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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
By contrast, what do you think the Republicans should do if Obama doesn’t make headway wth the economy?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And when that candidate gets crushed by Obama who do you think is going to come roaring back?
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.
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.
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.
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 base is much more openly racist now.
Cite?
Perhaps not never, but certainly not lately.
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?
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. This is pretty unpopular but hardly toxic. It’s a bit better than ,say, Nancy Pelosi’s poll numbers. 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.
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!”
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.