporate, small government, strong military party. The social policies I think are a net loss for them, though I could be wrong. They are best holding on to the social policies but having them be less rhetorically conspicuous on the campaign trail. You want the votes of those who are pro-life, you just don't want them grabbing a megaphone and being the face of the party imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE

Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory
By Tom Cohen, CNN

November 21, 2012 -- Updated 0058 GMT (0858 HKT)



Die-hard conservatives blame Mitt Romney, electoral fraud and liberal conspiracies
Few discuss demographic shifts in America
Anti-Obama sentiments abound in conservative post-election commentary
One blogger proposes an Electoral College boycott

Washington (CNN) -- Step by step, die-hard conservatives are confronting their grief over President Barack Obama's re-election.

But judging from blog posts and other public pronouncements, many remain stuck somewhere between denial and anger, very far from acceptance.

So far this week, prolific blogger Judson Phillips on Tea Party Nation has called for boycotting the Electoral College to prevent validating the election result and lamented the triumph of liberalism in destroying national unity and therefore America's greatness.

Over at RedState.com, a more sophisticated political analysis echoes calls by Republican leaders to better communicate conservative principles instead of softening or dropping them.

"There'll be no hand-wringing here and there sure as hell won't be any apologies for fighting for what we believe in," founder and CNN contributor Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday.

"Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful," said another Erickson post Tuesday. "Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies."

Some acceptance has been necessary. On Tuesday, tea party favorite Rep. Allen West of Florida conceded in his race for re-election after initially alleging electoral fraud.

Little of the discussion focuses on the changing demographics of the country, identified by exit polls and many analysts as a major factor in both Obama's 2008 victory to become the nation's first African-American president and his re-election on November 6.

In particular, Obama received overwhelming support from the nation's fastest-growing demographic -- Hispanic Americans -- to cause some high-profile conservatives including Fox radio and television host Sean Hannity to soften their stance on immigration reform.
Lessons learned from the 2012 vote
Taking stock of tea party after election
LaTourette: Tea Party is not the GOP

Overall, though, hard-core conservatives continue to reject that they are a minority in a country built on the core principle of liberty that they embrace.

Instead, the initial reactions and subsequent attempts to explain what happened sought scapegoats, such as what right-wing critics describe as a deficient Republican challenger in Mitt Romney, electoral theft or a liberal-dominated media industry that is part of a broader Marxist effort dating back decades to undermine the nation.

Study: Fox, MSNBC got more extreme

On November 10, Phillips alleged that more votes than registered voters in several Florida precincts were part of Democratic efforts to "steal the election" against West.

There was no immediate posting Tuesday in response to West's concession.

Six days later, Phillips took aim at Romney, calling the former Massachusetts governor a "flip-flopping liberal who ran a content-free campaign."

In a response to Phillips' post, one writer ranted about what he alleged were "the sexual perversions and drug use of the Obamas," the president's "forged birth certificate" and "voter fraud of biblical proportions."

"Why are we talking secession instead of removing the New York Times and supporting citizens' Grand Jury indicments against this unbelievable treason, felonies and usurpations raining down on us on a daily basis?" said the post attributed to Royce Latham of Penngrove, California.

Timothy Stanley: Don't dismiss secession talk

On Sunday, Phillips proposed an action plan -- getting Electoral College voters in states won by Romney to boycott the validation of the election result by the December 17 deadline.

"The 12th Amendment specifies the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3," Phillips wrote. "In other words, if 17 states refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum."

Without a quorum to decide the presidency, he continued, the Republican-led U.S. House will decide and presumably choose Romney. Phillips acknowledged such a move would set a "dangerous precedent," but added that "the situation is so grim we really have no other choice."

"Does anyone really believe America can survive four more years of Barack Obama?" he wrote, saying the president will seek to "transform America from that shining city on a hill into a third world shantytown, with massive unemployment and a corrupt government."

What's next for Obama election organization?

The next day, Phillips sounded more resigned, lamenting what he called "the triumph of liberalism in America" that he said was "destroying our national unity and by extension destroying the freedom."

"In America, until now we have always identified ourselves as Americans," he wrote. "The balkanization that has been pushed by the hard left has one goal in mind. That is the end of America as a great nation. They are perilously close to succeeding."

Tuesday brought his attack on a carbon tax being discussed by some on both sides in Congress as a step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contributed to climate change.

While challenging "the mythical man-made global warming," Phillips also said a carbon tax would create a "massive new tax stream" for liberals bent on growing government.

U.N.: Greenhouse gases set record in 2011

The focus on a single issue certain to generate legislative and public debate signaled some change in the response to the election.

To Phillips and other conservatives, any increase in revenue goes against their goal of shrinking the federal government by cutting spending.

"It is time for conservative activists to make the case to the American people that we have far more government than we can afford, or than we want, no matter what our politicians may think, or what deals they may be willing to cut with each other to keep spending other people's money until we are all bankrupt," said a Tuesday post on Tea Party Nation by Bruce Donnelly of Fox River Grove, Illinois.

GOP, Dems seek common ground on fiscal cliff

Donnelly called for "organizing voters to rein in the politicians, rather than let them keep playing the game by their rules with our money."

"It's worth your effort to organize voters in your community and apply real political pressure for change, because if we just keep playing the game by their rules, your own financial situation will keep getting worse, rather than better," he continued.

"The politicians keep offering free stuff with other people's money, playing us all for fools. It's time to wake up the voters in every corner of America to the fact that they have been conned by these snake oil salesmen and their well-rehearsed lies and false promises," Donnelly said.

In the end, a reviled Democrat in the White House may mean more followers of conservative websites such as Tea Party Nation and RedState.com. No one seems happy about the better business prospects, at least for now.

---

There are lots of crazy assertions here by conservatives. But the most ridiculous here to me, is the one saying, 'liberalism is destroying the national unity.' Now people of which political view are talking about succession? Romney just happened to get caught with his "47%" remark, but many, many people knew that this type of thinking was prevalent in conservative circles. I saw this type of comments numerous times in news article comments on Yahoo News, for example. I think lots of those types of ideas are perpetrated by entertainers, such as Rush Limbaugh. It's really a form of hate. The core of liberalism is believing in the positive potential of all people. Yet it talked about in disease like terms. That's a form of hate.

Some conservatives say that those who feel that tax rates for the top bracket, should be the same as they were in 2000, when the US had a budget surplus, as class warfare. No, if 8 million jobs are lost in for years, or a million home foreclosures, or seniors lose their life assets to medical bills, shouldn't we as a nation feel some compassion by those in crisis? And what about the wars, we have fought and thousands of people gave their lives for? I really feel the conservative movement is devoid of human compassion, except for the unborn. And they dont seem to have that much compassion for the woman carrying the fetus, either. Saying that people are poor, because they are lazy or untalented, denies the reality of life. What about people that have strokes, are car accidents, etc? For conservatives it seems to me to mostly about money. An average person has to spend time fighting large corporations, as the make new rules, or charge new fees at their whim. Yet all the conservatives talk about is small government, denying the reality that the pursuit of profits, can even justify slavery. I recommend that they drop the hating, and respect all human life, once they are born.

Broncofan, YodaJazz:
You are both right, but there is sometimes a tendency for the bitterness of defeat to accentuate the extremes in a party, so that in the early phase of defeat it appears to turn inwards, rather than expand out to the constituency is has failed to win to its arguments.

This happened to the Labour Party following its defeat in 1979 when it adopted policies which were deemed too extreme by the British public; although it did not happen to the Conservatives when they lost power in 1997, they appeared to be in disarray over issues such as membership of the European Union, and to some extent have not really been able to re-brand themselves with a sufficiently distinct set of policies, which is why they failed to gain the majority of seats in the Commons at the last election.

This is but an hypothesis, but if the Republicans in Congress return to the tactics that they used in the last session, and thereby alienate the voters, the prospects for them in the mid-term elections (2014?) could present Obama with a Democrat majority in both houses -if the economy has picked up by then this will also be a plus factor and Obama could spend his last two years able to do what he wants, more or less. The alternative scenario is that the Republicans speak with a different voice, reaching out to those communities and indidivuals they have alienated, and improve their rehabilitation in the mid-term on the back of a disappointing economic record.

However, I don't think it is that easy for a major political party to change in a short space of time, and the prominence of religion in US Politics -as it is perceived to be- may now be the weakest element of Republican Party politics, even if people like Todd Akin are extreme even by their standards (and a gift to the Democrats for that reason).
People don't like extremes of anything, and the strident tones of some Republicans suggests that they also need better PR.
News today is that Jeb Bush may be in the frame for 2016, but then who else is there whose names were not mentioned before?

It will be interesting to see what happens if they do have another setback in 2014 mid-term elections. If by then they have continued to assume that their failures are the result of not being conservative enough, will they then take a step back? Will they do it before then?

I think you're right that religion has a major place in U.S politics and even if they are careful with how they present the social/cultural issues, they won't be able to mute it entirely. In my lifetime, neither party has ever really gained total supremacy. It is sort of strange that not only do we have a virtual two party system but the two parties have had nearly equal support, though varying greatly by region, for some time now. I have not been politically conscious though for that many years so maybe you can provide some historical perspective on that Stavros.

But what we seem to have here is a Republican party that when defeated narrowly is pursuing what I think is a failing strategy. I don't know if we have a trend, but if we do, it will be very interesting to see what happens if they become a clear underdog in national elections. What would it be like in this country to have a two-party system where one party is the perpetual minority? I am not saying we are there or even close to there, but since our government is set up to provide checks and balances between the branches, such a break for either party would be an interesting dynamic. I also wonder how shrill either party would get if they consistently lost presidential and congressional elections.

I know, premature at best, but I think an interesting hypothetical. Part of the problem the Republicans are having is speaking with one voice. They have a lot of options. Often when someone wants to make the right choice so badly they vacillate between equally good options and fail to choose one. They need a vision and to stick with that vision.

You mentioned Jeb Bush Stavros. I don't know too much about him except that he is the smarter of that Bush generation. But it raises the interesting point that we cannot underestimate the power of a charismatic politician to change the public image of a party. Barack Obama did that for liberals, who were coming across as stale, weak-willed, even pathetic during the Bush years. He was an intelligent self-made man from a minority background who stepped onto the stage and presented himself as balanced and sensible. An enlightened but not elitist (despite the claims) alternative to what the Republicans were offering.

The Republicans could use someone like this to help their brand. Not a copy, but someone who is serious, is not vulnerable to attacks for having a history of making controversial comments. I still love the General idea for them. Generals have to hold their political opinions close to the vest and so there is not much history to criticize. They also can present a sort of duty bound, no nonsense air to their candidacy. I guess we cannot ignore the possibility that Republicans find someone fresh and better than the current candidates in the coming years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

Death

---

Winner winner chicken dinner

....

What's implicit in so many Republicans' rejection of Obama's victory is a rejection of the entire democratic process and the elaborate apparatus constructed by the founding fathers which lies at the base of the entire constitution. These are things which they claim to love and cherish.

It's laughable, but it's dangerous too.

...give it a couple of months...you can't judge any of this so early after an election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

...give it a couple of months...you can't judge any of this so early after an election.

---

I fervently hope you're right, Fred, but I have my doubts.

Can we make a date to discuss after Obama's inauguration?

Sounds fair.
Should be enough time to gauge it all.

After the 2008 election the GOP was declared hopelessly broken. By the 2010 elections it bounced back with the help of an energized base of teabagging birthers, social security collecting, government hating retirees on medicare and other assorted mentally challenged racists. A whole slew of patriotic, government hating, proud-that-we're-the-non-apologizing-leader-of-the-free-world dimwits were sent to Washington to govern a complex nation that spans a continent and "leads" the free world.

True, the GOP primary candidates were a clown car of no-brain losers...Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Cain are all bottom of the barrel Palinesque boobs. It was sad (not to mention scary) to see each one have his week or two in the Sun. To think that Cain or Santorum actually could've been the GOP nominee makes my skin crawl. There was one exception. Huntsman never had his week in the Sun, even though he was the lone sane man in the asylum (to mix a metaphor). Exempting Huntsman, Romney had the highest IQ in the car and unlike Huntsman, Romney had real contempt for the "mooching" class who only work eighteen hours a day holding down three minimum wage jobs and don't make enough money to owe Federal income. He didn't have to be caught on tape for that contempt to shine through...it was obvious from the start that Romney enjoys firing people, forcibly shaving the hair off school boys and roof-riding the family dog 'til it was scared shitless. He wasn't ideal. He was Mormon. He was hardly charismatic. His defining characteristic was that he had no defining characteristics. He was a pod-person. But his hatred for "giveaways," his contempt for "takers," his enthusiasm for the virtues of greed and avarice shown through his cracked smile like a black light. The teabagging mouth breathers, and the hollow eyed billionaires chose Romney for that dark luminescence (and his one extra IQ point beyond Perry's) and backed him to the hilt.

The GOP came back in 2010 and nobody knew (though many claimed they knew) how the 2012 election would come out. If Romney won I was prepared to go to Washington holding a "Keep Your Govmn't Hands Off My ObamaCare" sign. Fortunately for the Nation the fiscally conservative and socially slowly-progressing party won( i.e. the democratic party); by a wide margin. The GOP is still reeling...still trying to spin it their way. Democrats are just relieved.

Is the GOP dead in water? Not for long. They're already strategizing on how to save the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy from the fiscal slope (otherwise known as the Austerity Bomb). Rubio (another numskull who thinks: the Earth is 6000 years old and anyway the science that determines it's age is irrelevant to the economy) is already campaigning. They'll be back in two years and two years after that. We can only hope that sometime in the future they will evolve larger brain pans and grow hearts three sizes larger than the selfish grinch-hearts that currently spasm in their hollow, teabagging breasts.

Brilliant Trish... "hollow eyed billionaires", "dark luminescence", "selfish grinch-hearts" - you should be speech writing for the Democrats.

I see that another Bush - Jeb's son - is already being talked-up as a potential Republican candidate because he is part hispanic.

What is curious is the wholesale absence from the post election discussions here of such in house and previously vocal Republican supporters as Faldur. (We know why OMK is missing - since he is locked out until he explains his scurrilous tampering with re-published journalism)

But Faldur and the others. Why not offer us your judgements on what went wrong and what next for the Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

What is curious is the wholesale absence from the post election discussions here of such in house and previously vocal Republican supporters as Faldur. (We know why OMK is missing - since he is locked out until he explains his scurrilous tampering with re-published journalism)

But Faldur and the others. Why not offer us your judgements on what went wrong and what next for the Republicans.

---

Multiple explosion of pointy heads?