PDA

View Full Version : The Republican Party: Running on fumes?



Sun Wukong
25th February 09, 11:54 AM
I consider myself a fairly educated guy, but the Republican party of today, looks and sounds only vaguely like the republican party of the 1980's through 1990's.

My i've just got 8 years of GW's admin stuck in my eyes and ears, but the party doesn't carry any real weight any more. This is probably due a lot to how propaganda was used so strongly by the former press secretaries and the unwillingness of the former president to hold anything resembling a public dialogue.

Let me ask this question honestly, to all you dyed in the wool conservatives and libertarians out there, what do you think your party needs to do to get back it's once great political clout? And what do you think they should do with it once they have it?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 12:10 PM
Am I allowed to comment?

Sun Wukong
25th February 09, 12:26 PM
go right ahead i guess.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 12:50 PM
Their coalition has been running on fumes for a long time. Rural white guys are not a growth demographic. And the fanaticism of their base alienated their more centrist supporters among the soccer moms. They've known since Clinton stole the suburbs that they needed to expand their tent. That's why they originally brought in Bush in 2000 was as part of an attempt to reach out to hispanics and try to build a bridge there.

They are also facing some of the inherent contradictions between the various pieces of their coalition. Libertarian free marketeers and conservative christians have always been an odd pairing that were pretty much only united by their hatred for liberals. These days, most of the leading lights on the christian right have remembered that they are supposed to take care of the poor and are pro social spending, or at least more pro social spending than the small government crowd are confortable with.

How it all shakes out will be interesting. They might try to retake the suburbs with a moderate approach to social issues and a focus on good government, but that ground is firmly controlled by the dems right now. So it will be a slow fight. The more intriguing possibility is that they continue their outreach to religiously conservative african americans and hispanics and go for more of a classic american populist party combining religion and liberal social welfare programs.

None of this has to happen tommorow. The trends are all against them, but they are slow. It's still a 51-49 game for at least another decade.

Feryk
25th February 09, 02:23 PM
I don't get to vote, but even from Canada it looks like the republican party needs to retool it's reason for being. They have an image problem with 'mainstream' voters, and seem to be doing nothing for making it better. But, in a two party system, you can be a total clusterfuck and still get a lot of votes from the people who hate the other party.

Cullion
25th February 09, 02:45 PM
I think when you talk about it in terms of 'Libertarians' vs. 'Christian Right', you're ignoring the dominant force before and throughout the Bush administration. Neoconservatives.

They're neither of those, but they sure suckered a lot of both of those types of people.

The Neoconservatives are a war-crazed tyrannical poison in your body politic. And I think most people can see it now.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 02:47 PM
I think when you talk about it in terms of 'Libertarians' vs. 'Christian Right', you're ignoring the dominant force before and throughout the Bush administration. Neoconservatives.

They're neither of those, but they sure suckered a lot of both of those types of people.

The Neoconservatives are a war-crazed tyrannical poison in your body politic. And I think most people can see it now.

They can also all fit into a decent sized motel room and have room to dance. They are (were) relevant as think tankers, but they have exactly zero relevance to electoral calculations.

Feryk
25th February 09, 03:00 PM
Except that they ran your government for eight years.

Aphid Jones
25th February 09, 03:04 PM
banner at the top of this page right now:

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CJPw3KHRnKOCcxDYBRhPMgjC4_ZKHwsK9A

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 03:06 PM
Except that they ran your government for eight years.

Not even vaguely. They were way too influential on our Iraq policy, but there were only a tiny handful of them in the administration, none above cabinet deputy.

Spade: The Real Snake
25th February 09, 03:07 PM
This one was the one I had:

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CPKwpI3lyv7blgEQ2AUYTzII-Xchh7FOtXo


The convicts at the Maricopa County Tent City Jail and "America's Sheriff" Joe Arpaio thanks you.

Kiko
25th February 09, 03:31 PM
I'll vote if you make a similar poll for the Democrats, too.

Robot Jesus
25th February 09, 04:01 PM
the collapse of the coalition has left the republican party in a dangerous position, the moderate and intellectual branches of the party have been cast out of power, and the "stupid redneck" voter they have been controlling for so long is now running the show. the current mood amount the republican party seems to be an embracement of fanaticism of the most self destructive kind.

"they may have stolen that election but they only truly win if we change our minds" seems to be the battle cry. they don't understand what a majority in the house and senate means.
The only rational reason I can see for this heel dragging and pouting is so they can accuse Obama of being partisan when he didn’t feel the need to kowtow to a party that only holds the power to filibuster, and refused to cooperate on any level.

Zendetta
25th February 09, 04:42 PM
HA HAH!

Sweet Jesus do I hate the Republican Party.

Cullion
25th February 09, 04:45 PM
Not even vaguely. They were way too influential on our Iraq policy, but there were only a tiny handful of them in the administration, none above cabinet deputy.

Are you saying Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't Neoconservatives ?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 04:48 PM
Are you saying Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't Neoconservatives ?
Yes. Cheney is the only one who was even vaguely close.

Cullion
25th February 09, 04:53 PM
You think Rumsfeld was a member of the religious right, or a Libertarian ?

What about Karl Rove?

My personal hunch is that Bush only appeared as a member of the religious right for cynical reasons.

I think you're confusing holding Libertarian or religious right philosophies with being a Neoconservative who appears to be one of the other two for electoral reasons.

Huckabee was the only republican candidate in the primaries who seemed like a genuine member of the religious right to me.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 05:05 PM
You think Rumsfeld was a member of the religious right, or a Libertarian ?

What about Karl Rove?

My personal hunch is that Bush only appeared as a member of the religious right for cynical reasons.

I think you're confusing holding Libertarian or religious right philosophies with being a Neoconservative who appears to be one of the other two for electoral reasons.

Huckabee was the only republican candidate in the primaries who seemed like a genuine member of the religious right to me.

Rummy is a paleohawk who cut his teeth opposing Kissinger on detente. Cheney is essentially the same thing. They both supported the neocons on middle eastern issues, but they are both very much not neo anything.

Karl Rove has a generally conservative ideology, but he's mostly a gun for hire who worked campaigns for both parties. He was also a personal family friend of the bushes.

Bush is a religiously pious politically moderate incompetent fuckwit who went deserately searching for a daddy figure after 9/11 and climbed into Cheneys lap.

fes_fsa
25th February 09, 06:28 PM
bring back the days of goldwater conservatism, and i'll vote for them again.

Cullion
25th February 09, 06:54 PM
Rummy is a paleohawk who cut his teeth opposing Kissinger on detente. Cheney is essentially the same thing. They both supported the neocons on middle eastern issues, but they are both very much not neo anything.

What do you see the distinction as being? From the outside, Cheney and Rumsfeld both look like big government militarists. Servants and supporters of what Eisenhower called 'The Military Industrial Complex'. Not especially religious, warlike and too corporatist and willing to use heavy handed policing on their own population to be considered anything like Libertarians.

Neocons seem much the same.



Bush is a religiously pious politically moderate incompetent fuckwit who went deserately searching for a daddy figure after 9/11 and climbed into Cheneys lap.

I don't believe his piety, but that's just my opinion.

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 06:58 PM
What do you see the distinction as being? From the outside, Cheney and Rumsfeld both look like big government militarists. Servants and supporters of what Eisenhower called 'The Military Industrial Complex'. Not especially religious, warlike and too corporatist and willing to use heavy handed policing on their own population to be considered anything like Libertarians.

Neocons seem much the same.


Paleohawks lack the universalist prophetic zeal. They are interested in keeping the world safe for america, not making the world safe for democracy.

Cullion
25th February 09, 07:06 PM
So you think the signatories to the PNAC letters were just trying to defend America?

HappyOldGuy
25th February 09, 07:11 PM
So you think the signatories to the PNAC letters were just trying to defend America?

I would say power rather than defense. But yes.

These aren't exactly a stretch

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Wounded Ronin
25th February 09, 07:27 PM
Besides for all the good points already made, I think it was really easy for the Republicans to idly throw out criticisms during the Clinton years, but when they actually were in charge, they ended up being much more incompetent than the Democrats. It's easy to criticize but hard to get actual positive results by taking action and responsibility yourself.

Cullion
25th February 09, 07:38 PM
I would say power rather than defense. But yes.

These aren't exactly a stretch

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.


I just read those as selling points towards an America skeptical of large scale foreign intervention involving occupying ground since Vietnam. I mean, once it was clear Iraq wasn't really a threat then it was about spreading democracy.

I can't really see a big difference between the 'paleo-hawks' as you call them and Neoconservatives.

Robot Jesus
25th February 09, 07:41 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/colorado-gay-murder/

"all sin is equal" - some retard

fes_fsa
25th February 09, 07:44 PM
yeah... that's part of why i left the party.

the squaw that stroked the camel's sack, so to speak.

< proud faghag.

Zendetta
25th February 09, 07:51 PM
< proud faghag.

Are you familiar with the term "Fruit Fly"?

fes_fsa
25th February 09, 07:55 PM
Are you familiar with the term "Fruit Fly"?

yeah. but i don't consider myself attractive when i'm with my homos.

nobody wants to fuck me.

Zendetta
25th February 09, 08:10 PM
They are just jealous that you are More Woman than they'll ever be... and More Man than they'll ever get.