The fate of the Republican party?

[iamthewalrus109]

Having read some of the posts lately on post election predictions and the state of the parties past 2004 I thought it was time to start a true discourse on possible scenarios for the politcal future of the parties as well as the country. In essence, I think the only responsible move at this point is for the moderates of both parties to converge, will this happen, probably not.

Moderate Republicans, like that of the strain of Dick Lugar, Hagel and so forth could etch out something from the ashes of the Republican party. These individuals are principled but, reasonable people. The political environment now leaves us a way too polarized choice, it's either somebody who waves which ever way the wind is blowing or we have someone who will march us right over a cliff just for personal conviction, or should I say seemingly personal conviction. In any event, the results of the 2004 election, which seems to be a Bush win, will still bring a major destruction to the Repulican party I'm afraid. Unless Iraq suddenly becomes ok, and there is actually a plan implemented to deal with leaking jobs and the deficeit, I don't forsee the Republican party making it out of the next 4 years. The neo-cons and the corporate cronies have insured that. High minded political beliefs about spreading democracy to the Middle East and corporate style goverence is a recipe for disaster, plain and simple. I do belive in 2nd term curses. Almost every modern president has faced it. US News just did a pretty good article on what a 2nd term for Bush would mean, and recalled the track records of 2 termers in the 20th century, usually not good, many times the 2nd term is the kiss of death to a president.

So, theorectically speaking a 2nd term for Bush means similiar polices and a continuation of what John Kerry called, "more of the same". There will be some sort of scandal, or major uncovering of something that will rip this country apart. Even if one of the rumors about GW Bush is proven, we will have a major blood letting. As far as demographics, and this is in particular reference to some of the posts I've seen on the post election predictions on this site, I don't think hispanics, will ever fully come over to the democrats enmass. Republicans have been able to get a good amount of their votes in recent elections, mostly stemming from the religious/abortion issue. The hispanic vote is a complex one, one which comes from many backgrounds. Puerto Ricans tradionally vote dem., but Mexicans are a wild card, alot of them vote Republican. It's a splintered group, and GW Bush has been able to court the Mexican-american vote pretty well for a Republican, so I don't see all hispanics voting for Dems, I just don't. Getting back to the fate of the political future of this country, the Republicans are in trouble, but I forsee a new party emerging out of it, something akin to the whig revolution in the mid to late 19th century.

-Walrus

[Kitsune]

Unless Iraq suddenly becomes ok, and there is actually a plan implemented to deal with leaking jobs and the deficeit, I don't forsee the Republican party making it out of the next 4 years.

Curious -- why do you think this? Lets say Bush wins and continues on serving as president. While the man is currently hated by a large percentage of the country, he is also loved by another group numbering almost the same. Iraq is already a mess, so do you think more of the same will doom the party or do you foresee a change or event that will do it?

On your topic of a new party emerging, I actually would love to see that happen. Maybe Republicans who actually do stand for smaller government, states' rights, etc? That'd change my vote!

[iamthewalrus109]

In regards to Bush being even more hated and what another 4 years of the man will do for America, well it comes down to just dragging the US further through the sand. One point on this is the alternative, ie John Kerry. I think there are many undecided voters, some Reagan dems, former Reform party people, who could never really vote for John Kerry. A second point is, all this election takes is a win, there's no possiblilty for clear win in this election anyway, so, all the person has to do is win really.

Bush's problem will be that once he's back in office it's still his ball game, if Iraq goes even worse, and there's another terrorist attack, the country will be incensed due to the fact that GW Bush got us to that point. By the end of the second term the Republican party will be in ruins and all who supported Bush in any sort of public manner will be remembered as supporters of Bush's policies. What this leaves are those who have rallied against him for the most part, those who have decided to speak out on unfair, wasteful, and excessive policies, for tride and true Republican beliefs. His real base is the religious folk/christian conservatives, beyond that his true support is thin among traditional conservatives and Nixon/Rockfeller type Republicans. In the end the will probably several events and a worseing situation in the Middle East obviously. The American public will tire of this pre-emption strategy and want to return to a quieter time. Attacking other nations and stirring up trouble the way Bush has is not the way you stabalize anything. You need to pacifiy not just destroy.

In summary I don't see the country just blaming GW Bush for what's happening and what's going to happen. It is more thann likely it will be the Republican party that will be blamed, especially due to the decentralized way his administration is set up. It's not just GW Bush, but it's Dick Cheney, Dom Rumsfeld, and others that make this up. When you think of Dick Nixon, or Bill Clintion for example, power and decision was vested at the top, so when their scandals hit, and there policies were question it was more a matter of them as individuals than their administration, or their party, with Bush it's different, with him it's really a group effort, so much so that it imperils the Republican party itself.

- Walrus

[Kitsune]

...and there's another terrorist attack, the country will be incensed due to the fact that GW Bush got us to that point.

I actually don't know if this would be the case. Bush and his administration thrive on fear because he has successfully provided what the public thinks are solutions to the terrorist problem. Mind you, I think they're all illusions, but think back to when the country was worried about remote controlled airplanes loaded with explosives and everyone had an emergency kit that contained duct tape and plastic sheeting cut to the size of a designated safe room. At that time the public was, overall, ready to give up any of their civil liberties in exchange for protection from terrorists and everyone was shouting that in times of emergency we should all stand, as Americans, behind our president and not question authority.

My thoughts some months ago was that there would be two things that would secure Bush's election as president of this country: Osama bin Laden being captured or a terrorist attack (either real or imagined). Irrational fears instilled in the masses through silly warnings of potential terror and sensational media alerts did wonders to cloud everyone's reason and blind them to the actions of the administration. An actual attack, I think, would have everyone "singing jingo-bells" all over again and we'd see more images on television of scared caucasian children holding little American flags while being cradled in John Ashcroft's protective, manly arms. A failure to react on the part of the president would, again, be another shining moment.

Don't put your "terrorist hunting permit" or "never forget" stickers away yet, people.

[iamthewalrus109]

If we do get hit again, depending on the nature of the attack, there's real potential for backlash, judging from what GW Bush is running on, namely 9/11 and protecting America. With people voting for the man simply out of fear and a "protect me daddy" mentality, it stands to reason that any major attack on American soil will evoke a strong reaction towards Bush and the Republicans, with a "I only voted for you to protect me" type of mind set there could be hell to pay. On the other hand, if the threat is iminent of a nuclear attack, all this may be void anyway. If we get nuked, even with a primative device or dirty bomb, all bets are off as far as democracy is concerned, at least in the area that's been hit, if not the entire country. FEMA and a entirely miltary government would take over, along similar lines to those that were exposed in the 1986-1992 Iran Contra investigations. The curious part about all this is the remarkable quiet of terrorists since 9/11. A few bomings here and there sure, but no major attacks, and obviously none here. It really begs the question, are these forces being neutralized or are they just biding their time?

- Walrus

[Undertoad]

The Bali nightclub bombing was as serious to Australia (and of course, Bali and Indonesia) as 911 was to the US; it killed a proportionate number of Aussies as 911 did Americans.

The Madrid train bombings were as serious to Spaniards as 911 was to the US. It led to a change in the election there that the terrorists felt was a victory. Spain then announced that it would withdraw from Iraq. And then it DID. There's your pacification strategy. What was the terrorists response?

Seven months later, Radical Islamists are plotting attacks on Spain.

(The suspects had been in contact with other individuals in Europe, the United States and Australia, the statement said.)

Pacification is not possible. This feel-good take on terrorism and how the terrorists think is at the root of the fundamental failure of half of the D party on foreign relations. Luckily John Kerry doesn't agree with it, and that's why I'll be voting for him in two weeks.

[Kitsune]

This feel-good take on terrorism and how the terrorists think is at the root of the fundamental failure of half of the D party on foreign relations.

Which "feel-good" take do you refer to?

[Undertoad]

That if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone, in a sort of modern form of detente.

[Kitsune]

Huh. Who in the Democratic party holds that stance? I don't think I've ever heard any politician in recent years state that we should not retaliate against terrorism or terrorist attacks.

[Undertoad]

Do tell, what would be the appropriate retaliation for a mushroom cloud in a major US city?


A. Petition the UN for redress against the gentlemen who have a disagreement with the US

B. Nuk-u-larize several Middle Eastern cities so the public feels better

C. "Retaliation" is the wrong concept to begin with, and exactly the feel-good concept I'm talking about. A large-scale attack on the US must be prevented at all costs. Any level of pre-emption is necessary to avoid this sort of thing.

[iamthewalrus109]

In regards to comments made about the Bali bombings, Madrid, etc.
these bomings, although terribly tragic in their own right, are not the level of impact psychologically on the world that the 9/11 attacks had, nor were they to the scale and size! Furthermore, with the exception of the Madrid bombings, none had any long lasting effects. Accordinly the Madrid bombings were not as successful as hoped, in that other European countries didn't fold on the coalition deal. The only true effect it had was on Spain in the end. Aside from confirming France and Germany's stance on involvement in Iraq, it really only impacted the country of Spain and it's involvement in Iraq, not to mention the fact they wouldn't have been there in the first place if the US hadn't gone in. Apart form the US and Britain, the coalition is really just a dummie coalition anyway.

Now, as far as Al-Quieda, Jihad, and any other organized terror group, their members need to be destroyed obviously, but to discount pacification of potential areas of recruitment is ubsurd, that is if you value life as we know it. I mean you can't kill every Arab family in the middle east and make sure to wipe out every Shitite Muslim from London to Manilla, just to make sure there's no more terrorists. Pacification of the population is an integral element of the equation, either that or non-stop war and security checks, which are only postponing the inveitable anyway, ultimate destruction. America needs to rethink its trade policies and its stance in these hot bed areas. Maintain a firm hand, but not be so intrusive and aggresive in its global trade policies. While were playing around in the sand in Iraq, the Euro is pounding us, the Chinese are screwing with Eastern currencies and not accepting US goods as heavily in their markets as we accept their's in ours.

The US needs to become more self-sufficent, period. A global economy and global free trade attitude further attaches us to situations in other areas of the world that we wouldn't need to be involved with, especially in the case of our energy needs, which in the end has spurned the issue of global terrorism. They see us as much of a threat as we see them. Pacification of other populations is depedent on a scaling back of global efforts and serious efforts to maintain our country's needs through internal methods. America has so many other natrual resources, most of all food production. With all the knowledge and know how in this country I find it hard to believe that there can't be a way to inovate and arrive at alternatives to foriegn energy products, namely oil. When you think about it this lies at the heart of the issue. America's fight against the Soviet Union and it's intercession in Iraq in the early 90's has been two of the main reasons why Osama Bin Laden chose to attack. Implicit military support to a country is one thing, but having a standing army on the soil of Saudi Arabia was another. Of course it was another Bush in all this. Reagan would have never done anything like that, nor would Dick Nixon, it was inconcievable. Granted the UN had lost much of its ability to resolve such conflicts, but tradionally that's how it was done: Military support and Security counsel action . Forget this business about the "permission slip" or the Bush Doctrine, the bottom line is: our meddling looked capricious to most due the oil issue. I mean give me a break, risk thousands of US troops to save the soverignty of tiny Kuwait from Saddam, but yet then do nothing about Saddam in the end for what: to keep the status quo. Keep Kuwait and the Saudis safe to produce oil and keep Saddam at bay with sactions and limited Military force. All we needed to do was go once, and keep acting arrogantly about what we want from these regions and kaboom! rationale for attack, and further attacks, and our reaction, grounds for even more, until every impoversihed Arab, Muslim and extremeist member of the third world wants all Americans dead.

-Walrus

[Kitsune]

I always thought that prevention of such an event could be better controlled by proper border secruity measures coupled with international intelligence that should see to monitoring the terrorist groups and their activities as well as potential hazards, such as the Russian nuclear weapon stockpile.

And, in the event that such intelligence warrants, I'm also all for pre-emptive action. That would depend on the type of action you speak of, though, but we've been doing it for decades whether it be striking at terrorist camps or arresting people throughout the world that were suspected of plotting against the US. I imagine we've done quite a lot through special operations throughout the world to help keep the US safe.

Everybody keeps acting like politicians on the national level are somehow going to attempt to work for the best interests of this country, even though they may be mis-guided in their actions. As far as I'm concerned, that's just some nice fairy tale we the people all tell one another so we don't have to recognize what a mess our democracy has become.

Walrus's comments on the international trade situation are but one example. The US stance on trade and outsourcing has hurt the economy of this country, no two ways about it. People speak glibly of "globalization." Well and good - for the big, international corporations. For the rest of us globilization means pulling the US standard of living down toward that of the third world. In my town I have seen good paying job after good paying job being sent overseas. Even MCI has outsourced its call center to Mexico. I have a friend who worked for them and recently got laid off because MCI moved its operations out of the country. I have another friend who worked in the electronics manufacturing industry. He, too, lost his job when the company moved its operations to somewhere in east Asia. He is now working another job that pays about 2/3's of his old salary. The politicians who fostered a climate allowing corporations to do this were not acting for the good of the country, but rather the good of the company.

The real wage of the average American worker has steadily gone down while expenses for things like medical care and insurance have increased. More and more Americans are now without health insurance which means without medical care. Education was once the great equalizer in this country. Each child had access to the same quality of education, and, thus, each child had the same ability to make something of himself if he put forth enough effort. Now the disparity in our public schools is astounding. In poor neighborhoods children are crammed into classroms with 40 kids or more for each teacher. Libraries in these schools lack books and computers. The well-to-do send their kids to private schools with low student to teacher ratios and excellent learning facilities. With all the best effort in the world, which child will score higher on his SAT's? The one from the inner city school or the one from the elite private school? Don't all raise your hands at once.

If Bush is re-elected 600,000 families, consisting of about one million low income elderly and disabled people will be put out on the streets or in homeless shelters or institutionalized by 2009 thanks to cuts in the housing voucher program. That figure sounds like extremist polemic. It is so high as to be unbelievable, yet it is true. These figures come form the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Here:

http://www.cbpp.org/housingvoucher.htm#Appropriations

and here:

http://www.centeronbudget.org/2-12-04hous.htm

The savings in 2005 through 2009 from all of the domestic discretionary cuts combined would be substantially less than the cost in those years of the income tax cuts just for the one percent of households with the highest incomes. In other words, these cuts are NOT about fiscal responsibility - we are spending 25 BILLION on Homeland Security alone and 200 BILLION on the war in Iraq. These cuts in housing assistance are about social policy, plain and simple. They are aimed at that portion of the population least able to fight back - the permanently disabled and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
Welcome to the America of George W. Bush Jr.

If he is re-elected I will become a person with utterly nothing left to loose.

OK, now it's jump all over Marichiko time. Go ahead, I'm used to it.

[Kitsune]

I'm still not sure that any of this will be the death of the Republican party. Hell, every registered Republican I know continues to insist that all of the problems that plague any Republican administration are, obviously, always because the Democratic president before him caused them. In fact, our economic woes are entirely due to the mistakes of Bill Clinton. Even four years of corrective action by Bush hasn't been enough to pull us out of it!

[Yelof]

Living in Portugal I get to meet a lot of Spaniards some of which have told me that the vote against Aznar was because 1)the government tried the spin the attack as being the work of ETA when evidence was already leaking out that Al Quada was behind it 2)Spain had been brought into a war 90% of the population was against, that was why Aznar was suppressing the Al Quada connection 3) Aznar was an asshole.
There was no pacification strategy by the Spanish people.
Spain did not then announced that it would withdraw from Iraq, this was always the Socialist party platform.
What would you have the Spanish people do, vote for the party that was bare-faced lying to them, that had dragged them into a war against popular opinion, that war that had now cast Madrid to the front line. I think the Spanish made the right choice..btw the Spanish have increased their troops in Afghanistan from 130 to 1000, meanwhile Portugal has 100 Armed Police apparently confined to barracks in Iraq the right wing government apparently shitting itself if one of them should get hurt.

I digress-hope the Republican party split, and the Dems too, perhaps if you had 4 parties in the US you would start to see what real democrary is like.

Viva Kerry! Champion of the Reality Based Comunity