Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0
#36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jduncan View Post

I don't always seek out non-partisan insight, but when I do I consult conservative thinktanks. While I do appreciate the insight of Mr. Ornstein,  must we also consult David Barton for a more complete picture of things?

EDIT: This is a fascinating discussion, but I just think it's kinda fucked up to specifically identify someone who works with a conservative thinktank as non-partisan, not so much you but NPR doing so. It reminds me of my friend telling me how Greg Gutfeld was apolitical. Like "Oh yeah it's this guy's job to find out how to keep gay marriage illegal and outlaw abortion but lol he's a maverick like McCain/Palin". Like he's gonna go "sure I mapped out how to get Prop 8 through, but I'm not the bad guy."


Did you listen to the show?  FWIW, when Ornstein was asked what party he belongs to, he was hesitant to say but when pressed, he admitted to being a registered Dem.

I think that Ornstein in addition to some of the other conservatives have finally gotten fed up with how batshit insane the GOP has become and is calling them out on it.

And let it be known, I'll be the first person to point out how sketchy I find the AEI and those other Rovian thinktanks when it comes to offering up opinions from some of it's members, but in this case Ornstein is right on the mark. The book he wrote with Thomas Mann apparently pissed off some of his fellow AEI members quite a bit.

Also, comparing Ornstein to that delusional hack Barton is highly disingenuous.

I think I or someone else here posted a link to this piece by Mann & Ornstein awhile back. It's worth a read.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

and their appearance on TDS

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ju...view-pt--1

Reply
#37
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Did you listen to the show?  FWIW, when Ornstein was asked what party he belongs to, he was hesitant to say but when pressed, he admitted to being a registered Dem.

I think that Ornstein in addition to some of the other conservatives have finally gotten fed up with how batshit insane the GOP has become and is calling them out on it.

And let it be known, I'll be the first person to point out how sketchy I find the AEI and those other Rovian thinktanks when it comes to offering up opinions from some of it's members, but in this case Ornstein is right on the mark. The book he wrote with Thomas Mann apparently pissed off some of his fellow AEI members quite a bit.

Also, comparing Ornstein to that delusional hack Barton is highly disingenuous.

I think I or someone else here posted a link to this piece by Mann & Ornstein awhile back. It's worth a read.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

and their appearance on TDS

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ju...view-pt--1

Now that I've listened to it, which was what led to the edit, I wouldn't have made the Barton joke. Well, I might have, I find David Barton hilarious. But I agree this guy isn't David Barton. However, I think giving someone who works for AEI, takes money for them and does stuff for them, collaborating with their objectives in some substantial form. the credential of nonpartisan is just as disingenuous.

On the topic of the Daily Show, it's downright creepy how Jon Stewart treats David Barton with kid gloves. If you watch Barton's appearance from this Summer you'd come away with the impression that he's just this folksy little guy who's brilliant but happens to have a different perspective on politics. Again that's completely irrelevant from however the Ornstein appearance went, I haven't watched it yet.

Reply
#38
AStewart treated Pervez Musharraf with kid gloves while grilling him over the location of Osama Bin Laden. Stewart is a lot of wonderful things, but an attack dog isn't one of them.
Reply
#39

If you listen more into that interview, Ornenstein says he is a Democrat because he lives in Washington DC. You can't vote in half the elections because everyone is on the Democratic ticket. To have a say, he is a registered Democrat. Like I mentioned in another thread, I would be a Republican if it wasn't for the backward social policies they espouse. However, Tennessee has open primaries, so I vote on what ever ticket I want to influence.

Reply
#40

I don't think it's happened, but I would love to see Barton on Colbert. Stephen is great at subtly raking his more 'questionable' guests over the coals and oft times they are completely unaware that they've been burned.

This NPR piece does a nice job of making mincemeat of Barton's "history".

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/...rd-of 

Reply
#41
Quote:
Originally Posted by jduncan View Post

Now that I've listened to it, which was what led to the edit, I wouldn't have made the Barton joke. Well, I might have, I find David Barton hilarious. But I agree this guy isn't David Barton. However, I think giving someone who works for AEI, takes money for them and does stuff for them, collaborating with their objectives in some substantial form. the credential of nonpartisan is just as disingenuous.

David Barton is hilarious...until you realize that there have been a lot of people that have bought into his literary snake oil.

As far as Ornstein, being nonpartisan...when compared to some of the other members of AEI, he could be considered a pagan. Smile

Reply
#42
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

David Barton is hilarious...until you realize that there have been a lot of people that have bought into his literary snake oil.

As far as Ornstein, being nonpartisan...when compared to some of the other members of AEI, he could be considered a pagan. Smile

David Barton is one of the most dangerous man around. But works a lot to adopt an appearance of being folksy, scholarly and impartial. "This is just history". That's why I was so suspicious of Ornstein given his connections and gimmick.

Reply
#43

just read this Frank Rich piece...

Fantasyland

Denial has poisoned the GOP and threatens the rest of the country too.

<excerpt>

Quote:

The rude jolt administered by the election does not mean that the GOP will now depart from its faith-based view of reality—though it will surely heed Laura Ingraham’s postelection call for changing “the language of dealing with Latinos.” (Marco Rubio—¡Él habla español!—is already suiting up to lead the karaoke.) No sooner did Obama win reelection than Charles Kraut­hammer laid down the new party line for denying reality, asserting that the president had “no mandate” despite his large victory in the Electoral College and his clear-cut margin in the popular vote (a victory not achieved by modern presidents as varied as JFK in 1960 and George W. Bush in 2000). Two days after the election, Rove was already blaming the defeat in part on “the anonymous New York Times headline writer” who supposedly twisted Romney’s suicidal stand on the auto-industry bailout and the “hotel employee with a cell-phone camera” who had the gall to capture Romney’s candid take on the “47 percent.”

Nor, for all the panicked Republican talk about trying to make the party more inclusive and rational, is there any evidence that the GOP base wants to retreat a whit, whether on immigration or gay marriage or reproductive rights or the reinstatement of Jim Crow–era roadblocks to voting in states like Florida and Ohio. Or that any Republican leaders with actual power (as opposed to the out-of-office Jeb Bush) want to, either. The right is taking solace from exit-poll findings that more Americans still label themselves conservative than liberal and still think government does too much. A moderate putsch led by Olympia Snowe in exile, or David Frum, David Brooks, and Michael Gerson from op-ed pages, or Meghan ­McCain on Twitter, is not going to get very far.

Does anyone else see this new "Latino's are our friends" line from the GOP as anything but desperate pandering?

Reply
#44

At least Krauthammer recognized Mitt was the only guy remotely Presidential in the Republican group.  But lol at the rest of it.  Run Jindal or Ryan against Hillary. Please.  She will fucking CRUSH them in the debates.

Reply
#45
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


Does anyone else see this new "Latino's are our friends" line from the GOP as anything but desperate pandering?

Oh hell yeah. I hope they do the right thing by helping to pass positive immigration reform but it still blows up in their face because everyone will think (correctly) it is blatant pandering to Latinos and not a legit change of heart. 

Reply
#46
AI still get a chuckle out of the GOP pinning its hopes on Latinos being Catholic, and therefore socially conservative, as if South America isn't home to a leftist, pro-worker "Liberation Theology" that the Vatican wishes would dry up and blow away. There's a reason why we aren't going to see a Latino Pope in our lifetime.
Reply
#47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I still get a chuckle out of the GOP pinning its hopes on Latinos being Catholic, and therefore socially conservative, as if South America isn't home to a leftist, pro-worker "Liberation Theology" that the Vatican wishes would dry up and blow away. There's a reason why we aren't going to see a Latino Pope in our lifetime.

Also, it's not like Catholic=Republican among non-Hispanics either. The GOP needs to learn that lecturing people that they're voting for the wrong party has never worked for anyone ever.

Reply
#48

I have no reason to believe that the GOP won't go further to the right. They may think that since in worked for them in the 2010 mid term, it could work again. What I think they should do is admit that Bush was a disaster of a president, drop all the social issues, and quit believing that trickle down economics works. I'm not holding my breath that they will do such things.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I still get a chuckle out of the GOP pinning its hopes on Latinos being Catholic, and therefore socially conservative, as if South America isn't home to a leftist, pro-worker "Liberation Theology" that the Vatican wishes would dry up and blow away. There's a reason why we aren't going to see a Latino Pope in our lifetime.

This is so true.  I just wanted to underscore that.  This is a huge impediment for the GOP.

Reply
#50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

I have no reason to believe that the GOP won't go further to the right. They may think that since in worked for them in the 2010 mid term, it could work again. What I think they should do is admit that Bush was a disaster of a president, drop all the social issues, and quit believing that trickle down economics works. I'm not holding my breath that they will do such things.

Except if they did that, they'd be Democrats.

Not that this is a problem exactly, but I don't care for the idea of living in a de-facto totalitarian state, even if the single party is the Democrats.

Reply
#51

The biggest problem the Republicans face is that their money comes from people even further right than their current nutjob platform. This is -already- the moderate version of the modern Republican party.

They've spent a lot of time and money drilling into their rank and file that compromise is weakness and that there is no line of decency and civility that cannot be crossed. Any movement off that will look soft... because they've screamed repeatedly that it is soft.

Reply
#52

One thing I've been hearing on some right wing talk shows during the past week is that the reason Latinos have broken towards the Democrats is not because of immigration stances but rather because Latinos "see government as a source of wealth". The point in them bringing that up, apparently, was to show that appealing to that demograph was going to be much harder than simply supporting the left's view on immigration.

Reply
#53

The Republican Party's past:

"I am the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense power!"

The Republican Party's future:

"I want to be the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense pants!"

(yes it's another fat joke.  sorry.)

Reply
#54
A[quote name="Bailey" url="/community/t/145661/the-republican-party-going-forward-v-2-0/50#post_3422887"]The Republican Party's past:
[Image: LL]
"I am the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense power!"

The Republican Party's future:
[Image: LL]
"I want to be the President of the United States!  Clothed in immense pants!"

[SIZE=8px](yes it's another fat joke.  sorry.)[/SIZE]
[/quote]


Ha yeah truth! Very sad that the Republicans went from Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower to W, Mitt Romney and possibly Chris Christie as the standard bearer. Hell, Nixon would look better than these clowns. I mean how do you go from Lincoln as your first president to George W. Bush as your last? Talk about a mammoth drop in credibility!
Reply
#55

What constitutes a tricky question for Republicans?    How about " Is the Earth billions or years old or just thousands of years old?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19...f=politics

Quote:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) isn't qualified to answer a question about how old the earth is, he told GQ in a recent interview.

"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States," Rubio told GQ's Michael Hainey. "I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."

Rubio continued, refusing to take a stance on the planet's age, which scientists have long estimated at 4.54 billion years.

"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that," he said. "It's one of the great mysteries."

Forget all the talk about the GOP evolving after the election.   If saying the Earth is quite older than 6000 years is a minefield for your base, you have a real problem.

Reply
#56
ARubio's definitely running in 2016, then. You don't pretend to not have graduated elementary school like that unless you're swinging for the fences.
Reply
#57

Yeah agreed plus he was recently seen around Iowa, so he definitely is running. So the unofficial candidates seem to be Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. Wonder who are debating running on the Democratic side. I doubt Hillary but can see Deval Patrick and Martin O'Malley. Other than that not really sure. Kind of more interested to see who the Dems pick to succeed Obama than who gets the nom for the GOP.

Reply
#58
AOh, and Rubio sits on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. So that's great. It's a good thing science has nothing to do with, say, economics. Or industry. Or technology. Or public health.
Reply
#59

there will be much palming of the face....

bonus video- http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/47145/detail/

Reply
#60
AHillary is running for sure. The very fact that Bill eas so front and center during the campaign had the feeling of "You scratxh my back, I scratch your back." I doubt Bill would have been so out there for Obama if a deal wasn't made to clear the way for Hillary. The one wrinkle might be Benghazi but that doesn't seem to be gaining traction. Anyway, the names I can see on the Dem side popping up...

Hillary: She's in. The timing will never be better for her.

Biden: He'll run but I don't see him getting far. Even if the second Obama Admin is successful, people just can't seem to take the guy seriously.

Elizabeth Warren: She's popular with the Left and grassroots so there might be some campaigns to get her to run.

Overall, I think it will be a prettu quick primary season for the Dems with Hillary wrapping things up by Super Tuesday.
Reply
#61

I'm actually a little worried that Biden and Hillary might cannibalize each other if they both decide to run. Both will be riding in the wake of Obama, both are charismatic (and, I'd argue, more progressive than Obama or indeed the average Dem), both are fighters. I'd love to have either as president in 2016 (I have issues with the Clintons, but I have issues with Obama, too, and this is trivial shit compared to keeping the GOP out of the big chair unless they evolve pretty radically in the next four years). Gun to my head, I sorta like Biden over Hillary--he's unapologetically liberal on a lot of stuff, at least in terms of what he's said (he spoke out in support of transgender people, which is damn ballsy with American politics being the way they are) and isn't afraid to take it to the right, as the Ryan debate showed. Plus, he definitely has a solid grasp of the working class, and he's a magnetic personality who might actually be able to win people over within the halls of power (Hillary apparently has a tendency to alienate people).

That said, he is pretty damn old, and he's pretty gaffe-prone as well. If he doesn't seriously have a shot I'd prefer him to step aside and grant Hillary a smooth path to victory, rather than rehashing some of the dirty fighting of 2008. Hillary comes with a lot of baggage but I think that will matter less and less as people take the right less seriously and Obama's rep as a guy who fixed the Bush administration's mistakes is cemented. While I'm a little worried she might continue some of the technocratic policies of the Obama admin, I think she's more of a reconciliator than Obama, who's followed more of the "speak softly and carry a big stick" mode for foreign policy. Plus, she comes with her husband, who's a remarkable diplomat and stateman.

Castro is a little too young, I think, and Warren's too inexperienced (plus I honestly think she can do more good in the senate). It's basically down to these two.

Rubio, Jindal and Christie are all SMART candidates for the right to be running, which is a bit worrisome. I think Obama's historic appeal is part of what got him into office, so that's something else Hillary has over Biden, if she's up against Rubio or Jindal. Of course, those two guys might see some serious pushback from the right-wing base, what with their skin colour and all, but if they make it past the primaries they could be a serious threat. Christie? He actually might face the same opposition from the loonies thanks to his acting like a fucking adult for five seconds and thus "handing" the election to Obama, and he's got a pretty shaky track record otherwise. Also, sadly, Americans tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to the overweight (and I kind of fear being slightly disgusted with the American left if Christie runs--they already make too many stupid fat jokes).

Basically, if it's Hillary vs. Christie, I'd say Hillary's got it. Biden vs. Rubio would worry me.

Reply
#62

I've still got my issues with Hillary, and was a Biden man before I gave my sword/bow/axe to Obama, so between those two I'd love to see Biden run, but he is going to be pretty up there in years by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary...it depends on what she does with these next four years. She did a pretty great job as SoS, but I can very easily see it as being a "But what have you done for us lately" when the primaries get here.

On the GOP side, it really depends on how they want to act this term. If they run Christie out for being a grown up, they will have effectively just killed themselves--I disagree with the guy on a lot of things, but someone who can put bullshit aside and get something done automatically gets more notice from me than yet another Tea Party nutjob.

Reply
#63

Hilary Clinton would be 69, Joe Biden 73. Clinton would be a little younger than Reagan was (about six months), whereas Biden is in McCain/Dole territory.

Biden probably has too many strikes against him. The age and the gaffes might not keep him out if he was the presumptive nominee, but I think he'd lose to Clinton in a straight fight.

Christie is likely the Giuliani of 2016. He's too non-crazy on issues important to crazy people. And he's too unapologetic and stubborn to pull a Romney 180 on those positions. Rubio is very very overrated (I saw him a lot in the Florida Legislature, and he's a nothing). Jindal is a charisma vacuum. None of those three particularly worry me.

Reply
#64

Age wise...right now, Biden is 69, Hillary is 65. They're both getting up there in age and we need to have people in government that don't have one foot in the grave. A lot of these really old fuckers don't give a shit about what's going to happen in 20 years and usually have a "fuck it" attitude to the general populace. Smile

IMO, this should be kinda like selecting a Doctor. I want a Dr. that is young enough to be open to new ideas and procedures but old enough to have some actual 'real world' experience.

Between Hillary and Biden, I would give the nod to HC. If nothing else for the reason that I would love to see a woman president in my lifetime. She definitely has domestic as well as international experience.

Warren 'could' be good, but I think she needs more Wash. DC experience...which she will be drowning in very soon. (she's 63 yrs old FWIW)

But there will no doubt be other hats thrown in the ring. I just read this today- Cuomo

Reply
#65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

Jindal is a charisma vacuum.

that's an awesome description !

Reply
#66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

I've still got my issues with Hillary, and was a Biden man before I gave my sword/bow/axe to Obama, so between those two I'd love to see Biden run, but he is going to be pretty up there in years by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary...it depends on what she does with these next four years. She did a pretty great job as SoS, but I can very easily see it as being a "But what have you done for us lately" when the primaries get here.

On the GOP side, it really depends on how they want to act this term. If they run Christie out for being a grown up, they will have effectively just killed themselves--I disagree with the guy on a lot of things, but someone who can put bullshit aside and get something done automatically gets more notice from me than yet another Tea Party nutjob.

The one thing you just cannot take away from the Clintons is that they're savvy operators and know how to campaign.  They're not going to just walk into 2016 without having considered something as basic as "what have you done for me lately."

Christie's not going to be run out of anything for Sandy.  To the extent that anyone remembers a single storm 4 years from now, it will work in his favor.  Even the nuttiest of jobs knows that you don't position yourself as anti-disaster relief, even in a frothy, silly primary.

Reply
#67
AGod this talk of 2016 is killing me. Our nation is so fucking hopeless, locked into these endless scam elections while the business of the people is left to rot on the vine.

Not criticizing anyone here for talking about it, but damn, it's soul crushing.
Reply
#68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Christie's not going to be run out of anything for Sandy.  To the extent that anyone remembers a single storm 4 years from now, it will work in his favor.  Even the nuttiest of jobs knows that you don't position yourself as anti-disaster relief, even in a frothy, silly primary.

Sandy won't be Christie's problem. He's attacked the GOP on Muslim-bashing, and he's not orthodox GOP on some social issues. And he may have to tack to the left on a few of them next year when he runs for reelection.

In short, he's a Republican who's electable in the Northeast. That means he's not going to be a member of the Tea Party tribe. Republican like him for the same reasons they liked Giuliani - he's charismatic, loud-mouthed, and unafraid of attacking Democrats. But GOP primary voters tend to want doctrinaire, orthodox, conservatives, and Christie isn't one.

If the Republicans want a pure conservative in 2016, Christie may have a chance in 2020 after said conservative loses by 300 electoral votes and the party starts to actually move to the center.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

God this talk of 2016 is killing me. Our nation is so fucking hopeless, locked into these endless scam elections while the business of the people is left to rot on the vine.
Not criticizing anyone here for talking about it, but damn, it's soul crushing.

I agree, but it's a car crash I can't look away from.

Reply
#69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

Sandy won't be Christie's problem. He's attacked the GOP on Muslim-bashing, and he's not orthodox GOP on some social issues. And he may have to tack to the left on a few of them next year when he runs for reelection.

In short, he's a Republican who's electable in the Northeast. That means he's not going to be a member of the Tea Party tribe. Republican like him for the same reasons they liked Giuliani - he's charismatic, loud-mouthed, and unafraid of attacking Democrats. But GOP primary voters tend to want doctrinaire, orthodox, conservatives, and Christie isn't one.

If the Republicans want a pure conservative in 2016, Christie may have a chance in 2020 after said conservative loses by 300 electoral votes and the party starts to actually move to the center.

We'll see.  I think that 2 consecutive losses to a candidate that should have been as beatable as they come according to the current paradigm may shake them up enough to see a change in tack by 2016.  Not by 2014 though, as they'll want to at least squeeze one more midterm bump out of the Tea Party before they throw them under the bus to start courting the moderates and minorities they need to take the White House.

Reply
#70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

We'll see.  I think that 2 consecutive losses to a candidate that should have been as beatable as they come according to the current paradigm may shake them up enough to see a change in tack by 2016.  Not by 2014 though, as they'll want to at least squeeze one more midterm bump out of the Tea Party before they throw them under the bus to start courting the moderates and minorities they need to take the White House.

The thing is, a lot of the conservatives have already jumped on the "Romney isn't conservative enough" bandwagon, and believe conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

Plus, Christie supports gun control, and the republicans would vote for a Muslim gay-married to an illegal immigrant before they nominate someone who supports gun control.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)