Future of Republican Party
 

Coming up to the election, there were two completely different worldviews and it is clear which side succeeded. At least to me, and I'm sure most people here, it was clear what happened: Republicans tried to force a radical narrative and stuck to with it even when there was zero substance behind that narrative. While it did have some power, that radical narrative obviously wasn't influential enough to win an election that Republicans should have won.

Looking at demographics, it is clear that the Republicans are fighting a losing battle. Assuming Obama comes out on top of the popular vote (seems like it), Democrats have won majority 5 out of the past 6 elections and this trend will only continue if nothing changes. From the Republican primary, it is also clear that the GOP is split between moderate and "tea party" factions. Romney, a weaker candidate in general, was forced to appeal to the radical side of the GOP to get financing and a united GOP, moving him too far to the right to get enough independent voters to win the election.

Republicans have an upcoming choice in the four years: admit that your narrative is rejected by the majority of Americans and move to the center or double down and hold off the inevitable for another decade or so. I welcome a more moderate GOP since I do not want Democratic solely in control, and there are positive signs already that many Republicans will move in that direction. It will not be a clean shift, a "civil war" may break out, but I think it will be extremely interesting to see the political landscape around 2016.

I agree with many others here that a Clinton versus Huntsman 2016 would be ideal. However, a lot can change in four years.





Some interesting articles explaining why Republicans lost:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...n_party_s.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...eaders/264855/


Newt Gingrich admitting that the GOP needs to move in a different direction:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

Cheer Up, Republicans
 

I think there's a lot of truth here.
more

limbaugh:

a moderate is just a liberal that doesn't have the guts to call himself a liberal

Not even close. Obama supported cap and trade, nationalized health care, and closing down every coal fired power plant in the country. He's restricted oil and gas drilling on federal lands, and has actually taken over one of our biggest corporations, and arranged to sell it to the Union.

He sues states that try to pass voterID law. He won't support e-verify laws to reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, or give us decent border protection.

Obama: "Under my plan, electric rates would necessarily skyrocket".

THAT is NO Republican!

Invented by Republicans.Didn't happen, and what he did do was invented by Republicans.Didn't happen.

yeah, but it's still fun to make things up.

What do you expect from a Kenyan born Muslim? And why do you hate America Happy Monkey? WHY?

Personally, I'm betting on a contest between Hillary vs. Chris Christie.

Boehner: (a paraphrase, but a very close one)

"the american people have made clear that there is no mandate for raising taxes"

"instead of discussing what taxes we can raise, the president needs to come to us with a plan we can accept that discusses what reforms we can undertake to reduce the deficit."

Boehner does not talk like a man who is willing to compromise, just as he did not compromise before. Whether or not this is a good negotiating strategy in other circumstances is debatable. In the context of the "fiscal cliff"

The president, personally and politically, has little to lose, having won his last election ever, unlike Rep Boehner. His impetus to politick is far less than his motivation to get things done for the good of the nation. Honestly, I don't see much evidence on Boehner's part of a desire to do the nation's business. I see him as consistently obstructionist--not helpful, certainly not to the nation.

also

"fewer loopholes and lower rates for all"

and

"it won't be solved by a lame duck congress"

?!?

omg, he's disabled the brakes , locked the wheel and has both feet on the gas. guess where we're headed. jfc.

Yeah, I dont understand why the most recent media reports concerning Boehner's post election statements have headlines like "Boehner Willing to Compromise." Yet when you read beyond the headline or stick around long enough to hear more than a few sound bites, Boehner's rhetoric remains unchanged, and he is still sprouting the same "won't give an inch," tea party inspired demands and threats.

I was bemused to read the following from ABC News under the heading “John Boehner Welcomes Big Deficit Deal, Pledges to Work with President Obama”

Sure, Boehner will compromise as long as the compromise is all coming from the other side. He still demands tax cuts for the "small businessmen" in the uppermost income brackets and he still insists that Americans with the lowest incomes be the ones on whose backs the budget is balanced. Otherwise the Republican majority in the House "stands ready" to continue to just vote "no" to any and everything. It's "what's best for the country," after all.

If that's Boehner's idea of compromise, I wonder what he does when he is in an actively oppositional mode? Call upon the newly equipped navy to help the Red States to invade the Blue ones? :eek:

Nationalized health care has a very long history, going back to at least Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution, and probably long before that.

Thankfully, Obama's support of cap and trade (which he referred to as "my plan"), was so toxic to the economy, that nobody would support it.

Not even Democrats! ;)

Nationalized health care hasn't happened in the US. Obamacare is pretty much all based on Republican proposals.

Cap and trade was invented by Republicans.

Quit with the facts, already!

We like to make stuff UP. It's way more FUN.


It's like the History Channel 2! Aliens did it!

You've had enough booze today, Monkey. :eek:

Adak, I thought you said you would be in favour of a national health system, as long as it was done right?

ad hominem attacks are how true conservatives on the radio deflect inconvenient truths.

Rush Limbaugh was his usual self after this election,
but he did raise the question about the future of the Republican Party.

His off-the-wall remark that followed was:
What are we supposed to do about immigration
... repeal all the immigration laws ?

My belief is that if the Republican Party wants to make any inroads into the Hispanic community,
they must abandon their talking points that anything leading to citizenship is "amnesty".

An easy compromise for the Republicans could be to grant full US citizenship
for any person who was brought into the USA by their parent(s) before they were 22 years of age.
...(21 used to be the legal age of majority)

All this (crap) about having to first serve in the military or do public service
is just a artificial road block to those who are now labeled as "illegal aliens"
only because, as minors, they did what their parents required them to do.
You might think Republicans could view that was a good "family value"

If Republicans can't make such a small compromise on immigration,
they will remain what they have been for a long time,
a minority party that has to resort to race-baiting among
the whites of this country.

You've got nothing, eh?


Cap and trade was invented by a Reagan lawyer, and implemented by GHW Bush.

And much of Obamacare is Romneycare.

Wacko extremists forget that immigrants are the source of at least 40% of American patents and the resulting jobs 10+ years out. Unfortunately, the rich will do anything to protect their wealth and biases. Including job destruction especially after 2000. Wacko extremists even hate immigrants (ie Islamofacism) - a greatest source of future Americans jobs and economic strength. Even FemoNazis were invented by these extremists.

On spread sheets, immigrants are an expense. In reality, immigrants are some of the best and loyal Americans - loyal as in moderates. Import more immigrants and export more rich wacko extremists (ie Limbaugh). That improves America.

Four years ago, Republicans had meetings to decide their future. They decided to make America fail; to make Obama a one term president. We all witnessed their subversive actitivites in Congress led by extremists such as Majority Whip Eric Cantor. Well, the Republicans are now having that meeting again. Which group will they hate? Since extremists need a bogeyman to justify their existance. Or will Republican cast out the Tea Party and Fox News wackos to become more patriotic - more moderate?

Adak demonstrates how wacko extremists think. And honest Adak would have posted logical (adult) replies. A wacko extremist must post insults. Because he is extremist, then he can only post emotionally. Extremists are the target audience of Limbaugh and Fox News.

An honest Adak would have answered why Romney, who once called himself more liberal than Kennedy, is now a conservative. He cannot. That answer would expose why extremism exists. So he replied with insults. And then refused to answer the question. As an extremist, he insulted Happy Monkey rather than answer honestly - like an adult.

Extremists find supporters among adults who still think like children. Who think emotionally rather than logically.

It goes back to what Republicans must ask themselves in ongoing meetings. Does the party stop crucifying its patriotic moderates (ie Senators Lugar, Snow, Castle) to recruit only wacko extremists? Why did the party (in Delaware) replace Sen Castle with a witch?

For the same reason, Romney, who once said he was more liberal than Kennedy, then *proved* he was an extremist conservative. The party encourages liars. Serious questions should be asked in those meetings.

Immigration is easy, make Puerto Rico a state. Then pretend all Hispanics are Puerto Ricans.

Conservative cognitive dissonance:

But what about Bigfoot? Obama has NOT yet addressed the Bigfoot Conspiracy and it's long past time he dropped the cover-up and reveal the secret race of apemen who have been bolstering his poll numbers across America, especially in the northwest wilds. I'll bet they aren't even documented.

Bigfoot is not a white, English speaking, Christian male. Therefore he is not a Republican and cannot be a true American. We should deport him back to where he came from.

They have to stop their war on women.

maybe...just maybe...we're going back to a matriarchy!!!!!


this distresses my older son very, very much (he's a white Christian male in business school and he fully expects to become one of the 1% and I hope to Christ he DOES become one of them as I'm going to need that money in the future to buy tchochkes and hats and such) we had lunch yesterday (as a typical Republican, he made me pick up the tab ;) and he was telling me that the US was a male-centric country, with masculine virtues rating high on the list of desirable attributes. He then insulted Norway and Finland by calling them, in essence, "girly nations" who cared about compassion over defense.

then he ate another muffin.

Then I told him America isn't all THAT macho - look at any country in South America or the Middle East for REAL value of masculinity. Then I told him Germany was run by a woman. He didn't believe me and said he was going to ask his German prof. Shit, I didn't even KNOW he was taking German!

It was an okay lunch, food-wise. The cinnamon roll could've had more frosting but then I say that about almost all cinnamon rolls.

Ha!

Funny, these things come around. It is a common theme in the formation and maintenance of national identity, to paint the home nation 'male' in contrast to a feminized other.

My son...he's so patriotic he bleeds red, white and blue.

My other, younger son is Norway.

it's really weird having these two - like the sun and the moon.

My older boy also believes that if you say something, or truly, truly believe it, it is true. Kinda like The Secret or magic or something.

My dad called to tell me happy birthday yesterday, which meant I had to listen to him be all depressed about the election, which I knew would happen. I have a hands-free headset for the house phone that I use only for calls with him. I let him talk ignorant politics at me while I cook or fold my laundry, because he is old and lonely and no one else will listen to him, and I love him regardless.

BUT. One of his new talking points struck me as so funny that I just couldn't keep from giggling at him yesterday.

Did you know... that the numerical margin between Obama's votes and Romney's votes was exactly the same as the number of new people enrolled in the food stamp program since he took office? The Democrats bought the election with tasty, tasty free food! I swear to God. And he's not the type to make up his own talking points, so someone--Glenn Beck, or Rush, or maybe even someone on Fox News--actually said this.

If you saw the Karl Rove meltdown video, and I know you did, here's the reason why.

So the Citizens United Supreme Court decision turned into a 400 million dollar money hole (and that's just Karl Rove's part, the complete total is closer to 700 million) that big Republican donors filled, with the end result that Obama is still president and the Democrats actually picked up Senate seats.

I weep for them, really I do.:lol::jig::lol2:

gee, richlevy, you sound kind of...well, to be blunt, insincere; but, you know, it DID pump a lot of money into the economy...so...there's that.

Now allow me to brush a single tear from my eye for them.

And the "liberal media" got all that cash.

$400 million of redistributed income... no wonder they're pissed.

Well, the Republican Party has (should have) made a decision what they want to do. What is it? First indications should be apparent this week.

Civil war (between themselves).

Well, Mitt was taking "women's issues" advice from his wife, which might have actually worked if she wasn't the reincarnation of June Cleaver.

So if upper crust Republicans they want some input on Latino issues, they should go to Latinos who they know personally.

Now that Mitt can go back to hiring illegals again, I'm sure that he will be able to figure out with their help that supporting the bipartisan Dream Act instead of running away from it in the primaries would have been a big help.

Forget the Dream Act, as it appears Dream Act hater Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.),will be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee with primary jurisdiction on immigration matters.

From The Economist of 10 Nov 2012:
But again, a benchmark from a conservative publication that defines conservatives verses wacko extremists.

Will the party be a conservative party? Or a party of wacko extremists? Starting this week, we discover if the party's intelligent leaders get promoted. Or if Limbaugh brainwashing, Cantor naysaying, and Tea Party ignorance continues to declare all others as evil.

Smart extremists only create one bogeyman. Wacko extremist Republicans cannot find enough bogeymen. Unfortunately, the vote also shows how many are so easily brainwash by rhetoric not supported by any facts, numbers, or intelligent thought.

Even the Dream act is somehow evil. No wonder an old guard of racists line the ranks of current Republicans. Jesse Helms and Trent Lott would heartily welcome these extremists Republicans to every Strom Thurmond birthday party.

Too many good quotes to put all of them on here:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...ass-war/58922/

I'd have thought you could get a better quote than that from someone called Steve LaTourette...

Nice.

I think the Republican Party should go into comedy - the birther movement, Donald Trump's many appearances as Republican mascot, Karl Rove's election night emmy award winning performance, Grover Norquist calling Romney a "poopy head," and now I hear that Republican dominated Texas wants to leave the Union and get its Lone Star status back - you can't make stuff like that up. They're naturals! :lol:

Individuals in 18 states have already filed for succession. It obviously won't go through but funny in a sad sad sort of way.

Let's not get confused about this, Texans are ALWAYS entertaining the notion of independence. Take a look at my location--that's always been that way.

Part of the reason, to be honest, is we actually have the means to do it. It's just cute talk unless you can back it up.

there are now 20 states with petitions to withdraw from the us

We can expect 50. Canada looked pretty good during the W debacle lottsa folks here threatened it. This was SOP in America until Lincoln killed 620,000 of us to make a point.

I thought (and Clod or Flint can correct me here) that as part of Texas' statehood agreement lo those many years ago succession was always a possibility for them. They were so big and their hats, my god! were even bigger; I thought it was written into the Texas constitution of statehood or whatever the hell you call it that they COULD succeed anytime they wanted.

Texas, we hardly knew ye.

also, Key West tried to succeed but the stoners couldn't get it together to do it. They called themselves the Conch Republic. They were sick of cruise ships and their ilk walking their streets.

Secession and secede.

Sorry. It's one of my bugbears:P

oh, thanks. I could't bother to google. I WAS an Englihs major ya know. (but it was a state school...so....)

Duh.

The republican war on women? What about the republican war *by* women?

I like this observation, right on target. I believe that these two groups are not mutually exclusive and when these two motives are in conflict in a given speaker, it seems the profit and ratings always takes precedence.

now there are 23 states petitioning. texas has far exceded the necessary 25,000 signatures and louisiana is getting close. another petition has been submited that any person signing a petition to secede would be stripped of their citizenship and exiled

America - love it or leave it! :rolleyes:

And in the "Don't it turn my brown eyes blue" department: If Texas wants out, they'd better git while the gitting's good. Demographic studies predict that Texas will become a Blue State by 2024 if not sooner due to increases in the Latino population there.

Finally, it would appear that Southerners still cherish the thought that "The South will rise again." States that were once a part of the Confederacy are in the lead when it comes to the numbers of signatures on the various petitions to secede from the Union.

I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand it's a free speech issue. On the other hand signing a petition to secede is pretty close to renouncing one's citizenship.

Of course, maybe all of these guys would be happier playing 'great white warlord' in a compound in Somalia. Stockpiling AK-47s and tons of ammo is legal there, or at least ignored by a weak government.

On the downside, their president would really be a liberal black Muslim.:cool:

I've always wondered... if Texas does leave the US and become its own entity, how would they stop Mexico from invading and retaking land they once had up through 1836? Does Texas have an army? They won't be able to use the US army, oh no. They'd have to ask for assistance and then there would be 'occupation' to make sure Mexico stays where Mexico is. Or would they request we 'nation build' so they can take care of themselves, because they couldn't when they left the union in the first place?

Or would they allow the current US bases to stay and enjoy by-proxy US protection without actually being part of the country?

And I know they have oil and cattle and some farms there, but what else would their GDP be based on? Tourism? Could US citizens get in on a driver's license or would passport be needed? Would they even have open borders?

This popped up on my Facebook feed, and, although I'm pretty sure I've read it before, it sort of fits...right about now.

Now there are petitions in all 50 states. Texas and Louisiana have the required number of signatures that will force the Executive Branch to respond.

How will the Enlightened States pay for all of their social welfare programs? A higher percentage of people in Red States pay taxes. Somebody will have to pay for all those free cell phones.

Oh, did I mention we will take the majority of nuclear missles with us?

Actually, no. The red states have a higher percentage of people using government aid than the blue states do.

Moochers

And the highest tax producing states are actually blue.

Subsidizing...

Oh, and those cell phones? That plan was begun back in 1996 and was not a cell phone, but a land line. The landline has since been updated to cellular for obvious reasons.

Obama Phone

By laughing? What would they do?

"Force the Executive branch to respond" isn't much. Just ask the guys who "forced" them to respond to a weed decriminalization petition.

And that was a serious issue.

I'll bet Cambodia will let them in.