The GOP's Misplaced Rage:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...aced-rage.html
Printable View
The GOP's Misplaced Rage:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...aced-rage.html
It's hilarious to see how the Tea baggers are single handedly destroying the GOP.
Those pricks all run as Republicans, then get in office and disassociate from the party.
The GOP should have seen how radical these nutters were from a mile away and refused to let them run on the party's brand.
If the Tea baggers are the wave of the conservative future, they should have gone it alone as an independent party.
The Tea Party is a pretty interesting movement, largely fueled by big money donors like the Koch's and openly fueling anger without any of the nuance for public policy or political process that the earlier "wedge movements" that created the Republican voting coalitions from 1968-2004.
But in a larger view and in the spirit of the OP, we probably should not read too much into the defeats of the 2012 election cycle any more than 2008 signaled a sea change in US politics. Granted the GOP certainly is fumbling most post election issues right now and to many of us are on the wrong side of the tide of history.
But OTOH the success of 08 and 12 had much to do with Obama. Not just Barack Obama himself but that the organization he had. In presidential years more people vote and Obama's folks brought coat tails with them in their ability to get out the vote.
And when one party largely represents 1% of the populace and depends on sturring the worst nature in the souls of others to win, big turnout is bad.
Whether progressive candidates can drive similar turnouts of the young voters and people of color will be seen in 2014. Whether it is 2014 or later, at some point the GOP will need to evolve many of its social positions or become the Whigs. The demographics of the nation are changing and the value of the wedge issues that have been the wrapper for a core of policies that benefit the 1% are not compelling to the changing population.
As for the Tea Party going it alone, it would be like Ralph Nader in 2000 on steroids. It would bleed votes from GOP candidates and insure victory for Dems, who are even more distasteful to Tea Baggers than moderate GOPers are IMHO.
Hopefully Rick Perry runs again...
Rick Perry Takes On Madonna Over Boy Scouts' Gay Ban:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics
What's next for the Republicans?
HILLARY!!!!!
And she'll be grinding her axe from DAY ONE.
Future President Clinton doesn't take any shit lol!
This time it's personal!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
In this article in today's Telegraph the Channel 4 news presenter Cathy Newman refers to Mrs Clinton's
comments in Toronto to a supposedly ‘private’ audience over the weekend: "Hypothetically speaking, I really do hope that we have a woman president in my lifetime. And whether it's next time or the next time after that, it really depends on women stepping up and subjecting themselves to the political process, which is very difficult."
But then adds:
But what if we're all missing the point? It seems to me that Mrs Clinton's Toronto comments might point to a different scenario: skip a generation and install her daughter Chelsea in the White House. People in the know tell me this is exactly what's happening behind the scenes. Yes, ‘mom’ will run, but if that presidential bid doesn't work out, Chelsea will be perfectly placed to make history instead.
I don't think Mrs Clinton will run, for health reasons. As for Chelsea, she will need to develop a political career in -presumably- the Senate before she runs for the White House, if she does (suppose she becomes pregnant in the next four years?).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...-campaign.html
And I do think Americans may wonder about political dynasties this time around, and not just because of the claim that Hilllary Clinton is really George H Bush's secret love-child. This web-site is one of the most bizarre conspiracy sites I have wasted some moments on; apart from the 'Walt Disney is Adolf Hitler' routine it claims Bing Crosby is really Adolf Eichmann; Margaret Thatcher was a Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton the daughter of George HW Bush, the one who supposedly died of leukemia. Unless the site is a joke. Problem is some people believe this stuff.
http://www.wellaware1.com/bush.shtml
Of course people do. Exhibit A: Birthers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
To believe a claim is to be willing to base personal action upon that claim; i.e. belief is tantamount to a bet. When a belief has no verifiable substance the only available personal action is to recite it in public. Except when done anonymously, the recital is like a dare: it identifies you with a small cult of like believers and demonstrates the strength of your resolve in that belief. The resulting publicity also serves to propagate the belief.
If they can plug the latest HEART device into Cheney every three years, they can pop a few Livers into Hillary while she declares obesity a crime, blackmails a few Republican Senators, or sends a special ops seal team to kill Ken Starr. She'll be there. She'll be there.
There was an article in the Post yesterday that said CAMP HILLARY is whirring already. I'm going to the VEGAS site, I want to get my bet down now, while the odds are still good.
Question: What's next for the Republican Party???
Ya mean, aside from serving the super-rich??? The old Republican Party serve the super-rich or about, um, 0.01 percent of the populace... and, sadly, the Dems are movin' in that direction.
Neither party serve the working class or middle class or even, say, the moderately rich. It's the super-duper rich that they both serve.
Republican Presidential Hopefuls Pay Homage to Billionaire Casino Tycoon Sheldon Adelson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ3z5peHS5s
Lots of guys in Congress, especially the House, are nothing special. Some guy who owns a car dealership in Huckburg can get a nice suit and haircut, shoot a few TV ads and get elected.
The Uber-Riche, they are no fluke. They are not the smartest guys in THE room, they are the smartest guys in ANY room.
The 1% that own half of everything? the moronic 99% gave them their money, well, one way or another they got it.
Luckily they leave us enough for our expenses, a crappy car and apartment, a false sense of security, a little hope (it's free) so we can hop on the treadmill every day and whip them up some more cash and power. Even when Capitol Hill works for the little guy, the little guy is going to hand it over to Mr Big.
There were a couple times my Pop got some great stock tips, the second time he made a nice bit of coin. The One Percent own Wall Street. The fix is in.
Beware the Military Industrial Complex??? oops.
Kidd Buddslinger's home state of Virginia ousted Homeboy Eric Cantor, those Buzzard good looks weren't good enough to be bad enough on immigration, I guess. Power to the People!!!!
Ahahahaha
Eric Cantor Loses to a Conservative Who Rips Crony Capitalism:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/11-3
Dave Brat reacts to his shocking win over Eric Cantor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAIAopx2jgQ
The Party of NO has been avoiding saying what it's for, (I suspect they don't want to get in a serious debate with Obama about what's right) in favor of a safer less provocative stance of just blaming everything that is wrong on the President.
The part of the Republican Party I hate, the behind closed doors strategies that protect the interests of the one percent, is in direct conflict with what the Good Ole Boys want. The NASCAR Republicans.
The way the Top Republicans lie to their own faithful is what really seems criminal to me. How can you debate somebody about what they value when they're lying through their teeth?
If the ONE-PERCENTERS ever lose, maybe they will be defeated by Republicans rather than Democrats. The Tea Party was born out of the frustration Republicans felt after Bush destroyed the Economy.
My sense is that Tea-Baggers first appeared (sometimes openly armed) at the town meeting discussions of "Obamacare" during the first two years of his term. It's the Tea-Partying NASCAR republicans that are against everything "that Nigger in the White House" proposes. [That's a quote from the tea-bagging lady that lives two blocks down the street from me]. Cantor went down because he was almost in some sort of alignment with Obama on immigration reform. I gotta say, there's no part of the present day republican party that's less despicable than the other parts.
I'm waiting for the day the most despicable trailer trash racist wakes up and realizes that he'd be better off voting Democrat.
Obama would never let Sasha and Malia go to a DC Public School, that doesn't make him a racist or a Republican. That makes him practical.
If anybody has a right to complain about their quality of life in the US since 1950, it's the White Man!!!
In a Two-Party System, let the Rednecks keep their racism, guns, and Religion. GIVE them Healthcare, Education, and a higher minimum wage. A closed Mind is what Republican Suits want. Let the silent majority talk.
Watching the Party of No trying to convince their followers to vote Yes on immigrants in 7-11s is great.
How A Pornstar & A Dick Pic Brought Down A Republican:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2R1ebZvnYM
The Ted Cruz phenomenon. An insightful iece from the new Yorker this week.
Beware the potential of cruz Control.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all
Good article. He is an extremist, but he's articulate and intelligent. It will be interesting to see what he does in the Republican primaries in 2016 and then the general election if he's successful there. I wouldn't count him out, but he seems like such an asshole to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
But if he gets through the primaries by playing to the base, Hillary could be vulnerable...she seems to be so transparent in her attempts to always say the right thing. She's always been a little contrived...even thinking back to her attacks on Obama in 08 for being an elitist and not understanding why people love guns.
....
Expect more of the same stupidity. The extreme is making it easy.
So far 16 candidates have now come forward from the Republican Party. I am not going to repeat the statements made by Donald Trump, but I do wonder if there is any sign that the GOP has learned from its past failures how to connect with the American people...any thoughts?
Their strategy is to put forward few insensitive, ignorant jerks together with a bushel of completely clownish assholes. That way, by contrast, the jerks look pretty good.
There is a GOP that is millions of voters and there is a GOP that is a few guys in some smoky back room in New York or Switzerland where all the real decisions are made. I have a hunch the real decision makers have made the decision that 2016 is not the year to go all in on the presidential election, better off keeping their money in the stock market. Hilary will take their calls.
Jeb Bush has the blessing of the big wheels, and he won't be an embarrassment, but he won't win either. Trump speaks for a large section of GOP voters, but the big wheels see him as a Hee Haw character. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole Trump campaign is more a move to become a MADE MAN in that smoky back room more than being President, I might be announcing my candidacy next week. Send your donations now. For a one hundred dollar donation I will send you a bumper sticker and a pair of Nikka's soiled knickers.
PS.....Can you imagine the stock tips you would get being in that smoky back room?
I will admit that I have not watched all of the Republican Party nominees debate that took place in Ohio -the 'top ten- and not being an American or living there I don't get some of the nuances or references, I don't know who Rosie O'Donnell is though it appears Mr Trump doesn't like her. Jeb Bush to me came across as the most reasonable of the candidates, adopting the least extreme positions, compared to Mike Huckabee whose definition of a person must rank as one of the greatest innovations in human biology. Whatever. What strikes me about these candidates is that I wonder if anyone has sat them down and told them what the USA in 2015 looks like, and what most Americans think are the key issues that are shaping their lives, because I suspect that issues like jobs, housing, education and health are vastly more important than gay marriage, political correctness or abortion, although that latter is a serious issue. I came across a study of Latinos in California and how the Republican party since the Reagan era has lost this important source of votes in the state, mostly because of Proposition 187. I know that illegal immigration is as hot a topic there as it is right now in the UK, but I do wonder why Republicans seem unable, or unwilling to address such an important constituency without being offensive at the same time -as if there were no other solution than building walls on the border.
I also wonder if this issue is different in California than it is in Florida where, for example, an issue like Cuba may be more relevant than immigration from Mexico -?
The article linked below looks in depth at how the Republicans lost the Latino vote in California, stating in its intro-
According to polling data from the California Field Poll, after winning the presidential election in 1980, former California Governor Ronald Reagan raised his share of the Latino vote from 35% to 45% in 1984 while carrying 59% of the entire state. Republicans went on to win the Golden state again in 1988. Since that election, three significant changes have reshaped California politics in a manner that has made the Republican Party nearly irrelevant:
1. The Latino share of the total California electorate has dramatically increased.
2. California Republicans embarked on an anti-immigrant agenda that alienated Latino voters and drove them into the open arms of the Democratic Party.
3. Republicans are unable to compete for California’s 55 Electoral College votes, which amounts to 20% of the total 270 necessary to win a presidential election.
As the Latino voter population grows across other states, and a rigorous debate unfolds about immigration reform, we take this opportunity to revisit lessons learned from California. How did California go from a Republican stronghold to a Democratic lock? The answer is clear – anti-immigrant policy and a frustrated and mobilized Latino vote. In a comprehensive review of academic research published in political science journals and public opinion polling and surveys from 1994 to 2013, Latino Decisions senior analysts Dr. David Damore and Dr. Adrian Pantoja, detail what they call “The Prop 187 Effect.
It is now well established in both the political science research community and real world campaign politics that the mid-1990s Pete Wilson era of California Republicanism was a historic turning point in the state’s politics. Prop. 187, the infamous anti-immigrant ballot measure, which was championed by then Governor Pete Wilson in his re-election bid, resulted in significant backlash and political mobilization among California Latino voters. Following Prop. 187 were additional anti-immigrant measures such as Prop. 209 and Prop. 227 that proposed to outlaw affirmative action and bilingual education. Since 1996 when Latinos first comprised more than 10% of the state electorate, Latino partisanship has grown to over 70% Democratic. In light of these dynamics, it is little wonder that California has become an easy win for the Democrats?
(*I think that last part should be 'is it any wonder...')
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/...prop187effect/
Interesting write up Stavros. I agree with you that housing, education, and employment should get more coverage. The Republican party has focused on other issues though because they are better at whipping up the base. It does work to an extent. I also agree that Jeb Bush is the most reasonable of the candidates, so hopefully he gets the nomination and Trump's popularity fades.
Edit: I was in middle school and high school when prop 187 was proposed, passed, and then held unconstitutional by federal courts. It was an ugly time...people who supported it knew that it was offensive to Mexican-Americans because it allowed them to be treated as suspects. I don't blame latinos for not forgetting.
I remember some hispanic kids were wearing badges that said "suspect under 187" to indicate that if it passed they would be treated as suspects. Some other kids decided it would be funny to wear badges that said "187 on suspect". 187 is police code for murder. So tensions were high..
It's hilarious to me that Fox news isn't even pretending it cares about what grass root republicans are concerned with anymore, they're showing their true colors of being 100% concerned with big business only. They're using Barbie doll Megyn Kelly to do their dirty work- get that fool Trump off the stage while they throw BushIII softball questions.
There are actually more Hispanics in California now than Whites.
Rush Limbaugh was actually trashing Fox news the other day.
I'm loving this!!!
I'll admit Fox News did appear to ask Trump combative and difficult questions. The questions weren't unfair on their own but every question was aimed at challenging his record and past statements rather than asking him about his policy positions. But people on the left have said for years that Fox News is not a place one should expect to find impartiality or fairness.
The real question is will people on the RIGHT doubt Fox as fair and balanced!!??????!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
It's not what the O'Reilly factor says, it's what the loonytoons factor say in the polls this week. Will the yahoos side with the Donald after he said Fox Darling Megyn Kelly had blood shooting out of her.......whatever....
He already got away with insulting John McCain's war record.
I really can't make a prediction I am so befuddled by what's going on right now. I think if I were a Republican I'd want Trump to just go away. A third party run would be a disaster for Republicans, but they also think he would be a loose canon as the nominee. I read some of the comments on the message boards and I have never seen such internal dissension and confusion. Carly Fiorina said trumps comments were unacceptable and a bunch of twitter people are calling her a RINO (republican in name only)...because being concerned about misogyny means one can't be a Republican apparently.
I also am not sure if Trump was referring to menstruation with his comment. He may have been or he may have just been saying she was so angry she had blood coming out of her eyes and then could not think of how to complete the thought. It doesn't matter because the Republicans really have to figure out who they are. They don't want another milquetoast candidate but do they want a raving moron.
The focus on Donald Trump's offensive remarks about women in general and Megyn Kelly in particular ought not to allow the other candidates to get away without being scrutinised when it comes to their attitude to women. Abortion has always has been a difficult issue in the USA, but the other candidates have taken positions which either remove from women the right to make their own decisions about what happens to their bodies, or have apparently even lost the right to life themselves -Scott Walker has taken the position that an abortion ought not to be carried out even if it threatens the life of the woman carrying the foetus -he has said there are now ways of preventing that happening, but does not say how medicine can always prevent a woman dying from an ectopic pregnancy, to give just one example. Marco Rubio has said abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest, while Jeb Bush is just one of the candidates who when he was Governor of Florida removed state funding of Planned Parenthood, although I am not sure how key an issue this is for Americans generally. But these issues affected women directly, and none of the candidates seemed to have a sensitive way of talking about the issues, it was as if women were some 'other species' and not one half of humanity. I don't believe the candidates offered proof that women have told them what they want to base their policies on solid evidence.
The GOP seems to have a problem with women, or it has failed to find a way to appeal to women as natural 'conservatives' on the economy or education; or to put it another way, it does not seem to have learned any lessons in the last 8 years about what the Party stands for and who it is appealing to for votes, and yet it continues to dominate Congress.
Does this mean that if there is a 'backlash' against Republicans on these issues it will motivate women to vote for Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democrat nominee?
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/da...rning-mode-its
I think David Brooks has it right, here.
When it comes to women and blacks, there are both Republicans and Democrats who wish them all the best, but they don't want them in seats of Power. They've both got lots of coiled resentment down there, that might taint clear logic.
This is one of the groups where they have taken positions that are not absolutely necessary to conservative dogma and which erode their base. And they not only alienate women but have done a lot to alienate Gay Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans. Because they have become the party that opposes liberal political correctness they reject any civil rights question as a liberal issue, any issue relating to fairness or autonomy for women as liberal...as Yoda's article indicates they are a party defined by protest, by what they dislike. When Mitt Romney was asked about fair pay for women in the 2012 race, it was as though he had never contemplated the issue and ended up making the memorable "binders full of women" statement that was really an attempt to sound concerned but ended up sounding detached and confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I don't know what kind of backlash, if any, there will be. They have had a certain immunity to their mistakes in certain parts of the country, and they never seem to lose as much support as I expect.....perhaps I engage in wishful thinking.