Give up, Pubbies, and Change the Game...

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Not right now, but say Obama does make a little headway with the economy, and continues to get better and better poll numbers over the next year--here's what I think the Republicans should do, in their own long-term best interests:

Give up. Not long-term, but for 2012. Accept that Obama will get re-elected and put up a candidate who will get his ears kicked in but whom the voters can respect. One who specifically rejects racism, rejects kneejerk support of a bloated Defense budget, who excoriates homophobia, etc. and who asks all supporters of disgusting, reactionary policies NOT vote republican in 2012 or ever again. This candidate will lose Tea Party support, and thus the 2012 election, but so what? He was probably never going to win it anyway--what he gains is the centrist vote, and makes the Republicans once again able to compete for centrist independent voters in the future, pushing the Dems a bit further to the left, and completely marginalizing the racist, homophobic, conspiracist, loonytunes wing of his party for the foreseeable future.

ETA: can a Mod change "Guve' to "Give"? Thx.

[smiling bandit]

I have noticed that political "advice" offered to the other party is merely a list of insults, misrepresentations, more insults, and short-term strategizing to the speaker's benefit.

Of course, half the advice offered to one's own party falls into the same category. The other half is merely stupid.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I have noticed that political "advice" offered to the other party is merely a list of insults, misrepresentations, more insults, and short-term strategizing to the speaker's benefit.

Of course, half the advice offered to one's own party falls into the same category. The other half is merely stupid.

What's an "insult?" What's a "misrepresentation?" You're proud of the racists, the homophobes, the mindless jingoist reactionaries, the war lobbyists etc. in your party? There are intelligent, respectable Republicans who want lower taxes, less governmental services, less centralized federal policies, a smaller bureaucracy, who have no use for the Tea Party, who make you folks do foolish things in Congress and adopt positions you can't stomach. So cut 'em loose, and have a real debate again, about the actual issues.

ETA: There's a dupe thread floating around from when I tried editing the title myself--could you kill it or merge it? Thx.

[DigitalC]

How could that candidate possibly get past the primaries? The Tea Party is going to pick the sacrificial lamb for 2012.

[Onomatopoeia]

How could that candidate possibly get past the primaries? The Tea Party is going to pick the sacrificial lamb for 2012.Unfortunately, this.

I'd really like to see Romney become the Republican nominee. I simply don't see him making it through the primaries.

[China Guy]

I think the OP is saying take the high road. Personally, I would love to see the tea party take the low road and get their asses handed to them.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

the tea party take the low road

I'm sure the tea party is headed down that road, but yes I'm saying 2012 may be the Republicans' chance to become a real Party again, not one that rants and raves and postures and blunders and appeals to thugs. Cut the TP loose, and claim the center/Independent vote. Let Romney run for the nomination owning up to health care in Massachusetts, proposing his own additions and subtractions to the Dems' ideas, instead of backtracking idiotically and saying shit that doesn't even make sense to him, for example. Run on who you are, not who the fringe of your your Party thinks they want.

[SenorBeef]

One who specifically rejects racism, rejects kneejerk support of a bloated Defense budget, who excoriates homophobia, etc. and who asks all supporters of disgusting, reactionary policies NOT vote republican in 2012 or ever again.

This is a non-trivial demographic. If you had to take a guess, what percentage of republican voters do you think falls under that category?

Do you think it's less than the potential number of moderates who might swing to the republicans if they purged those members?

If not, then it's not rational (assuming the only goal is to keep them in power) - at least in the immediate term - to make this tradeoff, which is why I suspect they're not trying to do it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Well, that's what I'm arguing, that the tradeoff might make sense, in the long run, politically, and this way you get your self-respect back.

If your response is "BUT that's who I am, I AM a little bit racist, and certainly more than a little bit homophobic, and I LIKE reactionary thinking..." then you're the problem (with the Republican Party and with current political discourse generally). My belief is that real conservatives deserve the chance to debate their real beliefs with real liberals, and the loonytunes deserve marginalization. I'd like it if a Republican were able to get elected (though I probably wouldn't vote for one in most elections) and I didn't have to fear he'd feel obliged to do something stupid and destructive in office just to mollify his base.

[Smapti]

Put up a candidate who will get his ears kicked in but whom the voters can respect. One who specifically rejects racism, rejects kneejerk support of a bloated Defense budget, who excoriates homophobia, etc. and who asks all supporters of disgusting, reactionary policies NOT vote republican in 2012 or ever again. This candidate will lose Tea Party support, and thus the 2012 election, but so what?

So the party insiders decide that the candidate lost BECAUSE of those platforms, and therefore pledge to commit themselves even more to whackjobbery in the future?

[Muffin]

In Canada, the reactionary wing of the Conservatives left the party, and later came back to take it over. They had difficulty winning a majority in the federal elections because the public preferred liberal social policy and were concerned that the reconstituted Conservatives would set us back socially. Once it became clear that the Conservatives would move forward with conservative economic policy (including free trade), but not set back liberal social policy (e.g. social health care, abortion, and gay rights), they won a resounding majority.

When I look south of the border, I see a federal Republican party that is bat-shit crazy. I think that if they want to improve their standing at the polls, they need to build a track record of conservative economic policy (as opposed to talking the talk but not walking the walk), and dump the insane and hateful social policy.

Running candidates like Palin, who proved herself to be dumber that dog shit, makes the Republican party an easy target for the Democrats. Just ask yourself why Obama spent so much time focusing on Birther Trump at the White House Correspondents' dinner -- it was to show just how whacky the Republican Party is.

I think that any party in a first-world country should take a long, hard, look at what is going on in other first world countries. What is working elsewhere? What is not working elsewhere? What is making people in these countries satisfied or unsatisfied? In what direction have other first world countries moved in the last five, ten, twenty-five and fifty years, and in what direction are the moving now? By doing so, a party will have a better chance at picking a course that will appeal to the public. Instead of doing this, I see the Republican party closing its eyes and ears, and falling back on the politics of fearmongering, which makes for Fox headlines and talk-show radio diatribes, but does little to attract people who are looking for a well run country that is financially responsible and on par socially with the rest of the first world.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

That's pretty well-said, Muffin. I yield the floor to the honorable gentleman from Canada...

[Muffin]

There are fringes on each side of any party. One of the Republican's fringes is the Tea Party and their ilk. Another of their fringes are regular folks who want a better economy for themselves and their children, and a government that is tightened up a bit and keeps out of their faces while at the same time provides core services, such as social security and health care. These two fringes conflict with each other. The Republican Party should decide which fringe to dump so that the gain in votes from the opposite fringe will lead to a net gain in votes for the party in elections against the Democrats.

In a two party system, the ruling party has to rule from the centre if it wishes to be elected on an ongoing basis, and thereby can usually only make incremental shifts in major economic and social policy at any given time. In short, the Republicans need to decide if they wish to be the ruling party, or if they wish to be the protest party that nips at the heels of the ruling party.

[DigitalC]

They are so bad at ruling and so good at nipping though.

[smiling bandit]

What's an "insult?" What's a "misrepresentation?" You're proud of the racists, the homophobes, the mindless jingoist reactionaries, the war lobbyists etc. in your party?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Muffin]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Which one?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Let me get this straight: A) you're denying that there is a sizable strain of racism in the Tea Party's antipathy to Obama that goes beyond mere policy difference? Or B) you're okay with the TP being characterized as totally non-racist in their criticism of the President? Let's start there. If A) we have a discussion, if B) you're a racist (or an apologist for racists) in my estimation, so no need for further discussion.

We can do all of these in turn, and I'll start somewhere else if you'd rather.

[foolsguinea]

What's an "insult?" What's a "misrepresentation?" You're proud of the racists, the homophobes, the mindless jingoist reactionaries, the war lobbyists etc. in your party? There are intelligent, respectable Republicans who want lower taxes, less governmental services, less centralized federal policies, a smaller bureaucracy, who have no use for the Tea Party, who make you folks do foolish things in Congress and adopt positions you can't stomach. So cut 'em loose, and have a real debate again, about the actual issues.Are these respectable Republicans politically active?I'm sure the tea party is headed down that road, but yes I'm saying 2012 may be the Republicans' chance to become a real Party again, not one that rants and raves and postures and blunders and appeals to thugs. Cut the TP loose, and claim the center/Independent vote.This won't work, because of populist party process. The folks who show up do the nominating, and the TEA nonsense is consistent with the base. The TEA Party swung toward the religious conservative platform because that's where the base of politically active citizens already was. The people that are organized really want this crap, and I don't know if there is an opening in the two-party system for an old-fashioned GOP any more than for the Whigs or the Bull Moose.Let Romney run for the nomination owning up to health care in Massachusetts, proposing his own additions and subtractions to the Dems' ideas, instead of backtracking idiotically and saying shit that doesn't even make sense to him, for example. Run on who you are, not who the fringe of your your Party thinks they want.You give Romney too much credit. He was always against UHC, and later claimed for political reasons to have instituted in Mass. after in reality fighting against it.

So long as the Dems are the party of social deviants, & the GOP plays to the religious right; and the GOP protects defense-contractor jobs programs; it would be incredibly hard for the GOP to swing "too far" to the right for the southern & central US. There is a solid base—a plurality of voters, and a majority of the party in those regions—that will identify not as centrist but as hard right, who do not think that "too far to the right" is an insult, but rather think it desirable. And among these are those who may disagree with most of the GOP program but find it incomprehensible that the party of queers, baby-killers, & (putatively inefficiency-causing, price-fixing, business-destroying) labor unions might be closer to their beliefs on other issues.

The best thing the GOP can do, unfortunately, is keep the pork overflowing & the race- and church-based dog whistles blowing, and demonize, demonize, demonize the Dems. Just stay short of actually re-instituting slavery or actually banning all contraception, and never, never, NEVER admit a Demoncrat has a good idea.

Refuge in audacity has worked amazingly well so far. The Righties have destroyed the New Deal majority; do you really think a bunch of peacenik tree-hugger ladyboys have a hope in Hell?

[foolsguinea]

That said, I speak of Dixie and the Plains. What you propose might work in the Northeast and Midwest.

So, never mind, ymmv.

But I laugh at your characterization of "real conservatives" as somehow not socially conservative racists. :rolleyes:

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

NEVER admit a Demoncrat has a good idea.


Nice spelling (if this isn't just a typo).

I agree that the odds are very much against the Pubbies coming to this understanding in the next few months--just look at Smiling Bandit's silly and defensive denials that I've even identified the root problem accurately--but if we're lucky, and they get their clock cleaned in 2012, and in 2016, and in 2020, and several intervals in between, even the Pubbies will see their strategy no longer works. I'm just looking for a shortcut.

[Czarcasm]

Ghod, it would be nice if the Repubs would run someone who wasn't bullgoose loony. Just once I'd like to be able to choose between two candidates that make me think about the issues at hand, instead of automatically choosing one just because the other one is a fucking embarrassment to the human race.

[Boyo Jim]

... My belief is that real conservatives deserve the chance to debate their real beliefs with real liberals, and the loonytunes deserve marginalization. I'd like it if a Republican were able to get elected (though I probably wouldn't vote for one in most elections) and I didn't have to fear he'd feel obliged to do something stupid and destructive in office just to mollify his base.

"Real" conservatives have a better chance of taking over the Democratic party than they do of taking back the Republican party. Many if not most of them have already left the Republican party and call themselves independent. And the Democrats have been moving to the right ever since Carter.

[elucidator]

That's your "centrist", "business friendly", menshevik, three legged dead Blue Dog Clintonista Democrats. The Pubbies had been killing them with money for years, corporate money can only be had for a price. The Devil aready owned the Republicans, now he buys half the Democrats. And with the floodgates opened with Citizens United, it will only get worse.

The Tea Party is, at least to some degree, a creature of money. Its about fifty percent astroturf, twenty percent press releases, and thirty percent people. The instant the words appeared, corporate money flooded into lobbying firms like good ol' Dick Armey. They rented the buses, hired the halls, hired the professionals, put out the slick brochures...the Emperor's clothes.

And they control the Tea Party only in the sense that they control the front organizations that presume to speak on their behalf. Did you know the Tea Party had a firm stance on net neutrality, one that slavishly favors Comcast? Dick Armey told me so, the Tea Party Express. Turns out the Tea Party, unlike many of the rest of us, totally loves their cable company. Wow.

Lastly, on Tea Party racism and Obama: I don't quite buy it. Some, sure, but racism is so utterly unacceptable, not even racistcs can admit to themselves the truth of it. I think the Tea Party dislikes Obama because he represents change, and his skin tone is merely another aspect of change. But, of course, that's taking thier inventory, so who knows?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Yeah, but "change" is itself a none too thickly veiled euphemism. Do I want "change"? What does it matter? Things are going to change whether I like it or not--but if I oppose change, in principle, then I can justify keeping things the way they are, or better yet strive towards the way things USED to be, and perpetuate the status quo, without ever discussing the concept of race at all. Just look at Trump's dumb call for colonizing one's defeated enemies in war--it's an absurdly racist argument, but it's all about doing things "the old-fashioned way" that we've changed (for sound reasons) decades ago.

[Renee]

The Tea Party folks I know are openly racist. What's funny about it though, is if you asked them "are you a racist?" they would say no. But then they constantly and causally make extremely racist comments in casual conversation and call Obama a nigger. So perhaps they aren't willing to admit they are racist, but they don't make any attempt to hide their racism, either, like they think that people won't notice, or something. It's disgusting.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Not right now, but say Obama does make a little headway with the economy, and continues to get better and better poll numbers over the next year--here's what I think the Republicans should do, in their own long-term best interests

By contrast, what do you think the Republicans should do if Obama doesn't make headway wth the economy?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I still think they should straighten up and fly right, but if there's much of a chance that they could win the White House in 2012, then I'd think they should do whatever they can do to do so. Sometimes, though, you need to assess and drop back and punt, and I think this may be case in 2012. Purging the party of racists, idiots, homophobes, etc. could pay off for them in 2016, and if they're not risking much by doing so in 2012, then why not do that? They'd score big points just for the courageousness alone, much less the policy advantages.

[DigitalC]

There are too many racists, idiots, homophobes and just plain ignorant people to simply "purge" them. Elections are TOO close for any party to willingly give up a large portion of their base. The Tea Party is going to lose all their corporate big money support if they continue to nominate unelectable idiots, then they'll just go back to being regular republicans.

[Little Nemo]

As a Republican, I hope the OP's advice isn't followed. Because I keep hoping to get my party back.

The nuts have taken over the asylum. But they keep refusing to admit that's a problem. I was hoping that 2008 would be a wake-up and moderate Republicans would start asserting themselves again.

But apparently the nuts felt the problem was they weren't crazy enough. So they fired up the Tea Party and the Birthers.

I think Obama is going to win in 2012. If the conservatives back off and a moderate runs against Obama, the nuts will use this as an excuse to continue the insanity. They'll be claiming, "See? We tried it your way and we lost. Now let's do it our way." rather than admit the real problem is they've been doing it their way for thirty years and it isn't working.

So what we need is to let the conservatives take their best shot in 2012. Let them run Palin or Trump or Bachmann or Santorum or Paul or whatever true believer they want.

Then, when they lose, there may finally be a window for the grown-ups to step in and take over again.

[Lantern]

I think Obama will win quite easily in the end but it would be crazy for the GOP to "give up" on the election. That's not how politics works. Obama is far from invincible and there could always be events which make the election much closer. If he wins, the GOP will still be best served in 2016 if they fight hard to win in 2012.

Also giving up on the Tea Party and social conservatives is terrible advice. That is the base of the Republican party and if the party abandons they will lose a huge source of energy and money. There is no guarantee that they will make up for this with centrists. Pretty much by definition centrists are less committed to either party and therefore less likely to give money. Secondly the center is where this is most competition and getting extra votes is the hardest.

What any party needs to do is find a balance between its base and independents. This means picking issues which appeal to the base without alienating independents and those which appeal to independents without alienating the base. I think Rove/Bush did a good job of figuring it out but their strategy has run its course and someone will have to figure out a new strategy.

One problem is that the Bush strategy of tax cuts and higher spending can only work if you have the great good fortune of staring off with massive surpluses thanks to your predecessor. Secondly attracting Hispanics was a major part of the Rove strategy and Bush made a sincere effort towards immigration reform. The base swatted this down and now someone will have to figure out a new way of attracting Hispanics without alienating the base.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

There is no balance between the base and independents. It's like you were counseling the Democratic Party to find a position that takes in the Blue Dogs and the hard-core Marxists. Instead they have essentially cut loose the Marxists, and gone for the bluedogs, the centrists, the traditional Democrats, who have some policy issues in common.

Look, all i'm asking here is that the republicans take this opportunity to repudiate racism and homophobia, etc. , not with words but with deeds, by putting up a candidate whose record is strong on that front. That shouldn't be so hard, if they're really committed to the values they sometimes claim.

[DigitalC]

And when that candidate gets crushed by Obama who do you think is going to come roaring back?

[Lantern]

There is no balance between the base and independents. It's like you were counseling the Democratic Party to find a position that takes in the Blue Dogs and the hard-core Marxists. Instead they have essentially cut loose the Marxists, and gone for the bluedogs, the centrists, the traditional Democrats, who have some policy issues in common.

The Republican base is not that different today from 2000 or 2004 and they managed to win the Presidency. For that matter they managed to win in 2010. The Tea Party is not remotely as toxic as "hardcore Marxists" and the latter have never been part of the Democratic base anyway.

[Little Nemo]

The Republican base is not that different today from 2000 or 2004 and they managed to win the Presidency. For that matter they managed to win in 2010. The Tea Party is not remotely as toxic as "hardcore Marxists" and the latter have never been part of the Democratic base anyway.The Democratic candidate won in 1992, 1996, and 2008. Bush won in 2000 but don't forget that was by the Electoral College vote - more people voted for Gore. Bush was re-elected in 2004 but most Presidents get re-elected - Bush was re-elected by the smallest percentage of any President in hisotry.

But the Republican party refuses to face unpleasant realities like this. They act like the voters are solidly behind them and they don't have to change a thing.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The Tea Party is not remotely as toxic as "hardcore Marxists"

The Tea Party--and for simplicity's sake, let's say that they're the 14% who refuse to give up on "Obama's not an American" today--are the most thoroughly evil, openly racist, toxic, destructive and irredeemable group on the political scene today. Any of them, and possibly any of those who would be associated with them, deserves to be cut loose by any political party that strives for respectibility.

[Onomatopoeia]

Look, all i'm asking here is that the republicans take this opportunity to repudiate racism and homophobia, etc. , not with words but with deeds, by putting up a candidate whose record is strong on that front. That shouldn't be so hard, if they're really committed to the values they sometimes claim.I'm right there with you man, but it is simply not going to happen. The racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and misogynists are too significant a portion of the party to be expunged. Doing so at this point will destroy the party, and they know it. I'm afraid the Republican party's course is all but inexorable at this point. All that can be hoped for is the party to suffer successive losses in upcoming elections to provoke a self assessment. It's not going to happen from the outside.

And when that candidate gets crushed by Obama who do you think is going to come roaring back?This is quite right. I think the worst thing the Republicans can do, for themselves and for the country, is to lose with a moderate. Let them lose with a Bachman, or a Palin, or a Trump, or a Santorum; someone who speaks for the radical base. Perhaps that'll give them the gut check they need.

The Republican base is not that different today from 2000 or 2004 and they managed to win the Presidency.The base is much more openly racist now. that matter they managed to win in 2010. The Tea Party is not remotely as toxic as "hardcore Marxists"Cite? and the latter have never been part of the Democratic base anyway.Perhaps not never, but certainly not lately.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I'm right there with you man, but it is simply not going to happen.

Oh, I don't think this is going to happen either. I'm just pointing out that this is a good moment--for their sake and the sake of the country--for them to do some serious self-assessment and re-configuration, which they would do if they were smart.

But if they were smart, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

[Lantern]

The Tea Party--and for simplicity's sake, let's say that they're the 14% who refuse to give up on "Obama's not an American" today--are the most thoroughly evil, openly racist, toxic, destructive and irredeemable group on the political scene today. Any of them, and possibly any of those who would be associated with them, deserves to be cut loose by any political party that strives for respectibility.

By toxic I mean politically toxic as in how much they harm the Republican party in elections. I am not referring to their policy positions which I think are completely misguided. To put concrete numbers the Tea Party polls 33-47 in the latest polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm). This is pretty unpopular but hardly toxic. It's a bit better than ,say, Nancy Pelosi's poll numbers (http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm#Pelosi). Nancy Pelosi Democrats are pretty unpopular with independents but they are a crucial part of the Democratic coalition. Obama could never win without them. What he will do is balance his positions so he appeals both to them and to independents. That is what a Republican will have to figure out. I agree it's not going to be easy which is why they will probably lose in 2012. However dumping the Tea Party is simply not an option; it will make them completely irrelevant.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

However dumping the Tea Party is simply not an option; it will make them completely irrelevant.

I agree. The schism will cause the Republican Party to get killed in the short term. But there's only so much you can get beaten in the 2012 election--losing is losing, whether it's by 5% or 15%. If they were willing to alienate the 15%, I think they could make a move towards the center that would partly compensate for their losses on the extreme right, and they could build on that in succeeding elections. Going further and further to the right seems limited for them, and makes a mockery of the elective process. It's getting to the point where some Democrats' slogans can be simply "Folks--I'm not completely out of my skull!"

[DigitalC]

Oh, I don't think this is going to happen either. I'm just pointing out that this is a good moment--for their sake and the sake of the country--for them to do some serious self-assessment and re-configuration, which they would do if they were smart.

But if they were smart, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I think it's the worst possible moment. Ditching the crazy wing at this point would ensure they control the party for the next 20 years.

[Frank]

This thread has got me wondering why the SDMB does not have a "Humor" forum. This is exactly what we went through some years ago when Republicans were helpfully offering Democrats the advice that the way for the Democratic Party to gain votes was to become more Republican.

We followed that advice; many Democrats were elected to the Senate and the House in '06 and '08 that were virtually indistinguishable from Republicans--indistiguishable to such an extent that they did not support Democrat stances that might cause them to lose their seat. Which they lost any anyway; voters said, "Why not elect a real Republican?"

We got our ass kicked last year. Yet here we are, criticizing the stances of the Republican party that kicked our ass and suggesting that if they want to kick our ass in future, they need to change their policies from those that demonstratively worked to kick our ass six months ago.

Humor, indeed. Bitter humor, but still . . .

Let's offer our positives instead. Let's say, "We are Democrats; this is what we stand for; this is what we will do." Then do it.

[Inner Stickler]

Yeah, that'll work.

(At this point, I'm hoping that most of the racist, homophobic, christian nuts decide to collectively off themselves in an attempt to hasten the rapture and then maybe we can get shit done.)

[DigitalC]

This thread has got me wondering why the SDMB does not have a "Humor" forum. This is exactly what we went through some years ago when Republicans were helpfully offering Democrats the advice that the way for the Democratic Party to gain votes was to become more Republican.

We followed that advice; many Democrats were elected to the Senate and the House in '06 and '08 that were virtually indistinguishable from Republicans--indistiguishable to such an extent that they did not support Democrat stances that might cause them to lose their seat. Which they lost any anyway; voters said, "Why not elect a real Republican?"

We got our ass kicked last year. Yet here we are, criticizing the stances of the Republican party that kicked our ass and suggesting that if they want to kick our ass in future, they need to change their policies from those that demonstratively worked to kick our ass six months ago.

Humor, indeed. Bitter humor, but still . . .

Let's offer our positives instead. Let's say, "We are Democrats; this is what we stand for; this is what we will do." Then do it.

I don't think this thread has anything to do with wanting to help Republicans win, it's more about wanting them to stop being evil assholes.

[ElvisL1ves]

That's pretty well-said, Muffin. I yield the floor to the honorable gentleman from Canada...That's "The great state of Canada", please. ;)

The OP? Proof that Dem supporters can, um, show feigned concern over the other party's fortunes as well as the GOP side can. Meh.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Well, yeah, except that I'm plainly saying this would be a good and brave thing for the Pubbies to consider for the country, if they're serious about returning to debating policies rather than nutjob personal stuff*, and only incidentally not such a terrible thing for the Republican party.

*They're not.

[Boyo Jim]

Hey, if they were really serious about improving the country, we'd see mass suicide on a scale that would put Jim Jones to shame.

[Little Nemo]

Well, yeah, except that I'm plainly saying this would be a good and brave thing for the Pubbies to consider for the country, if they're serious about returning to debating policies rather than nutjob personal stuff*, and only incidentally not such a terrible thing for the Republican party.

*They're not.Keep in mind that many of us are not happy with what some conservatives have done with our party. I'd like to see us getting back to offering constructive government.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I have Republicans like you in mind. Probably not enough of you.

[Boyo Jim]

Keep in mind that many of us are not happy with what some conservatives have done with our party. I'd like to see us getting back to offering constructive government.

I find it interesting that you call the wackos "some conservatives" instead of wackos.

[Little Nemo]

I find it interesting that you call the wackos "some conservatives" instead of wackos.There's all kinds of wackos in the world. The wackos that are wrecking the Republican Party are specifically conservatives.

[Shodan]

The nuts have taken over the asylum. But they keep refusing to admit that's a problem. I was hoping that 2008 would be a wake-up and moderate Republicans would start asserting themselves again.

But apparently the nuts felt the problem was they weren't crazy enough. So they fired up the Tea Party and the Birthers.
And regained control of the House, and picked up several seats in the Senate.

Maybe this thread would have made sense if it were started in 2006, or 2008, or 2009, or before November 2010.
I think Obama is going to win in 2012.
You may be right, but I suspect that has much more to do with the advantages of being the incumbent than this stuff about how the Tea Party is evil and rotten and all that shit.
They'll be claiming, "See? We tried it your way and we lost. Now let's do it our way." rather than admit the real problem is they've been doing it their way for thirty years and it isn't working.Don't know about the 'not working" part. Thirty years ago that evil extremist Reagan was President, and most sensible people agree that that worked out pretty well, for the country and the GOP. Bush Sr., a more moderate Republican, did not work out quite so well - once Reagan's coattails wore off, he lost. So did another moderate Republican, Dole.

Then another evil extremist - Gingrich - became the most powerful Republican in the land, and the evilextremistblahblahblah Republicans took over the House and Senate with their Contract with America. And balanced the budget, passed welfare reform, etc.
Then, when they lose, there may finally be a window for the grown-ups to step in and take over again.The difficulty with this analysis IMO is that the biggest problem facing the country is one that only grown-ups can solve. It's the deficit, and Obama and the other Democrats are not trying to solve it. The Tea Partiers are, and the great danger is that spendthrifts like Obama and Co. will regain enough control to be able to undo the very minimal amount of progress that has been made.

Regards,
Shodan

[Little Nemo]

The problem Shodan is that I think a political party should represent something more than the ability to win elections. It should represent the ability to run a country and I think we've lost that.

I don't think Reagan was a good President or a good influence. He started the idea of denying reality which has become a pillar of the party - the confusion between saying something that's believable and saying something that's true. Reagan was believable but he wasn't true.

[Shodan]

The problem Shodan is that I think a political party should represent something more than the ability to win elections. It should represent the ability to run a country and I think we've lost that.It remains to be seen if either the GOP or the Democrats can govern like adults. That why I mentioned the deficit.

The deficit has to be dealt with, and mostly by entitlement cuts. No matter who makes those cuts, it will hurt them politically. But they have to be made.

The SDMB is more or less correct when they say "you cannot balance the budget with tax cuts". But they are wildly wrong to say that "we can balance the budget by taxing the rich".

We have to raise taxes on the middle class, and/or cut entitlement spending on the middle class. That means that, whichever party does it, has to do it to the very people who voted them into office. Obama and the Dems took over on the premise that they were going to borrow and spend a whole shitload of money, and then, when the recession was over, mumblemumblemumble... Well, the recession is over, and the only thing they have done is pass Obamacare, which will be deficit neutral, providing they cut Medicare by very significant amounts. The Medicare Sustainable Growth Act has been ignored for the last eight or nine years, no matter whether the GOP or the Democrats control Congress.

The Tea Party is the only group that is (IMO) acting like grown-ups. The Dems didn't even pass a farging budget for 2010. Because it was an election year. That's not acting like a party that represents more than winning elections.

I can certainly see a scenario where the Tea Party makes a lot of painful cuts. And the Dems attack them for it, and the MSM does the same, and the extreme lefties blow a gasket screaming. And then the Dems take Congress back. And start restoring all the cuts, at least those that affect their constituents.

And the country goes bankrupt. Almost literally.

But hey - we got bin Laden, so vote Democratic!

Regards,
Shodan

[Frostillicus]

One who specifically rejects racism, rejects kneejerk support of a bloated Defense budget, who excoriates homophobia, etc. and who asks all supporters of disgusting, reactionary policies NOT vote republican in 2012 or ever again.



In other words, the Republicans should nominate a non-Republican.

[The Hamster King]

The difficulty with this analysis IMO is that the biggest problem facing the country is one that only grown-ups can solve. It's the deficit ... .No, actually, that's NOT the biggest problem facing the country. The biggest problem facing the country is that we're in the middle of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

And you know what ended the Great Depression? Massive deficit spending by the government ... aka, World War II.

There's a time and place for getting the deficit under control. Now is not it.

[Zeriel]

Don't know about the 'not working" part. Thirty years ago that evil extremist Reagan was President, and most sensible people agree that that worked out pretty well, for the country and the GOP. Bush Sr., a more moderate Republican, did not work out quite so well - once Reagan's coattails wore off, he lost. So did another moderate Republican, Dole.

Speaking as a definite and lifelong admirer of Reagan, his 1980 and 1984 platforms would get him laughed out of today's Republican primaries. In today's context, he is utterly milquetoast, and neither evil nor extremist (he wasn't then, either, except in the minds of furious left-wing idiots--the same type of idiot with reversed polarity as the Tea Party is now).

[elucidator]

What? The man who single-handedly crushed the invincible military juggernaut of Grenada?

[Little Nemo]

It remains to be seen if either the GOP or the Democrats can govern like adults. That why I mentioned the deficit.

The deficit has to be dealt with, and mostly by entitlement cuts. No matter who makes those cuts, it will hurt them politically. But they have to be made.

The SDMB is more or less correct when they say "you cannot balance the budget with tax cuts". But they are wildly wrong to say that "we can balance the budget by taxing the rich".It's no longer an issue of cutting government spending. The money has already been spent (with a lot of that spending coming from Republicans so let's not point fingers). So now the issue is paying for what we spent.

And why is it unthinkable to raise taxes on the rich back to pre-Reagan levels? Because rich people say it is? Lowering taxes on the wealthy was one of the main factors in creating the deficit, so I don't see why restoring those taxes should be off the table as a solution to eliminating the deficit.

So how about a little economic compromise? The current top income tax rate is 35%. We won't raise it back up to its historical high - 91% (1950-1963) - but we'll take it back to 70% (1965-1980). And we'll restore the top capital gains taxes - currently zero percent - back to Reagan's 1981 rate of 21% (still lower than its highest rate of 49.88%). And we'll make dividend earnings fully taxable again (1985-2002) rather than only 15% liable to taxation (post 2002). And we'll restore the top corporate tax rate from its current 35% back up to 42% (still lower than it was from 1951 to 1986).

Now we'll only do this until the deficit is paid off. Then we'll address government spending. I think the key factor is identifying the sources of big government programs - to me the two biggies are wars and economic crises. I don't want to cut in to foreign policy by reducing our ability to fight a war so let's focus on economic crises. The three big economic crises of this century were the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the S&L crisis of the eighties, and the economic crisis of 2008. All of them resulted in a massive government recovery program (and a Democratic presidency replacing a Republican one). And all of them followed a period of financial de-regulation.

So my suggestion is that we enact a realistic program of financial regulation. Not designed to burden good financial institutions but designed to keep the bad ones from running wild. Thereby avoiding economic crashes, reducing the need for government spending (allowing us to lower taxes without going into debt), and keeping more Republicans in office.

We can be the party of fiscal responsibility again.

[Shodan]

No, actually, that's NOT the biggest problem facing the country. The biggest problem facing the country is that we're in the middle of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The United States economy grew in the 4th quarter of 2010 with contributions from the American consumer and American exports abroad. The economy's real GDP growth rate was revised higher than reported in an earlier estimate.

According to the United States Department of Commerce the annual rate of economic growth in the 4th quarter was 3.1%. (http://econpost.com/gdp/united-states-real-gdp-growth-rate-4th-quarter-2010)
There's a time and place for getting the deficit under control. Now is not it.This is functionally the same as saying that we are not going to do anything about the deficit until we are bankrupt.

and this -
Now we'll only do this until the deficit is paid off. Then we'll address government spending. is functionally the same as saying we will never address entitlements spending.

Regards,
Shodan

[The Hamster King]

This is functionally the same as saying that we are not going to do anything about the deficit until we are bankrupt.Nonsense. We were doing something about the deficit in the 90's when the economy was booming. In fact, it's far EASIER to do something about the deficit when the economy is booming. Doing something about the deficit now is like deciding to replace your roof in the middle of a thunderstorm.

[SenorBeef]

This is functionally the same as saying that we are not going to do anything about the deficit until we are bankrupt.

and this -
is functionally the same as saying we will never address entitlements spending.

Regards,
Shodan

Entitlement spending is a long-term problem and needs to be dealt with, but do you think the sudden rash of deficits over the last few years was due to the introduction of new entitlement spending? The economy got wrecked, a wrecked economy means less revenue, and that's the main source of the huge deficits. Most of the new spending was an attempt to keep the economy from spiralling even worse. Fixing the economy will solve the bulk of the current deficit crisis. To act as if we must act RIGHT NOW to eliminate the deficit is to assume that now is the new normal, and we'll never recover to our previous level of economic activity.

It's interesting that the only discussion of where to make cuts are to democratic initiatives - the union busting in wisconsin only targeted democratic-leaning unions, no one will talk about military spending, etc. So essentially the situation is - the republicans wreck the economy, and then say oh shit we don't have any money, we're gonna have to kill democratic programs! Double whammy of awesome.

[gonzomax]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/john-ensign-lied-to-fec-o_n_861202.html

Here is a typical Repub charged with multiple misuses of political power. Ensign was a proud Republican telling the poor about values and how they should live their lives.
He is what entitlement stand for.
Do you people actually believe that cutting taxes while while waging 2 wars did not cause the deficits? Want to get it back to the level Clinton had it? Easy, put corporate taxes back into place, remove tax cuts for the rich and get the hell out of the war business.
We have to raise revenue.