Advice for the RNC

[Liberal]

I invite people to argue against me or offer ideas of their own. Participate in any appropriate way, but I'd like it if people were analytical and studious about it with a minimum of drama and hyperbole.

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here's what I would do.

1. Dump the extremist evangelicals

Seriously. I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to do this. I'm not saying you have to disassociate yourself with the Christian faith or anything. I'm just saying that you have to dump the people who are scaring everybody away. Dump every person who had anything to do with spreading the rumors about Obama's religion. They practically define the set of people I'm talking about.

2. Dump all the Rovians in your ranks

It did take a long time, but Americans finally became fed up with Rovian tactics in politics. This happened because you launched smears that flew in the face of obvious facts. People could see with their own eyes that Obama was not the madman or nutter you made him out to be. You took it too far, and now people are alert to it. They've gotten to the point that they presume it from you.

3. Dump the ignorant and rabid hicks

These are the people who stood in line especially for Palin rallies. Now, I'm not saying anything about Palin per se, but for whatever reason (and this can easily be confirmed via YouTube) many of the people who went to see her were ignorant, racist, scare-mongering fucks.

4. Decide what Republicanism means and stick with it

I recommend that you define it in the way that best accommodates my suggestions (1) - (3). In other words, I think you should become more libertarian, along the lines of Goldwater Republicanism. What happened with Reagan Republicanism is that you went from being fiscally conservative and socially liberal to being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. That is not a tenable position to hold in a vigilant and empowered American society. Once the social conservatives (again, identified above) get started, their tentacles reach far and deep, and they become hard to disjoin from the party.

5. Find new young leadership in the Goldwater mold

This is a really tricky thing because it involves the biggest clash of personalities. A lot of people are going to want to vie for power, and a lot of people who have power are not going to want to let it go. Therefore, if your leadership is not interested in retiring from politics, overthrow them. Put them out, right along with the evangelicals, the hate-mongers, and the idiots.

Okay...

Now, those are my suggestions. And the most obvious quick rejoinder is, "What the fuck. You're suggesting cutting out whole chunks of membership. That's crazy. It's suicide."

And my answer is that you've already committed suicide. Well, you've made the attempt, anyway. You're not dead yet. But the people I've identified above are the cancer in your system that you need to irradiate. You really shouldn't be afraid of them because quite a number of them are lemmings anyway, and if you just tell them to shut up, they will. Make up bumper sticker slogans that tie being civil to being patriotic or something.

There will, in the end, be some number who won't tolerate your new radical views of personal liberty and financial responsibility. And they will fall away. But where will they go? They can't go to the Democrats, except subversively. They can form their own party, but doing so will be an enormous expense in both time and money. And like all third parties, it will peter out anyway. Eventually, they'll just drop out of the system and stop voting. And that's a good thing.

Once you've taken those steps, you can begin to bleed people away from the Democrats. People like me, for example, who were drawn to Obama's libertarian leanings. He is, frankly, more Republican (Goldwaterly speaking) than many of you are. Anyway, best of luck in your post-mortem soul searching.

[Sitnam]

Wow. Nothing like kicking sand in the face of the loser on the beach to make you feel big.

[Ethilrist]

And how exactly do they go about cutting these people out? Suppose I were an evangelical, Rovian ignorant fuck. What's to keep me from registering as a Republican?

[Liberal]

Perhaps some sort of test could be devised. Try, for example, fielding candidates who are distasteful to evangelical Rovian ignorant fucks.

[George Kaplin]

Now, those are my suggestions. And the most obvious quick rejoinder is, "What the fuck. You're suggesting cutting out whole chunks of membership. That's crazy. It's suicide."


I worry that the Rovian, evangelical smearmongers outnumber the reasoned Goldwater Conservatives by a significant margin. They may end up kicking you out.

[An Arky]

And how exactly do they go about cutting these people out? Suppose I were an evangelical, Rovian ignorant fuck. What's to keep me from registering as a Republican?


I believe he means stop pandering to those groups and doing the old nudge nudge wink wink regarding race. As far as Rovian tactics go, well, I don't think that sort of thing will ever change, because 1. It's as old as politics itself and 2. It works, unfortunately.

[HMS Irruncible]

There was a big round of this going around in 2004. Hand-wringing and identity crisis on the Democrat side concerning how they had to shape up or risk losing elections over and over. That was a mere 4 years ago.

In that context, the best advice to the Republicans would be to act bipartisan for 4 years and tempt the Democrats into going overboard with their power, enacting hasty heavy-handed legislation to try and fix everything.

In the spirit of the OP, though, the Republicans really only need to do one thing. Recognize that government exists to protect the public good by enacting sound policy. We can agree to disagree on entitlements, what good government means, etc. But fucking stop acting like the only way to improve the government is to destroy it and line your pockets with the pieces. It was Katrina, not Sarah who did you in.

[Cisco]

Although I personally agree with you, Liberal, I think their problems are the war and the economy, both of which will be much smaller or non-issues by 2012 or 2016 at the latest. I don't believe that social conservatism, ignorant hicks, and Rovian smear tactics really hurt them all that much, unfortunately.

[Lobohan]

And how exactly do they go about cutting these people out? Suppose I were an evangelical, Rovian ignorant fuck. What's to keep me from registering as a Republican?Having a platform that doesn't include: a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman, seeking to interject creationism into classrooms or seeking to allow prayer in school, for a start?

[rues]

Wow. Nothing like kicking sand in the face of the loser on the beach to make you feel big.

There were actually a number of these sorts of threads after the last couple Bush wins, telling Democrats how to fix themselves.

In Liberal's defense, he's at least sticking to suggestions that incorporate what a large number of Republicans claim to stand for (fiscal conservatism, small government, etc) whereas the 'fix the Democrats' threads were mostly suggesting that Democrats become Republicans::shrug::.

[John Mace]

Having a platform that doesn't include: a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman, seeking to interject creationism into classrooms or seeking to allow prayer in school, for a start?

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?

[Lobohan]

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?Maybe some people would buy into the idea that they want the government out of our lives? People can be for prayer in school in an abstract way, but far, far fewer (imho) vote based on it. The good parts of the Republican party are those that are irrelevant to the fanatical cross clutchers.

Those that do are an albatross. Cut them loose and let them form the JOP.

[Liberal]

There were actually a number of these sorts of threads after the last couple Bush wins, telling Democrats how to fix themselves. I participated in some of those as well. My suggestions then involved such things as being more tolerant toward people of faith, and so forth.

[HMS Irruncible]

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?
Actually I'm not aware of that, do you have a cite for it? I don't doubt the numbers are probably higher than most liberals think, but I have a hard time believing it's a majority, at least for those who want the teaching of creationism.

[IClaudius]

A lot of it depends on how you ask the question to.

I'm not opposed to kids being exposed to teleological, ex nihilo explanations for the universe or god, in the context of philosophical discussions in school. Indeed, I would love it if schools expanded their syllabi to include a greater philosophical component.

What I think is complete indefensible, however, is trying to smuggle in creationism and young earth ideas into the class room under the guise of intelligent design. ID is NOT nor has it ever been a proper falsifiable scientific theory, so it's not science. It does not belong in the scientific classroom on equal footing with evolution; it's as simple as that. No matter how many people believe in it, it's not science.

I think the Republicans opened a Pandora's box by exploiting religious alienation from secular culture and getting these people whipped into a frenzy. They now have some degree of responsibility to create either ways from them to depoliticise, as they existed prior to Reagan, or engage in a more constructive way which isn't framed completely as them against the god-hating liberal enemy.

[Llama Llogophile]

Not that I favor this, but are you aware that a majority of Americans, including lots of Democrats, would like to see prayer allowed in school and creationism taught alongside evolution? How would that improve the Republican's chances?

Dumping those types would definitely improve the GOP's chances of getting my vote, if anyone cares.

I'm an independent who usually votes Democrat, but I could see voting for a principled conservative who has sound fiscal views.

However, if that candidate also embraces teaching creationism in science class, they have automatically attached a gigantic MORON sign to their forehead as far as I'm concerned, and will never get my vote.

A post-modern Goldwater type could tempt me though. Food for thought, GOP.

[Der Trihs]

Actually I'm not aware of that, do you have a cite for it? Yes, they do. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?pagewanted=print)

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
Americans are ignorant, and they support the promotion of ignorance.

[What Exit?]

I participated in some of those as well. My suggestions then involved such things as being more tolerant toward people of faith, and so forth.

And it looks like they took your advice in the form of Obama. Obama was extremely savvy and overcame a very tough name and a legacy of bigotry this country still has. McCain would have been the Republican version of the man reaching out to all Americans in 2000 but Rove took that from him and this time McCain lowered himself and used the Rovian tactics. It was sad to see as I still retain respect for McCain and wish he had won in 2000.

I like the platform you laid out up top, but I doubt the party has fallen far enough yet to disenfranchise what has sadly become their base.

I guess deep down I am closer to Goldwater than most politicians since. That true fiscal conservative part of the party is buried. Goldwater would never have approved of Tax and Spend but even more so he would have railed against spend and spend like Bush/Cheney just gave us. It flew in the face of Fiscal conservatives. Now Goldwater was far from perfect in staying out of other people's business but at least he believed it deep down and gave it lip service. I doubt he would support gay marriage bans and I don't think he would have made it one of his platforms either. Just my opinion of the man.

Bush Sr. was an older style Republican and man of faith. He was closer to Rockefeller Republicans and he knew that faith was personal and had no place in politics. I liked Bush Sr, I just did not like his VP who was a precursor of the Social Issue Republican that took over the party. Sadly Bush Sr. just did not have a good feel for economic issues. He was actually quite excellent in Foreign Policy.

As to Bush the second, Cheney and Palin I won't repeat my feeling about them except to say again they have betrayed my party and finally drove me from it.

Jim (Independent since February of 2008)

[BrainGlutton]

The Pubs can purge the Rovian strategists and be nothing but better for it. But to purge the evangelicals, etc., means purging a significant portion of their voting base. How will the party win elections without them?

[gonzomax]

The repubs do not have the numbers to compete with the dems. That is why they pander to single issue groups like anti abortion and gun nut groups. The evangelical group are rabid and will contribute and work for them.The repubs never give them a thing in return. The main base of the repubs are the wealthy and powerful who move the economy around to their advantage. They are not a huge group. They need the crazies to have a chance.

[John Mace]

Dumping those types would definitely improve the GOP's chances of getting my vote, if anyone cares.

Me, too, but I don't think that would necessarily be good for the party. I would also prefer that the Democrats quit harping about the minimum wage, but I wouldn't advise them to do it if they wanted to maintain the current majority...

[jsgoddess]

I don't know that the RNC has to dump anyone. I do think they might need to work on defining themselves again. Read Free Republic for a bit and you'll find that Freepers think that Sarah Palin is a "true conservative" whereas Bush and McCain aren't.

From the outside, Bush and McCain look more like "true conservatives" than Palin does. Palin's only claim to conservatism seems to be being pro-life. If that's all it takes, why not be "pro-lifatives"?

If I can't figure out what they're selling when they say they're conservative, how am I supposed to switch to them?

[foolsguinea]

My suggestion for the RNC. Finish the transformation. Turn your party into an explicitly religious, litmus-test party. Continue to feel free to imply that those who vote for Democrats are un-Christian. Nominate officeholders who will engage in Inquisition of non-Republicans. Pursue power with the relentlessness of Sun Wu, & crush your enemies if you can.

[jsgoddess]

My suggestion for the RNC. Finish the transformation. Turn your party into an explicitly religious, litmus-test party. Continue to feel free to imply that those who vote for Democrats are un-Christian. Nominate officeholders who will engage in Inquisition of non-Republicans. Pursue power with the relentlessness of Sun Wu, & crush your enemies if you can.

I appreciate that sentiment, but the thing is that without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

[What Exit?]

I appreciate that sentiment, but the thing is that without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

Sure we do. The Democrats will go a little power crazy after the country is more or less fixed. Drift back to the left and then the New Moderate Smaller Government/Pro Business/Fiscal conservative party will occur. The old Republican party will fall by the wayside and in 2-3 election cycles disappear. It has happened before and can happen again.

foolsguinea is suggesting an excellent recipe for it to happen. Then we could go back to where we were about 50 years ago with a Liberal Democrat party and a Moderate party to keep the bread and circuses at bay. Of course back then the Liberal Democrats were somehow saddled with the Southern Theo-crats. Not likely to happen this time but I also don't think the Republican party is likely to follow either foolsguinea 's recipe for suicide or Liberal's very reasonable path to retaking itself and claiming the middle.

[Frostillicus]

If the Republicans kick all the whack jobs out of their party, they won't have anyone left.

[BrainGlutton]

If the Republicans kick all the whack jobs out of their party, they won't have anyone left.

No, they'd still have the moderates, whom the whackjobs want to kick out of the party. Problem is, they need a coalition of both to win anything (well, in most states, anyway).

[CJJ*]

Here are my somewhat random thoughts on the question; what could be more authoritative than some guy on a message board, right?

First, the right may be tempted to think they lost this election only with a perfect storm of bad news: a not-really conservative candidate, a horrible campaign strategy, an "unpredictable" economic crisis, a charismatic once-in-a generation opponent. Even with all this, 46% of the electorate voted for McCain, so you could conclude the problem wasn't the message itself but factors outside the party's control. If this were so, the right approach would be to re-emphasize "true" conservative values under a new, Reaganesque leadership and fire up and expand the base with cultural issues and conservative platitudes, a strategy that's worked at least for the past 20 years..

But IMO this is exactly the wrong approach. Let's be honest: When Sarah Palin was talking about campaigning in the "real America" and "Joe the Plumber" became John McCain's buddy for 15 minutes, they were courting working class, rural white voters without a college education earning between $30-$80K a year--not poor enough to automatically sign up as Dems, but not rich enough to identify with the values of "coastal/media elites". The problem is, this core constituency is shrinking, thanks in part to immigration and changes in immigrant politics (e.g. Cuban-Americans were once solid GOP, but as Cuban families become 2nd/3rd generation and the Castros grow more irrelevant, they're becioming more politically connected to Dem-leaning Mexican-Americans). I'd also credit the growing percentage of Americans who earn a college degree or have some postgraduate education (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf)--not a knock against the education level of GOP supporters, but it seems Dems do better with higher-educated voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108043/Candidate-Support-Education.aspx). I also think the flip of once-solid red states in the South and West is more than an Obama phenomenon. More immigrants are moving into these areas, and anecdotally I think a growing class of wealthy coastal emigres to places like Colorado and Montana--think Aspen or the plains ranches owned by folks like David Letterman and Tom Brokaw--are starting to have an effect on what were once reliably red states.

IMO the GOP needs to re-think its core values and ditch the automatic invocation of Ronald Reagan (hey, it took nearly 50 years for the Dems to stop referencing FDR and the New Deal until Bill Clinton moved the party philosophically forward). With the current economic crisis, Americans have come to see a role for government; they no longer automatically swallow Reagan's mantra "government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem." Intransigent disregard for environmental issues, right-to-life spectacles like Terry Schiavo, and oversimplified "drill, baby, drill"-style policies are viewed with cynicism and disdain by a large segment of the American public. To be quite frank, it seems as if many right-wing positions during the past election were spouted simply because the base thought they would drive liberals nuts: "Oooh, those libruls are going to HATE Sarah Palin! Oooh, their going to HATE off-shore drilling!" Figuring out some way to make conservatism relevant while acknowledging the current political climate is IMO essential to GOP survival as a relevant party. They might start by coming out in favor of US infrastructure projects to boost economic growth--kind of a WPA for the new century--or offer tehir own regulatory package for Wall street reform.

Finally, I'd look at dismantling parts of the right-wing noise machine--at least those parts which seem to revel in the stupid. Yes, leaking to the Drudge Report or having administration officials go on Limbaugh is an effective way to point the base in the right direction, but it also lends credence to the loonier elements of these outlets--who besides these whackos cared about Obama's birth certificate? Insulating the base with its own news channel makes for an irresistable echo chamber, but politics is the "art of the possible"--possible in a real world, not in a disengaged internet chat room or cable news shouting match. If I were RNC head Mike Duncan (and I still had a job after this year's deacle), I'd quietly put the word out that certain media outlets are off-limits to medium/high-level party members and start grooming a new iconservative intelligensia that could articulate new ideas in a real forum away from the mud-wrestling that passes for political punditry today.

But hey, I'm a Democrat, so don't take my advice. Seriously, don't; I want you to continue to fail:-)

[Whack-a-Mole]

But IMO this is exactly the wrong approach. Let's be honest: When Sarah Palin was talking about campaigning in the "real America" and "Joe the Plumber" became John McCain's buddy for 15 minutes, they were courting working class, rural white voters without a college education earning between $30-$80K a year--not poor enough to automatically sign up as Dems, but not rich enough to identify with the values of "coastal/media elites". The problem is, this core constituency is shrinking, thanks in part to immigration and changes in immigrant politics (e.g. Cuban-Americans were once solid GOP, but as Cuban families become 2nd/3rd generation and the Castros grow more irrelevant, they're becioming more politically connected to Dem-leaning Mexican-Americans). I'd also credit the growing percentage of Americans who earn a college degree or have some postgraduate education (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf)--not a knock against the education level of GOP supporters, but it seems Dems do better with higher-educated voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108043/Candidate-Support-Education.aspx). I also think the flip of once-solid red states in the South and West is more than an Obama phenomenon. More immigrants are moving into these areas, and anecdotally I think a growing class of wealthy coastal emigres to places like Colorado and Montana--think Aspen or the plains ranches owned by folks like David Letterman and Tom Brokaw--are starting to have an effect on what were once reliably red states.


I also would add currently elderly people who are a Republican stronghold and will be dying off (literally) over the next decade or two. I do not think that being old makes you Republican. I think the current crop of the elderly grew up in a different America. As they are replaced a pillar of the Republican base will crumble. They'll have 75 year old ex-hippies instead.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Dumping those types would definitely improve the GOP's chances of getting my vote, if anyone cares.

I'm an independent who usually votes Democrat, but I could see voting for a principled conservative who has sound fiscal views.

However, if that candidate also embraces teaching creationism in science class, they have automatically attached a gigantic MORON sign to their forehead as far as I'm concerned, and will never get my vote.

A post-modern Goldwater type could tempt me though. Food for thought, GOP.
Hear, hear! And this from a Massachusetts liberal. In my state the Republican party is almost extinct. (In fact, one result of this election is that there is no longer a Republican Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives for all of New England.) Power is entirely in the hands of the Democratic party, and that's not good for the long-term health of our politics. I want to have the sort of (old-fashioned Rockefeller/Northeastern) Republicans you speak of as an alternative to crappy Democrats.

Unfortunately, I don't see a new generation of Frank Sargents and Eliot Richardsons emerging from the smoking ruins of the current GOP, at least not in the near future.

ETA: Hear, hear, jsgoddess!!

[2sense]

I think the best move for the GOP was doing exactly what they have just done: lose this election. Now instead of McCain playing Hoover fiddling while America burns they can play their old game of Blame the Dems. (Not that I'm theorizing that the GOP deliberately lost.)

I don't understand why people think the GOP would drive out or distance themselves from conservative values voters or the hate machine that spurs (many of) them. How could they replace those votes without moderating their drive for plutocracy? That drive sustains the elite support that funds the political infrastructure that makes them so much more powerful than the Democrats.

Sure there are long term demographic changes that the Republicans need to address to continue to win but ditching the "Moral Majority" would only exacerbate them. I expect the GOP will compromise their fiscal agenda only so much as the political climate requires and continue their current strategy of divide and conquer. And I expect they will continue to be successful at doing so.

[BrightNShiny]

If you run around claiming Obama is a Marxist, then I am going to assume that you don't understand economics or history.

If you run around claiming Reagan cut taxes and increased federal revenue, and you lived through the Regan administration, then I am going to assume you are insane.

If the RNC wants to get my vote, they at least have to function in some sort of reality.

[Liberal]

How could they replace those votes without moderating their drive for plutocracy?As I explained in the OP, once they re-become a party of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, they will take back many of us who fled to the Democrats. Obama's attraction, for many, is that he is closer to a Goldwater Republican than any of the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul). The social conservatives, after trying and failing to form a third party, will simply disengage from politics, and attribute their disengagement to one or another Biblical prophecy.

[FriarTed]

My advice for the RNC-


1.) Don't take advice from left-leaning, religion-disparaging message board posters.

2.) Economics & national security issues used to be yours, but you overextended in both.

Don't make promises. Set goals to cut spending & taxes where they can be cut, raise spending & taxes where they have to be raised (and sometimes they do), withdraw our military presence where it can be & beef it up where it needs to be- but make the ultimate goals to be a leaner, more efficient government; a freer more self-reliant & socially-responsible people; and a more restrained but stronger military.

One of the few things I agree with Bill Maher on- Gov't exists for projects too large for the private sector & local communities. Anything that can be done by the private sector or on the local level should be left to it.

3.) The Middle East- who the hell knows? Protect Israel, encourage free & peaceful Islamic/Arab socieites, contain terrorism & belligerency, try to get out of Iraq & Afghanistan- but how to get all this done is sure above my pay grade!

4.) Social/religious conservative issues- Being against abortion, federall-funded embronic stem cell research, gay marriage & evolution did not get us embroiled in Iraq, the mortgage & banking messes, or the Katrina debacle. In fact, it was those people who probably provided the most effective relief during Katrina. The churches were right there into it while all levels of government were getting in each others' way, turning back private corporations' truckloads of supplies.

Abortion- Latest stats show abortion rates are declining, fewer abortionists are in practice, and the public favors pro-choice with regulations. Don't yell for an outright ban- just encourage the above trend for life & against disposable pregancies. Does Gov't belong in the birth-control dispension business? Aren't there enough liberals to fund Planned Parenthood on a private level? Any gov't funding of federal planning services should still make a sharp distinction between birth control & abortion. Drugs that prevent implantation- I don't care. Drugs that expel an implanted embryo- iffy.

Gay issues- I'm almost ready to shrug on this, AS LONG AS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION ARE PROTECTED. OK, let gays get married & don't rule them out as possible adoptive parents in public adoption services. Don't allow that to be used against churches & religious organizations that disapprove of gay sex, as was done on the inter-racial marriage issue with Bob Jones University.

Teaching on evolution-creation: Not a Federal Gov't issue. On the local level, schools should teach facts, not interpretations. The age of the Earth & the Universe are facts. A process of development does indeed look like possible evolution. (Then again, it could also look like old-earth creationism.) Don't shut down student discussion or penalize students who don't believe in Evolution, as long as they understand it.

Btw, on sex-ed in schools, also not a Federal Gov't issue. Local educators need to work with families to decide on a curriculum that is accurate & thorough & essential, and respectful of moral & religious concerns.

Acknowlegement of God in the Public Sector- Part of America's heritage, done by every Founding Father & President, including Mr. Separation Tom Jefferson, widely supported by the people, recognized by the courts. Get over it.

Use of the public sector to promote a specific religion- Iffy. That includes Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, prayer at school functions. That can all be relegated to the private sector. However, historic displays that have been around for decades should probably be left alone.

[burundi]

When Sarah Palin was talking about campaigning in the "real America" and "Joe the Plumber" became John McCain's buddy for 15 minutes, they were courting working class, rural white voters without a college education earning between $30-$80K a year--not poor enough to automatically sign up as Dems, but not rich enough to identify with the values of "coastal/media elites". The problem is, this core constituency is shrinking, thanks in part to immigration and changes in immigrant politics (e.g. Cuban-Americans were once solid GOP, but as Cuban families become 2nd/3rd generation and the Castros grow more irrelevant, they're becioming more politically connected to Dem-leaning Mexican-Americans).

Exactly. Our nation is becoming younger, browner and more urban. If the Republican party continues to claim that white rural voters are somehow more American than the rest of us, they are shooting themselves in the foot. I think the most helpful thing the Republican party can do is tone down the divisive rhetoric with regards to "real America." They should be actively courting Abdul Al-Fulan in Dearborn and Lashawna Washington in Atlanta, not disdaining them.

[Syntropy]

I appreciate that sentiment, but the thing is that without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.

I'm not sure that's what would happen. There have always been factions within the GOP just as there have always been factions within the Democratic party. The GOP has always denied it, claiming unity, but now that the divide between the demagogic faction and the moderates and fiscal conservatives is so wide, why not let the demogogues split off and form their own party?

The GOP resembles nothing so much right now as "God's Own Party," with more moderate and sensible voices getting lost in the shouting for ID, anti-gay legislation and one nation under Christianity. Give them their own party and let sanity come back to the Republicans who know what it means to be conservative. Moderates and independents will follow, and I'll happily return to a party that right now scares the ever lovin' daylights out of me.

[Rand Rover]

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here's what I would do.

1. Dump the extremist evangelicals

2. Dump all the Rovians in your ranks

3. Dump the ignorant and rabid hicks



Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

[IClaudius]

FriarTed, that sounds all pretty reasonable to me.

I take you feel somewhat alienated by the sense of visceral rejection of the religious right in this thread. But I reckon a lot of that stems from the central role they played in blindly enabling the recent era - after being dangled on the knee of the Republican Party with wedge issues and polarising rhetoric they never really intended to follow through with - such as the Federal Gay Marriage Constitutional amendment.

If the religious right was slightly less credulous about this, it could still be politically active and retain most of its key position in a more moderated without facing this level of animosity. I'm secular myself but I have no problem with people of faith - indeed I think many religious critiques of the hollowness of materialistic liberalism tend to be pretty well aligned with communitarian ideas.

What annoys me is the religious right using Supply Side Jesus, without any sense of humility or good works taught in the Christian tradition. What annoys me is an inability to step down the polarising rhetoric of god-hating evil liberals. The Democrats have to do their part to not be see as accepting of faith - but I think the conservative religious movement ultimately bears responsibility for following the Republican party off a cliff.

Thankfully, some of evangelicals have started to reappraise their blind support of the Republican agenda.

[Llama Llogophile]

Gay issues- I'm almost ready to shrug on this, AS LONG AS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION ARE PROTECTED.

Maybe I'm too isolated in my liberal bubble, but you lost me here. How do gay issues potentially endanger religious rights and freedom of association?

[Maeglin]

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

I am not sure if the causality works in the direction that you suggest. For my part at least, I endure big government and vote left because I care more about social issues than I do about the size of the government. I would find it unlikely that I am the only one. I have little choice but to vote left because I simply have no social positions in common whatsoever with the right. If that were to change, so would my vote and the votes of many other urban professionals like me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

4.) Social/religious conservative issues

Abortion-

Gay issues-


I think the issue here is a matter of inclusion. Do you want a white, evangelical party? Go ahead. However I do not see that as a Republican desire. Republicans were once the party of small government and state rights over federal rights. By adopting the social conservative agenda they are anything but. All for state rights until a state does something they do not like such as same-sex marriages or medical marijuana or right-to-die (Schiavo anyone?).

Republicans have managed to become ever more restrictive of our freedoms. Those freedoms in the US encompass allowing someone to do something you may disagree with.


Teaching on evolution-creation: Not a Federal Gov't issue. On the local level, schools should teach facts, not interpretations. The age of the Earth & the Universe are facts. A process of development does indeed look like possible evolution. (Then again, it could also look like old-earth creationism.) Don't shut down student discussion or penalize students who don't believe in Evolution, as long as they understand it.

We've done this around here before and I think there is no real disagreement among anyone with a brain that creation/ID do not belon anywhere near a science classroom. Nor should discussion on creation be presented as a reliable refutation of Evolution. That said I am fine with religion being taught in schools in the guise of, say, a comparative religion class or religion's role in history and so on. I seriously doubt you could even have a history class without examining religion's role there.

Beyond that though the place for teaching a specific religion is in that religion's church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. No problems with that at all and if mom & dad want to send their kid to Sunday School more power to them.


Btw, on sex-ed in schools, also not a Federal Gov't issue. Local educators need to work with families to decide on a curriculum that is accurate & thorough & essential, and respectful of moral & religious concerns.

Well, while in general I want to agree with you I think you get far too uneven of an education when it is up to local communities to decide what should and shouldn't be taught. I think there is a base of knowledge that all should possess regardless of where you live and not open to discussion. Surely we can all agree math should be taught to every child. If some weird cult in a town decided that math was the work of the devil should they be allowed to remove that from their schools? Unfortunately many religions view sex as "dirty" or morally depraved or somesuch. Why should students not be educated on biological facts (eg. menstruation, how prenancy occurs and progresses, sexually transmitted diseases and ways to protect against such, etc.)? We are all human, denying these things will not make them go away and never, ever have I seen where ignorance is a preferred state of affairs.

Acknowlegement of God in the Public Sector- Part of America's heritage, done by every Founding Father & President, including Mr. Separation Tom Jefferson, widely supported by the people, recognized by the courts. Get over it.

Use of the public sector to promote a specific religion- Iffy. That includes Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, prayer at school functions. That can all be relegated to the private sector. However, historic displays that have been around for decades should probably be left alone.

Iffy on this myself. I do not care that "In God We Trust" is on our money. On the flip side I am not sure that a school should be getting in to prayers and such that do promote a specific religion. If your child (pretend you have one if you don't) was made to face Mecca and pray a few times a day because he/she was in a predominantly Muslim school would you be ok with it? Even if your child was not forced to pray do you think they'd be comfortable standing to the side while all their peers prayed?

Separation of church and state is a good thing and should be maintained.

[IClaudius]

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.
Wow that attitude completely stinks. Believe it or not, liberals don't believe they're cynically rounding up poor people as electoral fodder in the name of some a priori ideological agenda for big government. They actually believe in a different political and moral philosophy, which is under-scored by a different approach to political economy. That approach is not just marketed to poor people for some ulterior motive, it is directly premised on it being in those same poor people's interest.

Your application of that false cynicism to minorities is even more bizarrely repugnant, as if the mere fact of being a different race can be equated with material disadvantage, and intellectual weakness. An utterly contemptible and indefensible sentiment.

Typical juvenile South Park Libertarian abrasiveness.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Sorry, not gonna happen. If Obama would have lost, would you have recommended that the Democrats dump poor people and minorities?

This is how the game is played. Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities. We each try to whip our idiots to victory with varying degrees of success.

The ironic thing here is your evangelical hick idiot run government that espouses a love for small government managed to do quite the opposite. Perhaps by itself one of the best indictments of the hijacking of the Republican party there is.

In a clear break from Republican campaigns of the 1990s to downsize government and devolve power to the states, Bush is fostering what amounts to an era of new federalism in which the national government shapes, not shrinks, programs and institutions to comport with various conservative ideals, according to Republicans inside and outside the White House.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9307-2005Feb8.html


George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/

[FriarTed]

Maybe I'm too isolated in my liberal bubble, but you lost me here. How do gay issues potentially endanger religious rights and freedom of association?

Already, Christian-owned facilities & businesses are being successfully sued for failing to provide services to gays who want them for their functions- wedding photographers, fertility services, wedding chapel venues. Using Bob Jones University as an example, eventually there will be legal efforts to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions that are not quite churches which uphold traditional views against gay sex.

That's when it goes beyond tolerance & equal rights. That's when it does indeed become culture war.

[FriarTed]

Since medical marijuana has been brought up, I'm pretty much for allowing medical pot & decriminalizing regular pot use. Btw, I've never touched the stuff.

[Yossarian]

Those of us who want small government have found support from the evangelical hick idiots, and those of you want big government have found support from the poor and minorities.

I am beginning to think that this paradox is part of the problem. I've lived in the west and now (since 2002) lived in the south (NC and KY). As a westerner, it was easy to get along with the Republicans, who were largely in it for smaller government and had a libertarian lean. The state I live in now went for McCain by about 58% (and higher for Bush), and has anything but a small state government--I pay state income tax, state sales tax, AND city income tax! I don't complain because I like and appreciate the public services these taxes provide me (well, that and because I'm a state employee). My impression is that folks here in the south are very socially conservative and are yet in favor of big government.

[BwanaBob]

I invite people to argue against me or offer ideas of their own. Participate in any appropriate way, but I'd like it if people were analytical and studious about it with a minimum of drama and hyperbole.

If I were the Republican Party poobah, here's what I would do.

.....
4. Decide what Republicanism means and stick with it

I recommend that you define it in the way that best accommodates my suggestions (1) - (3). In other words, I think you should become more libertarian, along the lines of Goldwater Republicanism. What happened with Reagan Republicanism is that you went from being fiscally conservative and socially liberal to being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. That is not a tenable position to hold in a vigilant and empowered American society. Once the social conservatives (again, identified above) get started, their tentacles reach far and deep, and they become hard to disjoin from the party.




Liberal nails it with #4. That's where the GOP lost me years ago.

[Llama Llogophile]

Already, Christian-owned facilities & businesses are being successfully sued for failing to provide services to gays who want them for their functions- wedding photographers, fertility services, wedding chapel venues. Using Bob Jones University as an example, eventually there will be legal efforts to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions that are not quite churches which uphold traditional views against gay sex.

That's when it goes beyond tolerance & equal rights. That's when it does indeed become culture war.

This is what you call freedom of religion and association?

Private organizations can mostly do what they wish, but tax exempt organizations cannot discriminate, period.

"Religious institutions that are not quite churches" can hold whatever views they wish. Hopefully they are hating the sin and loving the sinner, as the saying goes. But if they enjoy tax exempt status, they have to work and play with everybody.

I'm not one of the people arguing that no churches should be tax exempt (I've met a few). But having that status and trying to pick and choose your members based on gender, sexuality or whatever is simply not allowed.

What you call culture war I call respecting the Constitution and obeying the rule of law.

[FriarTed]

This is what you call freedom of religion and association?

Private organizations can mostly do what they wish, but tax exempt organizations cannot discriminate, period.

"Religious institutions that are not quite churches" can hold whatever views they wish. Hopefully they are hating the sin and loving the sinner, as the saying goes. But if they enjoy tax exempt status, they have to work and play with everybody.

I'm not one of the people arguing that no churches should be tax exempt (I've met a few). But having that status and trying to pick and choose your members based on gender, sexuality or whatever is simply not allowed.

What you call culture war I call respecting the Constitution and obeying the rule of law.


Yes, it sure as heck is allowed. Tax-exempt churches & religious schools/colleges can indeed discriminate on sexual behavior & on gender. Catholic, Orthodox Jewish & very conservative Protestant seminaries do not train women as clergy. THAT is part of their religious liberties & they do retain tax-exemption. When that starts being challenged, then watch the consequences fall.

[Llama Llogophile]

Yes, it sure as heck is allowed. Tax-exempt churches & religious schools/colleges can indeed discriminate on sexual behavior & on gender. Catholic, Orthodox Jewish & very conservative Protestant seminaries do not train women as clergy. THAT is part of their religious liberties & they do retain tax-exemption. When that starts being challenged, then watch the consequences fall.

So we're clear on this, you're claiming that these tax exempt organizations not only can discriminate, but should be allowed to do so?

You're coming out in favor of what you've defined as discrimination, and decrying opponents of such as being engaged in a culture war. Is that right?

[FriarTed]

So we're clear on this, you're claiming that these tax exempt organizations not only can discriminate, but should be allowed to do so?

You're coming out in favor of what you've defined as discrimination, and decrying opponents of such as being engaged in a culture war. Is that right?

It's a fact. Tax-exempt churches can & do discriminate on the basis on gender & sexual behavior. Many of them only ordain male clergy and require heterosexual marriage or celibacy among its clergy. And that is part of their religious rights.

Did you seriously not know this?

[Knorf]

I'm a former Republican who's voted Democrat for the past 16 years. I left the Republican Party when I became extremely disappointed with the increasingly sanctimonious, divisive tone. I detested Gingrich's politics, and his appalling scorched-earth tactics. In 1994, the GOP was even blocking its own bills simply to increase the perception that the Democrats couldn't get anything done. Tom Delay -- another horrible man. Blantant gerrymandering, blatant refusal to acknowledge that the other had sometimes had a point: he browbeat his own colleagues if they didn't fall in line. Standard GOP operating procedure: demonize the other side, block them regardless of whether their ideas made sense, and present an inflated sense of your own righteousness to the public.

That is what has to go.

Here's what the GOP needs to do to get someone like me to vote GOP again:

--Adopt a policy of tolerance towards differences. Bring back the Big Tent.
--Resurrect your advocacy of smaller government, for real. Not just words. Do it.
--Resurrect your advocacy of financial restraint, and opposition to "pork-barrel" politics. Not just words. Do it.
--Reject all politics of demonization and destruction. Recognize that liberals are patriots, too. NO MORE "Real America" and "Liberals are Traitors" bullshit.
--Realize what holding the moral high ground really means. I.e., it means humbly realizing that you don't have all the answers, and that many different points of view deserve respect, if not agreement.

[Shodan]

So we're clear on this, you're claiming that these tax exempt organizations not only can discriminate, but should be allowed to do so?

Don't know about Friar Ted, but I would say yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. Passing laws that Roman Catholics have to accept women into the priesthood, or they have to perform gay marriage, constitutes an infringement on freedom of religion. Yes, that includes churches who don't accept black members or private universities that do the same.

As to the OP, I would recommend that the RNC make sure next time that they are running and a Republican is in the White House, that the economy is doing better. If the banking crisis had gone down next week instead of when it did, Cindy McCain would be looking at furniture.

I realize that social conservatives are universally despised on the SDMB, but the Republicans did not lose because of their social conservatives, and dumping them would not attract people who are prevented from voting GOP by their stance on stem cell research or partial birth abortion. Sam Stone pointed out in another thread that the McCain campaign was essentially flat until Sarah Palin joined the ticket.

I know, I know, she's terrible and evil and stupid and blah-de-blah. McCain didn't realize soon enough how universal the attacks from the MSM would be. And the GOP ought to be on notice that Bobby Jindal or whoever seems to be a possible candidate in 2012 will be subject to the same treatment starting in 2010. But responding to a loss by dumping your base would be like the Dems in 2005 cutting loose all the gays, feminists, and union members.

And it wasn't the war, either. Bush got re-elected with that albatross around his neck, and the apparent success of the surge that even Obama admitted meant that, handled correctly, it could have been a plus for McCain.

But it was the economy. McCain's suspension of his campaign was an original idea, and if he had been seen to create a credible response to the situation, he would have gained from it. He didn't, so he didn't.

For now, I would advise the RNC to sit tight. The economy is probably going to get worse instead of better under Obama, so it will be easy to blame him in 2010. In 2012, they need a fresh face - no more of these McCain/Dole clones. An outsider.

And a recommitment to conservative ideals. Limited government, cut spending, that kind of thing.

Gay marriage is not a winning issue. Didn't the propositions to ban it mostly pass, or come close to it? Unless the Dems get impatient and try to shove it down the people's throats with judges making law, in which case it will become a winning issue - for Republicans.

[DSeid]

The rumors of the death of the GOP are greatly exaggerated.

Obama won by 6%. With Democrats coming out above historic norms and more than usual GOPs staying home. With an overwhelming percentage of the Black and an impressive percentage of the Hispanic vote. And with a populus throughly disgusted by the job done by the current set of bums. A few percent different in a few states and it would be different.

To use a cliche, what the RNC needs to do is not fight the was just lost, but get set for the war to come. Focus on regaining some seats in Congress next cycle. Let the Palin contingent (be it with Palin or someone else) lose the next president run (unless Obama screws up an incumbent is hard to beat) and think of where the electorate will be in 8 years.

The GOP turnout this time really is their floor. Hardly anyone could have run a worse campaign than this one and following as unpopular a President. All they need to do is expand a bit around the margins and find a way to keep the Dem turnout a bit more subdued, perhaps a bit less overwhelmingly winning Hispanics and Blacks.

Hispanics in particular are critical for them. More than anything else they need to turn down the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Many Hispanics are actually fairly conservative and are ripe for GOP picking if not for that. And Hispanics are a growing portion of the population. If the Hispanic vote had gone differently Nevada, Colorada, New Mexico, and maybe even Florida and Virginia could have gone differently.

[Llama Llogophile]

It's a fact. Tax-exempt churches can & do discriminate on the basis on gender & sexual behavior. Many of them only ordain male clergy and require heterosexual marriage or celibacy among its clergy. And that is part of their religious rights.

Did you seriously not know this?

The original example was Bob Jones University. But I think you're correct - in my business, we call this kind of thing being "dead right".

You've come out unambiguously as in favor of discrimination. I mentioned earlier that I have not been one of the people who is against tax-exempt status for churches and such. You've come close to convincing me that perhaps I should be.

I would have previously said there is a difference between a Bob Jones University and a church proper, and maybe some exceptions should be made for the church in deference to freedom of religion. But you seem to group them together. Fine with me - I'll just be opposed to all of them having tax exempt status.

I think freedom of religion is a good thing. But now I'm beginning to question whether extending tax exempt status to religious entities is going too far.

To bring this full circle and back to the OP, this is exactly the kind of thing that I view as a mistake by the GOP/RNC.

Here I am, a person generally in favor of religious freedom, and usually willing to leave people alone in their beliefs. Now I find out it's not enough for religious organizations to be tax exempt, they seem to want to get dispensation for disriminatory behavior in the guise of religious freedom.

That's not freedom of religion, that's special privileges. We wouldn't allow human sacrifice for religious purposes, and we shouldn't allow what has been clearly defined as discrimination to be practiced by tax exempt entities.

Culture war? I didn't previously think so, and still resist the notion. But you may be "dead right" in that, if these really are conservative views, there may be a problem. If so, it will continue to alienate folks like me who could be tempted to vote Republican under some circumstances.

[Shodan]

I would have previously said there is a difference between a Bob Jones University and a church proper, and maybe some exceptions should be made for the church in deference to freedom of religion. But you seem to group them together. Fine with me - I'll just be opposed to all of them having tax exempt status.I believe the current status is that no organization that receives federal money can discriminate. It isn't a question of tax-exempt vs. taxable.

Here I am, a person generally in favor of religious freedom, and usually willing to leave people alone in their beliefs. Now I find out it's not enough for religious organizations to be tax exempt, they seem to want to get dispensation for disriminatory behavior in the guise of religious freedom.

That's not freedom of religion, that's special privileges.
I think you are highlighting a problem that many people have with gay marriage.

It is not a question of agreeing to leave each other alone. It isn't simply a matter of gays wanting to be left alone to marry, and it is nobody else's business. If you pass laws compelling churches or mosques to perform gay marriage, then ipso facto you are compelling others to comply with your point of view.

If gays can marry at city hall, then the right to gay marriage has been adequately established. If you then try to compel that same ceremony to be performed at a local mosque, then you have taken the step beyond establishing your rights and into interfering with my rights.

A church is not a public accommodation in the same sense that a restaurant or a bus line is a public accommodation. And it is afforded special protection for its operation that restaurants don't have.

[Liberal]

I'm a former Republican who's voted Democrat for the past 16 years. I left the Republican Party when I became extremely disappointed with the increasingly sanctimonious, divisive tone. I detested Gingrich's politics, and his appalling scorched-earth tactics. In 1994, the GOP was even blocking its own bills simply to increase the perception that the Democrats couldn't get anything done. Tom Delay -- another horrible man. Blantant gerrymandering, blatant refusal to acknowledge that the other had sometimes had a point: he browbeat his own colleagues if they didn't fall in line. Standard GOP operating procedure: demonize the other side, block them regardless of whether their ideas made sense, and present an inflated sense of your own righteousness to the public.

That is what has to go.

Here's what the GOP needs to do to get someone like me to vote GOP again:

--Adopt a policy of tolerance towards differences. Bring back the Big Tent.
--Resurrect your advocacy of smaller government, for real. Not just words. Do it.
--Resurrect your advocacy of financial restraint, and opposition to "pork-barrel" politics. Not just words. Do it.
--Reject all politics of demonization and destruction. Recognize that liberals are patriots, too. NO MORE "Real America" and "Liberals are Traitors" bullshit.
--Realize what holding the moral high ground really means. I.e., it means humbly realizing that you don't have all the answers, and that many different points of view deserve respect, if not agreement.A great contribution to the thread, Knorf. Thanks. Not that there haven't been others, but still.

[Carson O'Genic]

Mach Tuck, what you are calling discriminatory are age old tenets of the respective religions- if the government attempts change by withdrawing tax status, is the government not in violation of Constitutional safeguards?

[redtail23]

Don't know about Friar Ted, but I would say yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. Passing laws that Roman Catholics have to accept women into the priesthood, or they have to perform gay marriage, constitutes an infringement on freedom of religion. Yes, that includes churches who don't accept black members or private universities that do the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that private schools are tax-exempt under a separate set of rules from churches. Most private colleges are tax-exempt, including those that are not religious. One of the rules for tax-exempt universities prohibits racial discrimination.

It's one thing to claim infringement on freedom of religion for a church. By all our laws and precedents, churches may discriminate at will based on religious grounds. I've got no quarrel with that.

However, there is a different set of rules for private universities. They are not churches and don't get the same protections. BJU lost their tax-exempt status because they broke the rules for universities to receive such - not because their religious freedoms were infringed.

If they want to operate as a church, then they can have the benefits of being one. But as a university, if they want to discriminate then they lose tax-exempt status. No infringement there. Please note that the IRS never threated the LDS church with losing tax-exempt status, despite the fact that they still practiced racial discrimination in the same time period as the BJU case was playing out.

Quite obviously BJU's "sincerely-held religious beliefs" were not as important to them as their tax breaks. Can you imagine the RCC agreeing to ordain women just to keep their tax status? Because I can't.

[BarnOwl]

With all the excellent suggestions in the OP, the one thing that's missiing (I think) is the fact that the GOP is first and foremost, the Party of Wealth. No amount of lofty sounding principles can hide this.

Get rid of all the Evangelicals, the Rovians, the ignorant, the rabid assholes, etc., and what remains? The rich, who don't give a shit about anyone or anything except money, and getting more and more of it.

[Shodan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that private schools are tax-exempt under a separate set of rules from churches. Most private colleges are tax-exempt, including those that are not religious. One of the rules for tax-exempt universities prohibits racial discrimination.I think you are correct (cite (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e3913)). Churches and other religious organizations (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e4423) have different rules.
Quite obviously BJU's "sincerely-held religious beliefs" were not as important to them as their tax breaks. Can you imagine the RCC agreeing to ordain women just to keep their tax status? Because I can't.I think seminaries are also exempt from the rule -Special rule. Men's and women's organizations, seminaries, mission societies, and youth groups that satisfy (1) and (2) shown earlier are integrated auxiliaries of a church even if they are not internally supported.

[redtail23]

I think you are highlighting a problem that many people have with gay marriage.

It is not a question of agreeing to leave each other alone. It isn't simply a matter of gays wanting to be left alone to marry, and it is nobody else's business. If you pass laws compelling churches or mosques to perform gay marriage, then ipso facto you are compelling others to comply with your point of view.

If gays can marry at city hall, then the right to gay marriage has been adequately established. If you then try to compel that same ceremony to be performed at a local mosque, then you have taken the step beyond establishing your rights and into interfering with my rights.

A church is not a public accommodation in the same sense that a restaurant or a bus line is a public accommodation. And it is afforded special protection for its operation that restaurants don't have.This is absolutely true.

But I've never heard of any gay-rights advocates seriously suggesting that the government should force religious bodies to perform gay marriages. In every discussion I've ever witnessed, the advocates have stated clearly, unanimously, and generally with some forcefulness that they are looking for CIVIL rights to marriage, not religious ones.

This whole scenario is a purely hallucinatory bugaboo of the wacko religious right.

Now, I'm not including those people who are putting pressure on their own religion to change - that's a matter internal to those churches. Each church/religion is going to have to make their own decisions and take the consequences thereof, whether that's losing members who disagree with the decision, a schism, or what-have-you. But that's got nothing to do with government infringement of religious freedom.

I will grant that there may be one or two nutballs that have said churches should be forced to marry gays - there's always the loons, you can find someone that has said almost anything if you look hard enough - but nothing more.

And yet the WRR lie about this constantly, using the same argument you've presented here, pretending that there's a real risk that churches will be forced to marry gays. All just to drum up fear in their congregations so as to maintain their stranglehold on the Republican party. *That's* the sort of behavior that has disgusted and alienated the ex-Republicans that I know, and that posters above have recommend the RNC divest itself of.

In the post your responded to, Mach Tuck said (paraphrased, obviously) that IF religious people wanted to claim religiously-based tax exemption AND religiously-based freedom to discriminate for every single endeavor they might come up with, THEN he would change his mind about allowing tax exempt status for any religious entities. He explicitly stated that churches should (and do) have a different set of rules (that allow both discrimination and tax-exemption) than other entities.

Again, it's the religious people's attempts to expand their "freedom of religion" from the actual RELIGION to all the rest of the world that's causing the problem.

[Lightnin']

There were actually a number of these sorts of threads after the last couple Bush wins, telling Democrats how to fix themselves.


Most of the suggestions, I thought, boiled down to "start being more like Republicans."

[Shodan]

This is absolutely true.

But I've never heard of any gay-rights advocates seriously suggesting that the government should force religious bodies to perform gay marriages. In every discussion I've ever witnessed, the advocates have stated clearly, unanimously, and generally with some forcefulness that they are looking for CIVIL rights to marriage, not religious ones.
I understood Mack Truck to be suggesting that churches should perform gay marriage (and ordain women, and so forth) or lose their tax-exempt status. That's enough of a thread AFAICT to infringe on freedom of religion.

If a referendum were passed that established gay marriage as a civil union, and allowed pastors, imams, priests, and so forth, to decline to perform those ceremonies, then I for one would have no problem with the idea. Seems a good solution - if you don't want to support gay marriage, you don't have to. If you do, you can.

[CJJ*]

Obama won by 6%. With Democrats coming out above historic norms and more than usual GOPs staying home. With an overwhelming percentage of the Black and an impressive percentage of the Hispanic vote. And with a populus throughly disgusted by the job done by the current set of bums. A few percent different in a few states and it would be different...

The GOP turnout this time really is their floor. Hardly anyone could have run a worse campaign than this one and following as unpopular a President. All they need to do is expand a bit around the margins and find a way to keep the Dem turnout a bit more subdued, perhaps a bit less overwhelmingly winning Hispanics and Blacks.
This is exactly the reaction I was expecting from right-wing analysis, and as a Democrat it is exactly what I hope the Republicans believe.

The critical flaw in this analysis is that the percentage of Americans who would be receptive to joining the current incarnation of the Republican base--working class rural whites, think Joe the Plumber--is shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. More people are earning college degrees. There has been a higher birth rate among minorities vs. whites for decades. Urban population is increasing faster than rural areas. These trends do not bode well for a target-the-base strategy.

It is no longer enough to follow the strategy of Ronald Reagan and shout about over-taxation and big government (I'm not even talking about the hypocirsy of that position, given what Bush Jr. has done). The number of working class rural whites who have faithfully hummed along to that tune is shrinking. My prediction is a continuation of that strategy is going to mean bigger losses in the years ahead.

The GOP needs to re-evaluate their core beliefs in light of conditions in 2008, not 1980. Taxes on the wealthy were confiscatory and so easy to paint as unfair in 1980, not so much today; this explains, for example, why GOP complaints about Obama "raising taxes"--when they weren't exposes as out-and-out lies--had little effect.
For now, I would advise the RNC to sit tight. The economy is probably going to get worse instead of better under Obama, so it will be easy to blame him in 2010.
That seems like a stretch. No US recession has lasted longer than two years since WWII, and there are reasons to believe this recession has already been going on for at least six months. I'd expect bad economics to continue throughout 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, at which time the recovery is going full steam for the fall elections, when in the Senate 19 out of 33 senators up for re-election will be Republicans. If you're banking on the economy sinking the Dems in 2010, you'll be pretty much giving away the Senate filibuster.

[Liberal]

The rich, who don't give a shit about anyone or anything except money, and getting more and more of it.You mean, like, these people (http://www.worldphilanthropists.org/)?

[Duke]

I think the biggest problem the RNC faces is that it's taken some demographic groups for granted. As for just one--but a glaring one--example: Exit polls suggested that Obama won amongst "households earning more than $200K a year" by 52-46 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1). Even taking into account the margin of error of exit polls, wasn't that a demographic that McCain expected to win handily? Didn't McCain and the RNC spend a large portion of their campaign hammering away at the tax increases that Obama promised for that income bracket? Think of the message that sent: Obama promised he was going to raise taxes for that demographic, and they still voted for him! Obviously something else was wrong with the GOP message there.

I think that's but one example of why any analysis that the RNC makes has to be grounded in statistics, not emotion, to be successful. If, say, I personally believe that "taxes are bad," that alone doesn't make it an effective campaign slogan. Exit polls indicated that the majority of voters believed that both candidates would eventually raise taxes if elected. When that's the case, "taxes are bad" isn't an effective campaign slogan at all. If I say "taxes are bad and your guy is going to raise them," and the voters think, "Yeah, but your guy's gonna raise them too," that just makes my guy look like a liar who's going to evilly raise taxes. Now, how the RNC would combat this is left up to better political thinkers than me, but I'd have suggested not bringing that up in the first place, based on what voters were thinking.

I'd be wanting to do more voter analysis if I were the RNC. I'd be asking "why did we lose demographics that we won in 2004, like the over $200K income group and Latino men?" And I'd tailor the message around those analyses.

[Llama Llogophile]

I understood Mack Truck to be suggesting that churches should perform gay marriage (and ordain women, and so forth) or lose their tax-exempt status. That's enough of a thread AFAICT to infringe on freedom of religion.


Actually, I wasn't even thinking about gay marriage. It has never crossed my mind to force churches to marry anybody. I was thinking more along the lines of the Boy Scouts kicking out gay scoutmasters.

There are obvious places where we make exceptions to laws or common practices for religious purposes. Kids can take a sip of wine during a Catholic mass, for example. I'm not going to begrudge an organization tax exempt status for that. But it crosses the line when we say discrimination is OK for religious purposes.

And it's Mach Tuck, not Mack Truck. :)

[DSeid]

CJJ* if you read what I wrote as "a target-the-base strategy" then I would ask you to reread it.

More it is a recognition that their base, with even a modest portion of moderates, is still a major threat. They need to hold on to the base to win, but that can be done without targeting them. To win they need only have the Democrats become somewhat complacent and be able to pull in a few more at the margins - which is where they'll need to target.

Think of it as the inverse of the Urban Archipelago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489873&highlight=urban+archipelago) approach for the Democrats. For the Democrats the key is holding onto the urban vote and expanding into more of an influence in the expanding metropolitian areas and "edge cities" - and winning enough there to offset losses in the rural sections. The GOP needs to expand its share of the same edge cities and exurbs and in the groups that populate them. And yes a significant portion of that group are Hispanic and "ethinics" of various sorts who have not been adequately targeted by the GOP.

[BarnOwl]

You mean, like, these people (http://www.worldphilanthropists.org/)?

How smug. For every one of those Pubby Philanthropists there are hundred of other GOPers sucking the country dry.

Cheny, Bush and friends have raped this country. The oil barons write the Energy

[foolsguinea]

Finish the transformation....Nominate officeholders who will engage in Inquisition of non-Republicans. Pursue power with the relentlessness of Sun Wu, & crush your enemies if you can.I make snide suggestions as I did above out of an internal perversity. I then worry it would actually work. How much of America is ripe for fascism?...without competition for reasonable voters, the Democrats will get away with anything.

You don't want only one viable party. You really really don't.Eh. The Whigs collapsed, the GOP arose. The GOP collapsed under Hoover, & then only became the party of personal responsibility & hard money in response to FDR. The liberal establishment of the 1960's fell apart as the Democrats found McGovern & the civil rights faction, & part of the old coalition became neo-conservatives.

Eventually, the Blue Dogs or the nearly-Greens will opt out of the universal Democratic coalition so that two-party-ism can return.

The politicians don't want one-party rule either. They'll break it for us, in ways we don't yet see.

[MsRobyn]

FriarTed, I dug up some information about the case against the wedding photographer you referenced. It took some digging to find a cite that was from a legitimate news outlet.

According to the decision (http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/photography.pdf) handed down by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, Elane Photography lost on the basis that it violated New Mexico's antidiscrimination statutes, not specifically because of the owners' faith. Essentially, the state held that since the company made its services available to the public through publicly accessible means, it could not legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Elane Photography is appealing the decision but I don't know where that is or where it's going. (The text of the appeal is here (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ElanePhotoAppeal.pdf), but there's no case number.)

That being said, I don't think businesses should be forced to serve customers they don't want, and Elane was at least upfront in its refusal to photograph that particular ceremony; it didn't sign a contract then back out at the last moment. But you violate state law, as Elane did, at your own peril. (FTR, I don't think facilities that are legitimately owned by churches or synagogues should be forced to hold same-sex weddings if they're against that religion's beliefs. So sue me.)

Robin

[foolsguinea]

The GOP collapsed under Hoover, & then only became the party of personal responsibility & hard money in response to FDR.And let me add, the "conservatives" were the Washington Senators to the liberal establishment's Harlem Globetrotters for 45 years. We did OK then.

[Shodan]

That seems like a stretch. No US recession has lasted longer than two years since WWII, and there are reasons to believe this recession has already been going on for at least six months. I'd expect bad economics to continue throughout 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, at which time the recovery is going full steam for the fall elections, when in the Senate 19 out of 33 senators up for re-election will be Republicans. If you're banking on the economy sinking the Dems in 2010, you'll be pretty much giving away the Senate filibuster.

It depends - if we are not in recession, but the deficit is sky high and the economy is still limping along with less than 1% annual growth, and Obama is not perceived as having done much to fix it, he will still be in trouble. And, traditionally, the party in the White House loses seats during the mid-terms. Not always, obviously.

But we in the US are spoiled. Things have been so good for so long that anything other than spectacular growth (as we experienced under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush - yes, that one) is seen as sub-par. And I have heard a lot about how this is the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

But a big tax hike and an ass load of new spending isn't going to address our current economic woes, regardless of what Obama says. And we are that much closer to Social Security running out of money, and Medicare and other entitlements the same or worse.

We'll see. Obama may turn out to be a hell of a lot better at this President gig than I expect. If he is, then I look to the Democratically controlled Congress for the fuckups necessary to reduce the margin between the parties.

[redtail23]

I understood Mack Truck to be suggesting that churches should perform gay marriage (and ordain women, and so forth) or lose their tax-exempt status. That's enough of a thread AFAICT to infringe on freedom of religion.
The original example was Bob Jones University. But I think you're correct - in my business, we call this kind of thing being "dead right".

You've come out unambiguously as in favor of discrimination. I mentioned earlier that I have not been one of the people who is against tax-exempt status for churches and such. You've come close to convincing me that perhaps I should be.

I would have previously said there is a difference between a Bob Jones University and a church proper, and maybe some exceptions should be made for the church in deference to freedom of religion. But you seem to group them together. Fine with me - I'll just be opposed to all of them having tax exempt status.

I think freedom of religion is a good thing. But now I'm beginning to question whether extending tax exempt status to religious entities is going too far.

To bring this full circle and back to the OP, this is exactly the kind of thing that I view as a mistake by the GOP/RNC.

This was in response to [b]Friar Ted claiming that the loss of tax-exempt status for a private university due to discrimination (i.e., BJU) was equivalent to similar treatment for a church and was therefore a freedom of religion infringement. You made a similar claim in post #53.

As I said - the problem is NOT freedom of religion for churches/religions. They have that now and no one's trying to take it away from them. The problem is that some people are trying to extend their "religious freedom" exemptions to anything and everything they may choose to do.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. It is, however, part of what the rest of us are talking about when we say that y'all are shoving religion down our throats. If a religious group wants to run a restaurant, that's fine. They can't claim it as a "religious entity" for the tax exemption and discrimination exemption. It's a restaurant, not a church.

Mach Tuck clearly stated that this sort of ridiculous stand is pushing him away from believing that it is right and good that churches have their special exemptions. IOW, if anything were going to cause churches to lose those privileges, it would be due to the actions of the religious right in trying to force the rest of us to extend the special privileges already given to churches to other areas.

If a referendum were passed that established gay marriage as a civil union, and allowed pastors, imams, priests, and so forth, to decline to perform those ceremonies, then I for one would have no problem with the idea. Seems a good solution - if you don't want to support gay marriage, you don't have to. If you do, you can.Again with your shibboleth. There is no "if" about it - all attempts to legalize gay marriage have been solely on a civil basis.

THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT TO FORCE ANY RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS PERSONS TO PERFORM GAY CEREMONIES.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGAL EFFORT TO FORCE RELIGIOUS GAY MARRIAGES.

THIS IDEA YOU KEEP REPEATING IS NOTHING BUT BULLSHIT LIES PROPAGATED BY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN ORDER TO PLAY ON THE BIGOTRY AND FEAR OF SOME AMERICANS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO GAIN AND MAINTAIN POLITICAL POWER.

And, since you've obviously not been bothering to read any of the many, many posts by various Republicans in this and other threads - THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR is what is driving many people away from the Republican party. Not the economy, but the continual blatant lies and demagoguery.

[Shodan]

[b]THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT TO FORCE ANY RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS PERSONS TO PERFORM GAY CEREMONIES.
Despite the devastating effect argument by capitalization has on me, I will repost the part that led me to conclude that churches and private universities were being lumped together in the class of "Places that Might Need to Lost Their Tax-Exempt Status" -I would have previously said there is a difference between a Bob Jones University and a church proper, and maybe some exceptions should be made for the church in deference to freedom of religion. But you seem to group them together. Fine with me - I'll just be opposed to all of them having tax exempt status.
As I said - the problem is NOT freedom of religion for churches/religions. They have that now and no one's trying to take it away from them. The problem is that some people are trying to extend their "religious freedom" exemptions to anything and everything they may choose to do.So I assume you are fine with churches refusing to perform gay marriages, but retaining their tax-exempt status.

If you are saying that the status quo is "shoving our religion down your throats", I disagree. I will repeat, if a referendum were passed establishing gay civil unions but allowing churches and private citizens to opt out and not perform those ceremonies, I would be fine with that. This seems to drive you into a frenzy of capital letters - why is that? What do you prefer? The status quo? Or do you agree that churches should be able to refuse to perform gay marriages? Or do you feel they should lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to join in?

It seems a little harsh to accuse me of spreading lies if I agree that gay civil unions are fine, providing no one has to perform them if they don't want to.

he actions of the religious right in trying to force the rest of us to extend the special privileges already given to churches to other areas. Please explain this. What extensions are being claimed? Not to perform gay marriages? I thought you were OK with that. Not ordaining women? What else?

[FriarTed]

Btw, I'm not defending BJU's past racism or say that they should be tax-exempt or be eligible for federal funding. In fact, they have changed the racial policies & have done pretty well w/o federal funds or tax-exemption. What I am saying is that eventually someone will try to apply that precedent to tax-exempt religious organizations, probably even churches eventually, over gay issues. It may be attempted over women's issues first, to test the waters. That's what I want a strong protection against.

[FriarTed]

Quite obviously BJU's "sincerely-held religious beliefs" were not as important to them as their tax breaks. Can you imagine the RCC agreeing to ordain women just to keep their tax status? Because I can't.


Actually, it was important to them. BJU did not change it's racial policies at the time. It only changed them when the public fuss over then-candidate Bush's visit in 2000 caused it to re-assess the stance & change it. BUT according to the wikipedia article, it has not re-applied for tax-exemption.

Does anyone want to start a new thread on this? I don't particularly but we've hijacked this one long enough.

[Liberal]

How smug. For every one of those Pubby Philanthropists there are hundred of other GOPers sucking the country dry.It might be best to click the link before posting something ignorant. Buffet, Gates, Winfrey, and Soros are among the many decidedly NON-Republican philanthropists listed therein. Your gratuitous demographic assertions are rather useless.

[2sense]

As I explained in the OP, once they re-become a party of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, they will take back many of us who fled to the Democrats. Obama's attraction, for many, is that he is closer to a Goldwater Republican than any of the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul). The social conservatives, after trying and failing to form a third party, will simply disengage from politics, and attribute their disengagement to one or another Biblical prophecy.

It's a big country. Just because there are a lot of people who think along the lines of you and DSeid doesn't mean your group is the most significant. There is a reason the economy is considered a Democratic advantage. The electorate prefers the Democratic position. Overall, Americans like Social Security and Medicare and want "socialized medicine".

The GOP became more conservative on social issues in order to also move to the right on economics. The culture war helps them get away with their unpalatable plutocratic agenda. If they give it up something else will have to give as well. Either they'll become more economically moderate or they'll lose more elections. Obviously you are sincere in your desire for a GOP that better fits you but it's just not in the best interests of the GOP to change in the manner that you hope. So they won't. There just aren't enough libertarian types to replace the "values voters" to make it worth their while.

__________________
Just my 2sense

[Liberal]

Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.

[Do Not Taunt]

My advice for the RNC-


1.) Don't take advice from left-leaning, religion-disparaging message board posters.Maybe not message board posters, but we left-leaning types have won three out of the last five presidential elections (four of the last five going by popular vote) and completely control congress these days. So maybe we know a thing or two about winning that you could learn from..

2.) Economics & national security issues used to be yours, but you overextended in both.

Don't make promises. Set goals to cut spending & taxes where they can be cut, raise spending & taxes where they have to be raised (and sometimes they do), withdraw our military presence where it can be & beef it up where it needs to be- but make the ultimate goals to be a leaner, more efficient government; a freer more self-reliant & socially-responsible people; and a more restrained but stronger military.Do you mean at a state level? Because remember, the RNC doesn't actually have any power any more at the federal level.

Teaching on evolution-creation: Not a Federal Gov't issue. Very much a federal issue. It is, after all, the Constitution of the United States of America that forbids the teaching of religious dogma (Creationism) in public schools.

Sorry, not gonna happen.Hey, don't apologize to us. You're the ones who can't a presidential election without fluky circumstances.

[leander]

Don't know about Friar Ted, but I would say yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. Passing laws that Roman Catholics have to accept women into the priesthood, or they have to perform gay marriage, constitutes an infringement on freedom of religion. Yes, that includes churches who don't accept black members or private universities that do the same.

As to the OP, I would recommend that the RNC make sure next time that they are running and a Republican is in the White House, that the economy is doing better. If the banking crisis had gone down next week instead of when it did, Cindy McCain would be looking at furniture.

I realize that social conservatives are universally despised on the SDMB, but the Republicans did not lose because of their social conservatives, and dumping them would not attract people who are prevented from voting GOP by their stance on stem cell research or partial birth abortion. Sam Stone pointed out in another thread that the McCain campaign was essentially flat until Sarah Palin joined the ticket.

I know, I know, she's terrible and evil and stupid and blah-de-blah. McCain didn't realize soon enough how universal the attacks from the MSM would be. And the GOP ought to be on notice that Bobby Jindal or whoever seems to be a possible candidate in 2012 will be subject to the same treatment starting in 2010. But responding to a loss by dumping your base would be like the Dems in 2005 cutting loose all the gays, feminists, and union members.

And it wasn't the war, either. Bush got re-elected with that albatross around his neck, and the apparent success of the surge that even Obama admitted meant that, handled correctly, it could have been a plus for McCain.

But it was the economy. McCain's suspension of his campaign was an original idea, and if he had been seen to create a credible response to the situation, he would have gained from it. He didn't, so he didn't.

For now, I would advise the RNC to sit tight. The economy is probably going to get worse instead of better under Obama, so it will be easy to blame him in 2010. In 2012, they need a fresh face - no more of these McCain/Dole clones. An outsider.

And a recommitment to conservative ideals. Limited government, cut spending, that kind of thing.

Gay marriage is not a winning issue. Didn't the propositions to ban it mostly pass, or come close to it? Unless the Dems get impatient and try to shove it down the people's throats with judges making law, in which case it will become a winning issue - for Republicans.

I would hope that the RNC would take posts like these -- stupid, ignorant, pathetic, clutching-at-straws posts -- and run with them. We could have decades of Democratic rule.

What's truly funny is that the substance, "Limited government, cut spending, that kind of thing..." is so lacking in detail and thought, that it betrays the entire failure of the modern conservative movement. Instead of focusing on their ideals and spelling out their ideas, they have become a sad caricature of Rovian politics -- attach and destroy without substance.

Hell of a place that's left us after 8 yrs. Now ask "Regards, Shodan" what his solution is to the current crisis. He's bankrupt of ideas -- just like the Republican Party.

[What Exit?]

It's a big country. Just because there are a lot of people who think along the lines of you and DSeid doesn't mean your group is the most significant. There is a reason the economy is considered a Democratic advantage. The electorate prefers the Democratic position. Overall, Americans like Social Security and Medicare and want "socialized medicine".

The GOP became more conservative on social issues in order to also move to the right on economics. The culture war helps them get away with their unpalatable plutocratic agenda. If they give it up something else will have to give as well. Either they'll become more economically moderate or they'll lose more elections. Obviously you are sincere in your desire for a GOP that better fits you but it's just not in the best interests of the GOP to change in the manner that you hope. So they won't. There just aren't enough libertarian types to replace the "values voters" to make it worth their while.

__________________
Just my 2sense
Actually the current Republican party, the one that supported Bush/Cheney for 8 years with barely a question is not on the right on economics. They have outspent government income by a large margin and actually expanded government. They have not had the federal government get less involved in citizen's personal lives but actually become more intrusive. In practice they took the worst aspects of both parties to make a truly terrible one.
Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.
This is very true. There is not close to enough and if they drive away any more of the small government/fiscal conservatives they will be a very marginal party. A party of parts of the South and the Great Plains (and Alaska). I know they have lost a lot of the North East Republicans and look to lose even more if they went with a Rush Windbag style "True Conservative" or put Palin on top of the ticket it 2012.

Jim

[Peanut Gallery]

My sincere advice to the Rs? Uh ... it's somewhere in the Pit. not appropriate here.

I'd second what many others have pointed out here ... that the sun is setting on rich, old, mean, white men. Young people and Hispanics voted about two-thirds D this time. I hope that makes Rove lose sleep. Their numbers are only growing, and they are the future.

And Rand Rover suggested that they just have to pander to the evangelicals. It seems to me they got carried away with the pandering, and are now dominated by them. I'm still reading the Newsweek article. This bit struck me this morning...

Originally posted by Newsweek My bolding.:
But when McCain brought up Lieberman's name . . . They warned that McCain's support among evangelicals was already soft. Lieberman was pro-choice on abortion, and a pro-choice pick would deeply antagonize the religious right, maybe even provoke a floor fight at the convention. Pollster Bill McInturff told the group that a pro-choice running mate had the potential to cause a 20-point drop in support among McCain's core voters.

link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/167905/page/2)

So basically ... when it comes to pleasing R voters, Abortion is THE issue. You can screw around on any issue except that one. You are not just pandering to these people. They are running the show. Actual serious conservatives would be better served to start a new party. The R party is just the Religious Party with some other groups cobbled on the tail end.

I do not expect anything to change. Neither half of the Rs could win without each other. And while they apparently can no longer win even with each other ... its better than being totally irrelevant.

[Shodan]

Hell of a place that's left us after 8 yrs. Now ask "Regards, Shodan" what his solution is to the current crisis. He's bankrupt of ideas -- just like the Republican Party.
My guy's not in the White House. Obama is supposed to know what to do - raise taxes and transfer the money to 95% of us, more bailouts, more government spending on health care, more more more.

You and yours have control of the federal government. Let's see what you can do. Bush came up with an idea to address Social Security years ago, and the Dems blocked it. Bush proposed a bill to introduce greater oversight of the banking industry years ago, and the Dems blocked it.

Okay, you didn't want those ideas implemented, and here we are. Now let's see what Obama and Pelosi and Reid can do. The Dems have had control of Congress for the last two years, and achieved essentially nothing but jack up the deficit. That is blamed on Bush. Fine - three months from now, Bush will be out of politics forever, and the Dems have complete control of the federal government - lock, stock, and barrel.

You want to kvetch over excessive spending for the last eight years? Knock yourself out. You want to do a fuck of a lot more of it, and blame it on Bush when it doesn't work? Don't hold your breath looking for sympathy from me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

My guy's not in the White House. Obama is supposed to know what to do - raise taxes and transfer the money to 95% of us, more bailouts, more government spending on health care, more more more.

Hmm...seems to me Bush (and McCain and Obama) supported tossing several hundreds of billions of dollars at Wall Street. Bush presided over the largest expansion of government since the New Deal. Bush started a war on wholly manufactured charges that is costing us over $100 BILLION/year (that alone could pay for universal health care).

Perhaps it escaped your notice but we are in the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Unfortunately such a time is not when government can stop spending. To re-energize the economy and stop a collapse the government needs to inject money back into the system (see bailout referenced above). Even the Republicans are on board with that (see above).

Sadly your guy has left the US in a fantastically weak spot to do that. Bush squandered a surplus and grew the federal deficit to never before seen levels. He is spending scads of money on a stupid war that was of his making. That leaves the federal bank account in an awful position to now deal with the economic crisis that faces us.


Bush came up with an idea to address Social Security years ago, and the Dems blocked it.

You write that like merely proposing an idea = Bush good and Dems opposing it = Dems bad.

You need a whole new thread on the problems with Bush's proposal. Imagine he had gotten what he wanted. People put their retirement into personal account invested on Wall Street.

Whoops! (See financial crisis...retirees would have lost everything and had zero safety net)

[2sense]

Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.

True. So suggesting the GOP purge the libertarian leaning voters and go for full on theocracy is equally bad advice.
-

Actually the current Republican party, the one that supported Bush/Cheney for 8 years with barely a question is not on the right on economics. They have outspent government income by a large margin and actually expanded government. They have not had the federal government get less involved in citizen's personal lives but actually become more intrusive. In practice they took the worst aspects of both parties to make a truly terrible one.

The GOP is less populist now than they were when the Roc-A-Fella Republicans ;) were relevant. Nixon at least promised to end poverty. Bush has recklessly cut taxes particularly on the top marginal rates, gutted institutions designed to serve and protect working Americans, and tried to kill Social Security.

__________________
Just my 2sense

[Shodan]

Hmm...seems to me Bush (and McCain and Obama) supported tossing several hundreds of billions of dollars at Wall Street. Bush presided over the largest expansion of government since the New Deal. Bush started a war on wholly manufactured charges that is costing us over $100 BILLION/year (that alone could pay for universal health care).

Perhaps it escaped your notice but we are in the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Unfortunately such a time is not when government can stop spending. To re-energize the economy and stop a collapse the government needs to inject money back into the system (see bailout referenced above). Even the Republicans are on board with that (see above).What you seem to be saying is that Obama agrees with Bush (and McCain) on how this latest crisis should be handled.

The problem with the rest of your post is the usual two fold flaw Bush isn't running for office, and Bush is a bad President because he expanded the federal government, and Obama is a good one because he wants to do the sameWell, OK, so Obama has no new ideas. I can't say I'm surprised.

So, we will see how this plays out. If Obama spends money like a drunken sailor, as Bush did, and things continue to go south economically, perhaps the Republicans can do what they should have done back in 2000 - return to fiscal responsiblility. If the Democrats haven't learned from the Republican's mistakes, which cost the Republicans the 2006 and 2008 elections, perhaps the Republicans can learn if it costs the Democrats the 2010 and 2012 elections.

[Whack-a-Mole]

What you seem to be saying is that Obama agrees with Bush (and McCain) on how this latest crisis should be handled.

Or they agree with Obama.


The problem with the rest of your post is the usual two fold flaw Bush isn't running for office, and Bush is a bad President because he expanded the federal government, and Obama is a good one because he wants to do the same

1) Obama is not running for office either now.

2) You would be taken more seriously if your vitriol for what you deem bad economic policy was directed at the current Republican president as well as at the Dem for doing the same thing (assuming he does the same thing). From you it seems all things Dem are bad and all thing Rep are good.

[Fear Itself]

I will make a suggestion that goes right to the bedrock of conservative principles. Regarding cutting taxes and cutting spending:

Cut spending before you cut taxes.

The Bush Republicans were like little children who demanded their dessert before they ate their vegetables. Tax cuts were absolutely necessary, but spending cuts were always promised for sometime in the future. I no longer think any party can be trusted to cut taxes now, and cut spending later. To restore any credibility, let the GOP vow to cut spending first, then cut taxes in proportion to the spending cuts.

[DSeid]

CJJ* if you read what I wrote as "a target-the-base strategy" then I would ask you to reread it.

More it is a recognition that their base, with even a modest portion of moderates, is still a major threat. They need to hold on to the base to win, but that can be done without targeting them. To win they need only have the Democrats become somewhat complacent and be able to pull in a few more at the margins - which is where they'll need to target.

Think of it as the inverse of the Urban Archipelago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489873&highlight=urban+archipelago) approach for the Democrats. For the Democrats the key is holding onto the urban vote and expanding into more of an influence in the expanding metropolitian areas and "edge cities" - and winning enough there to offset losses in the rural sections. The GOP needs to expand its share of the same edge cities and exurbs and in the groups that populate them. And yes a significant portion of that group are Hispanic and "ethinics" of various sorts who have not been adequately targeted by the GOP.

Then again maybe I'm wrong. I mean if Steve Schmidt (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-07/mccain-campaign-autopsy/p/) agrees with me I must be making a mistake!There are many lessons for the Republican Party out [of] this election, and the party having been roundly defeated is going to go through a period of debate, and finger-pointing, and recrimination, and blame-gaming, as it seeks to rebuild and become competitive again on the national stage.

If you look at the returns from the southwestern and mountain west states, with rising Latino populations, it’s clear that Latinos are repudiating the party, their anger about the tone of the immigration debate, and the party has to figure out a way to communicate that wanting to have a secure and sovereign southern border and respect for Latinos are not mutually exclusive. But if the party does not figure out a way to appeal to Latino voters, it will become increasingly difficult, and maybe impossible, to ever again win a national election. ...

... The Republican Party wants to, needs to, be able to represent, you know, not only conservatives, but centrists as well. And the party that controls the center is the party that controls the American electorate. ...

[Voyager]

I will make a suggestion that goes right to the bedrock of conservative principles. Regarding cutting taxes and cutting spending:

Cut spending before you cut taxes.

The Bush Republicans were like little children who demanded their dessert before they ate their vegetables. Tax cuts were absolutely necessary, but spending cuts were always promised for sometime in the future. I no longer think any party can be trusted to cut taxes now, and cut spending later. To restore any credibility, let the GOP vow to cut spending first, then cut taxes in proportion to the spending cuts.

I proposed this a while back, and got no response. They know very well that it is politically impossible to cut spending as much as they want. They really want to tax cut and spend their way into such gigantic deficits that the government could no longer do anything but defense and the most basic of services. Remember starve the beast? Also remember that they were against the Democratic plan not to cut taxes unless there were equal cuts in spending?

[Voyager]

My guy's not in the White House. Obama is supposed to know what to do - raise taxes and transfer the money to 95% of us, more bailouts, more government spending on health care, more more more.

You and yours have control of the federal government. Let's see what you can do. Bush came up with an idea to address Social Security years ago, and the Dems blocked it. Bush proposed a bill to introduce greater oversight of the banking industry years ago, and the Dems blocked it.

I wish the Dems could have blocked torture as effectively as you claim they blocked this stuff. The Dems didn't block Bush's attempt to destroy Social Security - the American people did. Remember, the more he traveled to try to sell the plan, the less support it got. He finally had to admit that it would have done nothing to make Social Security more solvent, and that it would have required massive borrowing to pay for current obligations while putting new SS payments into the accounts. But Bush loves selling our country to China, doesn't he?
While even if he has succeeded it is too soon for the crash to have hurt too many people, everyone now realizes that the market doesn't always go up. I'm sure that those ready to retire who find they have to sell some of their 401K portfolio at a big loss are pretty happy that Social Security is safe.

As for the bailout, thanks to Paulson's unwillingness to put many requirements on what banks do with it, they are hoarding the money or using it to buy other banks. It was supposed to be used to unfreeze the credit markets. If Obama keeps the bailout and forces the banks to actually make loans, then things will improve.

The way out of this mess is jobs, not money for the rich to hoard.

[Liberal]

True. So suggesting the GOP purge the libertarian leaning voters and go for full on theocracy is equally bad advice.You'll need to take that up with whoever suggested it.

[Shodan]

1) Obama is not running for office either now.No, he is (or will be) the President, and is expected to implement the new ideas he claimed to have. Therefore the idea of "Bush has bad ideas" is irrelevant.

2) You would be taken more seriously if your vitriol for what you deem bad economic policy was directed at the current Republican president as well as at the Dem for doing the same thing (assuming he does the same thing). No, it doesn't help. Nobody reads my posts for comprehension, and disagreement with Bush (as I disagree with Obama on many issues) is ever enough - pure, blind hatred is all that is acceptable.
From you it seems all things Dem are bad and all thing Rep are good.

For this to be true, you would have to have examples where I said Bush's spending was good (and the Democrats' bad). For instance, that a rising deficit was OK during a Republican administration, but bad if a Democrat was President. It seems the general implication is that spending and a rising deficit are going to cease to be issues when Obama is President.

Would you care to come up with some examples of my saying that the deficit doesn't matter under Bush, or that I supported his increase in the scope of government?

[Fear Itself]

Shodan, in light of what happened with the Bush administration, do you think it would be a good idea to cut spending first, and then cut taxes in proportion to those spending cuts? Or should we just cut taxes on the promise of spending cuts later on?

[2sense]

You'll need to take that up with whoever suggested it.

Excuse me. I seem to have missed your point in pointing out that, "there aren't enough values voters either."

__________________
Just my 2sense

[erislover]

Well, quite obviously, there aren't enough values voters either.Actually, my concern is that America is turning strictly into value-voters. It works like this.

1) Take a complicated situation and listen to extremely short comments on it.
2) Relate it to some random moral position.
3) Make a moral pronouncement.
4) When people argue morals, retreat to petty issues. When people argue issues, retreat to morals.
5) When things get tough, fall back to "it's my belief and I'm entitled to it without having to defend it, cuz it's belief."
6) To complete the circle, rally against moral relativism, so that the tactics of 4 and 5 are solidified, even if moral relativism is a total red herring (see 2).

These people generally argue with wishy-washy faux-relativists who think that just because two people have different preferences that they therefore must be able to get along. They're like neo-hippies, but it isn't a left/right thing.

In any case, all anyone can manage to do is discuss morality. Pragmatic solutions based in genuine compromise are totally gone.

[Siege]

In any case, all anyone can manage to do is discuss morality. Pragmatic solutions based in genuine compromise are totally gone.
And I want them back. I want to see calm, reasoned discourse which can acknowledge that there are different approaches to solving our problems and we can't know for sure which will work, but we can decide on the most likely one. I'd like changing one's mind to be an indication of wisdom, not wishy-washyness. I also want world peace and a pony, although I'd like to think that calm, reasoned discourse could lead to the former.

I'm a centerist by nature and a fan of capitalism. If the Republican committee wants to get my vote back, here's the biggest thing they can do: stop telling blatant, obvious lies. Let me give you a few examples.

Several times during the past couple of months, while I was watching the morning news and getting ready to go to work, I'd see an ad in which Obama talked about his plans and referred viewers to his website for more information. During the very next commercial break, I'd see a McCain ad saying Obama had no plans. As an ordinary, none-too-awake person, my response to that is, "What do you mean he doesn't have plans? I just heard him talking about them."

The whole "Obama pals around with terrorists because he associates with Bill Ayers" meme is another example of this. I looked into it and it seemed to be nonsense to me. What got me angry, though, was reading Sarah Palin's response to the debunking of this whole business. She said she wasn't going to believe the AP and continue to say Obama pals around with terrorists.

Finally, as was touched on earlier, the whole idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to perform them. I got married fairly recently. My church could have refused to marry me if I didn't use the service in the Book of Common Prayer, let alone if I were gay. They also required at least three mandatory counseling sessions, six if one of the people getting married had already been divorced, and this is a notoriously liberal church. If they can refuse to marry you because you want to write your own vows, I can't see why they'd be forced to marry you because you're gay. Saying churches will be forced to marry homosexuals sounds like another blatant, obvious lie to me.

The Rovian scare tactics, bullying, and general meanness I've seen from the Republican Party over the past few years have turned me from someone who agrees with some of their policies to someone who's actively fed up with them and dislikes them at times. I had legitimate concerns about America's going to war in Iraq six years ago. Because of those concerns and my opposition to the war, I was branded a traitor and accused of not loving America by some people.

Speaking of false characterizations, I would appreciate it if the Republican Party would stop immigrant bashing. Most of the first generation immigrants I know are conservative. My own mother voted Democratic for the first time this election, although I think Dad still voted for the Republicans. Immigrants aren't just poor Hispanics and refugees. They're engineers, doctors, and other professionals and saying we don't love America and want to destroy it is, in some ways, the worst kind of slander. I love America so much I went through several months of bureaucratic hassle to become an American. Yes, there are illegal immigrants here. I don't know what percentage of immigrants in America are legal and what percentage are illegal, but considering what illegal immigrants went through to get here and remain here, I think accusing them of not loving America is also a stretch. This spring, a Republican candidate for office was running ads saying he thought people who wanted to become citizens should be required to read, write and speak English. I saw a similar sentiment from someone in the Pit recently. That's a fair enough idea, but here's my problem with it. That's already a requirement. Saying you want to make it a requirement isn't technically a lie, but it does come across as foolish or uneducated.

Finally, as [b[Friar Ted[/b] suggested, I'd like the Republican Party to stop saying they want to make abortion illegal. (Thank you for saying that, sir.) I agree that abortion is immoral, but I also know there are circumstances in which there are no right choices. I read that a woman is four times more likely to have an abortion if her income is below the poverty level. If we really want to reduce abortion in America, and, as [b]Father Ted[b] pointed out, it has been dropping, why don't we do something about the circumstances which lead a woman to consider having one? Requiring that employers provide paid maternity leave would help, even though that is more government interference in business. On the other hand, I once worked with a woman who was aware that taking unpaid time off for maternity leave was just going to push her and her husband further into debt and the prospect was daunting. Personally, I think some sort of universal health insurance would also help reduce the number of abortions, but I'd settle for some form of free prenatal care and obstetric care for those who can't afford it. If that universal health care included free birth control, so much the better, although I'm not not asking the Republican Party to support that.

Look, I like the idea of fiscal responsiblity a lot and the idea of minimal government interference. Who was it who said, "The government which governs best governs least?" Twenty years ago, I was willing to give supply-side economics a chance. I don't see it as having worked. I've seen the rich get richer while things have gotten tougher for the lower and middle classes. I strongly support small businesses and I think they're an important part of the American economy and a vital part of the American dream. I also know from working for some of them that small businesses aren't perfect and can be just as unfair to their workers as any large corporation. Even so, I think government should support and encourage them.

If the Republican Party would give me reduced or eliminated Federal deficits, something I did not see under Reagan or the current administration, and encouragement for small businesses, and no unneccessary government interference, I'd be a lot more inclined to vote for them. If they lie to me and try to scare me, I'll continue to not only not vote for them, but actively dislike them. It is possible for reasonable men and women to disagree about what the best cource of action for a country is, yet work together for the benefit of that country. I'd like to see that happen again.

[Liberal]

Excuse me. I seem to have missed your point in pointing out that, "there aren't enough values voters either."It certainly wasn't that they should "go for full on theocracy". Maybe I misunderstood you.