Justin Amash-The future of the GOP?

[DigitalC]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Allow me to make it really simple then: Tea Partiers are not mature enough to have positions of power.

Exactly, choosing between the greedy side and the side that rather destroy the country than compromise is very very easy. It also helps a ton that the crazy side is also racist, homophobic and sexist.

[Chronos]

From the OP:

Unlike most Tea Partiers, who Republicans attacked as extreme, Amash has actually amassed a fairly liberal voting record for a Republican, due to being a more consistent libertarian than say, Ron Paul was.

Actually, he’s not more consistent. Ron Paul is completely consistent in his libertarianism: He’s not one, at all, ever. Always zero percent is very consistent indeed.

[Smapti]

Amash voted for John Boehner for Speaker, right?

Fuck him, then.

[LC_Strawhouse]

I have nothing to contribute except that this guy should pick Ben Quayle as his running mate so we can have the “Amash-Potatoe” ticket.

[Ravenman]

@WillFarnaby

Private companies couldn’t change the contract agreed to by both parties.

Because we all know that a private financial institution would never do something that violates a contract, like illegally foreclosing on a home! That’s just crazy talk!

[adaher]

@Smapti

Amash voted for John Boehner for Speaker, right?

Fuck him, then.

Fine. Then all Democrats should be held accountable for voting for Pelosi and Reid and supporting the President.

[Captain_Amazing]

@adaher

Fine. Then all Democrats should be held accountable for voting for Pelosi and Reid and supporting the President.

Wasn’t that a major Republican talking point in 2010? Vote Republican and fight the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda?

And, when the Republicans won the House, John Boehner stated “The American people spoke and I think it’s pretty clear that the Obama / Pelosi agenda is being rejected by the American people”.

And here’s an NRCC blog article:

NRCC Paid Web Ad Highlights Trivedi’s Support for Nancy Pelosi’s Liberal Agenda

that talks about an ad they’re running against Manan Trivedi, who’s running in PA-6, saying:

"And we know that when it comes to healthcare, Trivedi agrees with Nancy Pelosi’s plan for Obamacare on steroids . . .

Manan Trivedi and Nancy Pelosi – they’re just WRONG (emphasis) for Pennsylvania."

and underneath that is an ad asking you to contribute, by saying, and flashing pictures of them:

“Pelosi, Reid, Obama. Without you, they will control America. Stop them. Contribute today.”

And, in fact, when I first went to that site, there was a popup ad asking me “Do you think Nancy Pelosi should be Speaker?”
So, it seems like there is an attempt by Republicans to hold all Democrats responsible for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi…that’s part of the campaign strategy.

[adaher]

Yep. And sure, you can hold Amash accountable for Boehner. Not sure how awful that is. Even most liberals here admit that the problem isn’t really Boehner, it’s his caucus. If enough Republicans switched to voting for Pelosi and she was the Speaker of a House with a Republican majority, what would be different?

[Ravenman]

@adaher

If enough Republicans switched to voting for Pelosi and she was the Speaker of a House with a Republican majority, what would be different?

For one thing, there would not have been a government shutdown last year. Boehner refused to bring the funding bill that had majority support to the floor for a vote, Pelosi would not have done that.

[42fish]

@Ravenman

So basically, 100% of Americans are going to break for Republicans very soon. As soon as 2016. Except for the 47%, of course. That’s right: 100% are going to vote for Republicans, and 47% are going to vote for Democrats.

This is the thought process we have to contend with, folks.

Makes at least as much sense as “The Republicans’ electoral salvation will be to act more and more like a third party that can’t get to double digits in support.”

[BrainGlutton]

Libertarianism is not the future of the GOP because the GOP has no future without its big-money bizcon backers. Libertarianism means deregulation, but it also means no more corporate welfare.

[Steve_MB]

A related New York Times story yesterday makes the point that it may have more to do with disillusion with the Democrats than active appeal by this faction of Republicans:

…Meanwhile, the age group most responsible for delivering Obama his two terms may well become a political wild card over time, in large part because of its libertarian leanings. Raised on the ad hoc communalism of the Internet, disenchanted by the Iraq War, reflexively tolerant of other lifestyles, appalled by government intrusion into their private affairs and increasingly convinced that the Obama economy is rigged against them, the millennials can no longer be regarded as faithful Democrats — and a recent poll confirmed that fully half of voters between ages 18 and 29 are unwedded to either party. Obama has profoundly disappointed many of these voters by shying away from marijuana decriminalization, by leading from behind on same-sex marriage, by trumping the Bush administration on illegal-immigrant deportations and by expanding Bush’s N.S.A. surveillance program. As one 30-year-old libertarian senior staff member on the Hill told me: “I think we expected this sort of thing from Bush. But Obama seemed to be hip and in touch with my generation, and then he goes and reads our emails.”

Early polls show young voters favoring Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016, but their support could erode as they refamiliarize themselves with her, just as it did in 2008. Clinton has been even slower than Obama to embrace progressive social causes, while in foreign policy, she associates herself more with her former Senate colleague John McCain than with noninterventionists. Nor is Clinton likely to quell millennial fears about government surveillance. Welch says: “Hillary isn’t going to be any good on these issues. She has an authoritative mind-set and has no interest in Edward Snowden, who’s a hero to a lot of these people.”…

[Inner_Stickler]

Do we think it’s likely that the Republican party is going to woo away the millenials by crusading for marriage equality, marijuana decriminalization, fewer deportations and the dismantling of domestic spy programs? Because I don’t but I’d love to be proven wrong.

[ElvisL1ves]

Any poll data to support that, or is it just navel-gazing?

[Truman_Burbank]

Adaher, any response to my posts 74 and 78, or should I just expect the cricket chorus to continue?

[BrainGlutton]

Jim Newell explains why this is not the “Libertarian Moment.”

The public is definitely more and more in favor of legalizing weed and same-sex marriage and pursuing a non-interventionist (but not isolationist) foreign policy, but they want still want to have Social Security and Medicare and quality public schools and so forth — government programs paid for with taxation that libertarians would call “restrictive” or, in more sinister tones, coercive. The 2012 Libertarian party candidate for President, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, got less than 1% of the vote for a lot of reasons. But one of them was that his “I’m the cool legalized pot and gay marriage and antiwar guy!” schtick didn’t paper over his much more radical plan to erode government programs — by slashing the federal budget by 43% in a year. That’s not the sort of solution that “independents” are crying out for.

[ElvisL1ves]

Somebody running under that banner can always count on a combination of the Cut My Taxes vote and the None Of The Above vote. But they can never hope to break out of single digits, or much out of *tenths *for that matter. The genuine, committed, principled thinkers who still cling to libertarianism despite having reached actual voting age can fill a booth at McDonald’s.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@WillFarnaby

Democrats already showed you how they will deal with the SS problem. They will tie adjustments to the chained CPI so that benefits do not keep pace with actual cost of living increases. Shameful. It shows how private retirement funds would be superior to government “insurance”. Private companies couldn’t change the contract agreed to by both parties.

Its unfortunate that the moderate, spineless neoliberals that dominate much of the Democratic Party would do this. However the genuine progressives in the party would very much prefer to remove the regressive payroll tax cap and expand Social Security instead of this betrayal.

[kaylasdad99]

@iiandyiiii

Recent history says it’s pretty damn likely that the GOP will nominate a poor candidate.

Every member lf the GOP is, by definition, a poor candidate for the Presidency. Hell, that’s why I issued my decree.

[WillFarnaby]

@Chronos

From the OP:

Actually, he’s not more consistent. Ron Paul is completely consistent in his libertarianism: He’s not one, at all, ever. Always zero percent is very consistent indeed.

I’m glad you’ve given up trying to prove this inanity. For example, you claimed at one time, repeating Milton Friedman’s error, that a gold standard is a “nationalization” of the gold standard. You also claimed that opposing open borders is anti-libertarian, when in fact libertarians are deeply divided on the issue with folks such as (older) Murray Rothbard and Hans Herman Hoppe siding against open borders. ( I disagree with this stance but it is not cut and dry). The third claim I believe you made was Ron Paul was against gay marriage. He voted for DOMA. DOMA allowed states to not recognize gay marriage. Favoring states rights is not per se libertarian, but a vast majority of libertarians favor them. This fits into their libertarianism because they believe small states leads to competition among states with liberty increasing in this competition.

Perhaps you are an old former libertarian who came up on Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Two very confused quasi-libertarians. This likely leads you to make preposterous claims such as Ron Paul is never a libertarian.