Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Republican Party Going Forward v 2.0
#71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

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.

A lot of conservatives are going to find themselves increasingly marginalized in the party as it realizes they can't deliver the demographics they need anymore.  They may get to run their guys in the midterms, but we won't be seeing a Santorum or a Gingrich as a frontrunner in the 2016 primary.

Gun control is the easiest position in the world to walk back, and he's got time.  Gun nuts aren't voting Democrat come hell or high water anyway.

Reply
#72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

A lot of conservatives are going to find themselves increasingly marginalized in the party as it realizes they can't deliver the demographics they need anymore.  They may get to run their guys in the midterms, but we won't be seeing a Santorum or a Gingrich as a frontrunner in the 2016 primary.

Gun control is the easiest position in the world to walk back, and he's got time.  Gun nuts aren't voting Democrat come hell or high water anyway.

The thing is, I think you're completely right on the party leaders. But they've completely lost control of the republican voters at this point, and I don't think they'll be able to push Christie through if there's a plausible conservative candidate in the race. It'll be Mourdock/Akin/Angle/McDonnell on a national scale.

And the NRA actually does endorse Democrats if they've got a better gun control method; it's part of their strategy of completely shutting down gun control at a national level. And it's worked, 100%. There are enough single-issue voters on this in the GOP that they are not going to risk having these people defect for an election.

Reply
#73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

The thing is, I think you're completely right on the party leaders. But they've completely lost control of the republican voters at this point, and I don't think they'll be able to push Christie through if there's a plausible conservative candidate in the race. It'll be Mourdock/Akin/Angle/McDonnell on a national scale.

That didn't even work on the local scale.

Reply
#74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

That didn't even work on the local scale.

I mean the tea party will get their nominee in over the electable, more moderate republican. That did work on the local sense, in that they got their nominee in. It didn't, in that they lost winnable elections as a result. It's what I expect to happen on a national scale in 2016.

Reply
#75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

I mean the tea party will get their nominee in over the electable, more moderate republican. That did work on the local sense, in that they got their nominee in. It didn't, in that they lost winnable elections as a result. It's what I expect to happen on a national scale in 2016.

We lefties should be so lucky.

But I don't see it.  The Republicans went home with the moderate after flirting with the wingnuts in 08 and 12, and the narrative coming out of it is that they still weren't inclusive enough (which happens to be true, imo, but that's practically incidental in our Brave New Cable World).  I could see there being more of a push to double down on the crazy next time if they hadn't gotten their downticket asses handed to them too this time, but even Lindsay Graham sees the writing on the wall.

Reply
#76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

We lefties should be so lucky.

But I don't see it.  The Republicans went home with the moderate after flirting with the wingnuts in 08 and 12, and the narrative coming out of it is that they still weren't inclusive enough (which happens to be true, imo, but that's practically incidental in our Brave New Cable World).  I could see there being more of a push to double down on the crazy next time if they hadn't gotten their downticket asses handed to them too this time, but even Lindsay Graham sees the writing on the wall.


For which he's the number one primary target of the Club for Growth. He'll be out of the Senate in 2015.

These people care more about purity than winning. And the lesson they took from losing wasn't "we need to be more inclusive" but "McCain and Romney were too moderate."

Reply
#77
I see a lot of window dressing-level attempts in the short term, but the thing about the Tea Party and the GOP getting in bed with them is that they are straight up evangelical about their nutjob beliefs, and while more traditional Republicans are trying to slide back to the center, the Tea Party isn't going to just roll over and vanish. Much like Palin in 08, the GOP at large has given birth to a movement they can't completely control, and I expect things to get worse (and messier) over on the right before it gets better.
Reply
#78
A[quote name="Dr Harford" url="/community/t/145661/the-republican-party-going-forward-v-2-0/50#post_3426372"]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.[/quote]

I feel like this a lot of days also. Yet I'm still optimistic that if the right people are in office that things can change for the better. This election was a boost as several of the bad guys lost. It could turn out that in four years those individuals are back in power, or they sink further into madness and irrelevancy. Just have to wait and see.
Reply
#79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post


For which he's the number one primary target of the Club for Growth. He'll be out of the Senate in 2015.

These people care more about purity than winning. And the lesson they took from losing wasn't "we need to be more inclusive" but "McCain and Romney were too moderate."

Again, we should be so lucky.

Reply
#80
AOne word- "evangelicals"
If the GOP really wants to join the 21st century, they are going to have to throw the xtian evangelicals under the bus....which isn't going to be easy to do.
The xtian fundamentalists "won't be ignored"


Quote:Conservative Republicans fight back after Romney loss

Evangelical leaders and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.

After nearly two weeks of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the party’s losses in November.

“The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who opposed Romney in the Iowa caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.

The conservative backlash sets up an internal fight for the direction of the Republican Party, as many top leaders in Washington have proposed moderating their views on citizenship for illegal immigrants, to appeal to Latino voters. In addition, many top GOP officials have called for softening the party’s rhetoric on social issues, following the embarrassing showing by Senate candidates who were routed after publicly musing about denying abortion services to women who had been raped.

Ted Cruz, a tea party favorite, trounced Texas’s establishment candidate in a primary on his way to becoming the second Hispanic Republican in the Senate, and the battle he waged in the Lone Star State epitomizes the fight between the two sides. Although he is considered a rising star with a personal biography that GOP leaders wish to promote, Cruz falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except during the first presidential debate.
Reply
#81
AI know this I shouldn't be surprised but....
The GOP is really trying their hardest to complete the full transformation into the worlds biggest group of assholes!!
I do know that it's possible for the political process to work with the 2 major political parties that we have here in the US, but if the GOP keeps going down this road, fuck 'em!
I hope they wither away into the dust of history

Quote:Boehner Reverses Course, Promises To Repeal Obamacare Through ‘Oversight’

After President Obama’s decisive re-election, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) starkly admitted that “Obamacare is the law of the land.” Facing backlash from fellow Republicans and critics of the landmark health reform law, the Speaker’s office softened that stance, asserting that “full repeal” still remained the GOP objective. But with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bulk of the law, Democratic control of the Senate, and President Obama’s victory, some have wondered what — if any — recourse Republicans have at the federal level to undo Obamacare.

On Tuesday, Boehner explained how, exactly, Republicans would go about dismantling the law in an op-ed on Cincinnati.com. In his piece, Boehner contends that House Republicans will conduct “vigorous oversight” of the law’s implementation in an effort to neuter its provisions:
Reply
#82

Jesus. These fuckers really want to see it all crash and burn rather than face the possibility of being voted out by their nut followers by actually negotiating with the other side. Go back into the corner and cry Republicans. Let the adults handle things.

Reply
#83

It looks like the Republicans are going to be crying more if Elizabeth Warren and 6 other Democratic Senators get their way the first day of the new Senate in January.   She's proposing Filibuster Reform which will change the rules and make those who want to hold legislation up actually Fillibuster (ie talking for hours, reading the phone book, breaking out the diapers)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-...36800.html

Quote:

Remember Jimmy Stewart's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? I love that movie. That's what most of us think of when we hear the word "filibuster" -- a single passionate senator speaking for hours about legislation they fiercely oppose until they literally collapse with exhaustion.

But that's not what today's filibuster looks like. In reality, any senator can make a phone call, say they object to a bill, then head out for the night. In the meantime, business comes to a screeching halt.

Senate Republicans have used this type of filibuster 380 times since the Democrats took over the majority in 2006. We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies -- you name it, there's been a filibuster.

And here's the best part...

Quote:

On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.

Imagine how many bills would get passed if this happens.   I can't see many Senators willing to take the floor and oppose the "Veteran's Jobs" bill for hours.   If you want to kill a good bill, then face the political whirlwind.   God I hope Harry Reid passes that shit.

Reply
#84

This was posted in my FB feed.   Didn't know where it should go but here's the pic...

And the caption reads, "Now THIS is a Commander-in-Chief"

Do I need to state how hilarious that picture in particular was chosen?

Reply
#85
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

This was posted in my FB feed.   Didn't know where it should go but here's the pic...

And the caption reads, "Now THIS is a Commander-in-Chief"

Do I need to state how hilarious that picture in particular was chosen?

"Valarie Plame is the kind of  CIA agent Bush wishes he was, when he isn't pretending to be a jet fighter pilot or a cowboy." Bill Maher

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
#86
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

It looks like the Republicans are going to be crying more if Elizabeth Warren and 6 other Democratic Senators get their way the first day of the new Senate in January.   She's proposing Filibuster Reform which will change the rules and make those who want to hold legislation up actually Fillibuster (ie talking for hours, reading the phone book, breaking out the diapers)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-...36800.html

And here's the best part...

Imagine how many bills would get passed if this happens.   I can't see many Senators willing to take the floor and oppose the "Veteran's Jobs" bill for hours.   If you want to kill a good bill, then face the political whirlwind.   God I hope Harry Reid passes that shit.


This x 10000000.

My fingers have been crossed non-stop since the election hoping that this would happen.

Reply
#87
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post


This x 10000000.

My fingers have been crossed non-stop since the election hoping that this would happen.

There'll probably be more than just that in their filibuster reform. I still don't completely understand it yet but apparently whether someone stands up there and talks or not isn't actually a structural part of the filibuster and it being there or not won't ultimately change the end result in itself.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/17/nows_the...ilibuster/

2. Please, please, please: Forget about Jimmy Stewart. The urgent question is whether a supermajority should be needed to get things done. What’s wrong isn’t that a silent minority can block things; it’s that any minority can block anything it wants. There’s simply no reason to believe that “live” talking filibusters — senators preventing a vote by speechifying endlessly on the floor —  have anything to do with it. Nor should they. It’s just a distraction from the real issues involved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum..._blog.html

The idea that Republicans would surrender if only they were forced to stand up and fight for their views is, well, totally divorced from the reality of what politicians are like. Republicans — any minority party, on almost any issue — would be very happy to hold the floor indefinitely. It’s free publicity for them. And they care little that nothing else can get done in the meantime. They’re in the minority; the things they want aren’t going to happen anyway!

That’s why it’s the majority party that benefits from avoiding live, talking, filibusters. Indeed, under current rules, the majority could force a live filibuster at any time; there’s just no point in doing it. The demise of live filibusters isn’t what caused the explosion of filibusters, and forcing live filibusters by itself isn’t going to end anything.

Of course, it is possible to change the rules to filibusters to defeat that way, but why would you want to do it? If you want majority-party rule, just pass it. If you want some modified system (which is what I favor), just pass it.

The thing is, any modified system — and regardless of what I or any other reformer wants, that’s what it’s going to take to get action in the incoming Senate — really does need careful design. What’s the real goal? How can you really preserve the protection for minorities that senators want, without giving a minority party an absolute veto on everything? How can you preserve the influence of individual senators and the ability of majorities to act? The truth is that those are actually very difficult questions.

And none of it has anything at all to do with Jimmy Stewart.

The funny thing is that the live filibuster does have a place in the Senate, and that place is totally secure. It’s not for winning; it’s not for blocking anything. It’s for a lone, solitary cry; it’s a way to shine a little publicity on something when a senator is faced with hopeless odds.

After all, that’s what Jimmy Stewart was doing in the movie.

But in real life, it’s not supposed to win; it’s just a short bid for attention, whether it’s used by Bernie Sanders or Al D’Amato or, yes, Strom Thurmond. Real filibusters have rarely (if ever) been “live” ones, and there’s absolutely no reason they should be.The idea that Republicans would surrender if only they were forced to stand up and fight for their views is, well, totally divorced from the reality of what politicians are like. Republicans — any minority party, on almost any issue — would be very happy to hold the floor indefinitely. It’s free publicity for them. And they care little that nothing else can get done in the meantime. They’re in the minority; the things they want aren’t going to happen anyway!

Like I said, I still don't get it all myself but from what I do get, there needs to be greater structural reform. Apparently, the potential problem has always been there but it's only been a recent thing where one party is just blocking everything so much, in the past, both parties were able to negotiate much more readily when one side had more than 50 and less than 60 votes.

For example, look at the DISCLOSE Act, whether or not you agree with it, the fact is that it passed the house and got a 59-39 vote in favour in the Senate but the Democrats had just lost the Massachusetts Senate seat (and their effectively only 6 week old supermajority - not 2 years old as some people might try to say) and then everything went downhill from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act

If the Democrats ever decided to act the same way as the Republicans as opposed to compromising, they could in theory paralyse just about everything, which wouldn't be good for anyone. I don't think they will though.

Reply
#88
Agod damn if this isn't the best visual metaphor for the current state of the GOP




Reply
#89

I think making senators actually speak for their filibusters would make a difference because many times over the last four years, the bills they filibuster are good bills and their opposition to them is unconscionable.  So, in these cases, the publicity would NOT be good for them.  They have gotten away with it because the media does not tell the real story--even NPR says "The bill was held up in the Senate" or other protective language.  If these filibusters were actually covered factually by the media and by some miracle regular people learned what Republicans were blocking--the Veteran jobs bill or the bill that would eliminate tax breaks for companies relocating to China and give them to companies relocating back here--I think it would hurt Republicans ultimately.  It would give them accountability.

And the only filibuster I've seen that in any way resembles Jimmy Stewart was Bernie Sanders' epic 8-hour filibuster, and that was mostly symbolic.

Meanwhile, my Republican friends have not opened their minds since the election.  If anything, they've dug into conspiracy world even further.

Reply
#90

Also, if you actually have to physically fillibuster a bill, at the very least you're not going to drag it out every single time. You're going to pick and choose which ones are worth putting in the effort rather than casually swatting every single bill you don't like with no consequences whatsoever. So at least *slightly* more legislation would get through.

Reply
#91

"The Republican Party Going Forward"

That's hilarious.

Reply
#92

John Boehner says Obamacare must be on the table for the fiscal cliff talks. The GOP clearly isn't going forward. Its the law; just accept it!

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
#93
AThomas Ricks, a member of the Center for a New American Security, author of several books on the military, and a Pulitzer Prize winner, went on Fox to talk about Benghazi today. Ninety seconds later, he called Fox "a wing of the Republican party" and the interview was immediately brought to an end.


Link goes to Daily Kos article with transcript and embedded video. Don't worry, it's short.
Reply
#94
AConfirmation of what many had already suspected...

Quote:Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law
Former GOP chair, governor - both on outs with party - say voter fraud wasn’t a concern, but reducing Democratic votes was.

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

Reply
#95

It would not surprise me to hear that Andrew Cuomo, current governer of NY, is laying the groundwork to run on the democratic ticket in 2016.

Reply
#96
Anice bit of political heresy...

It could very well be a case of legitimate political redemption but I always approach anything former (hardcore) GOP members say/write with a big helping of skepticism.


Revenge of the Reality-Based Community
My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.
By Bruce Bartlett • November 26, 2012
Reply
#97
A[quote name="neil spurn" url="/community/t/145661/the-republican-party-going-forward-v-2-0/50#post_3430042"]It would not surprise me to hear that Andrew Cuomo, current governer of NY, is laying the groundwork to run on the democratic ticket in 2016.
[/quote]

I posted this link about a week ago...
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/chris-h...ount-cuomo

I detect some serious political ambition with Cuomo, he's gotten a taste of the national stage and he liked it....
IMO, there's something 'sketchy' about him.
Reply
#98
AAs a New Yorker I'm okay with him staying as the govenor but there is something I don't really trust with him, especially in an office as high as president. Something really slimy about Cuomo. I'd feel far more confident with Clinton, Patrick and O'Malley. Same goes for Christie way too opputunistic to be really trusted.
Reply
#99

The only filibuster reform likely to change anything would be forcing all TV and cable networks to air those filibusters live.  A lot more Americans will want them to shut the fuck up and do their jobs if they have to miss Dancing with the Stars and instead watch some doddering old fucker pontificate for hours on end while pissing his pants.

Reply

Morning Joe: Just what were GOP Senators expecting from Susan Rice? -   http://video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/4999141

Reply
ARM has an interesting idea regarding this Susan Rice witchhunt.

Maddow: GOP attacking Rice so Kerry will leave Senate

Quote:The reason, Maddow said, GOP lawmakers “prefer” Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) get a presidential cabinet nomination — either to that position or Secretary of Defense — is that the promotion would open up his Senate seat to a special election.

part of me it thinking that this is giving the GOP too much credit...but another is all too aware of the diabolical machinations of the GOP
Reply
Aquiz- Can you tell which one of these things is not like the other.....

[IMG ALT=""]http://www.chud.com/community/content/type/61/id/146132/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

PSYCH !!!

The nineteen new Republican House committee chairmen are all white males

yup, the GOP- moving forward...to the past.
Reply
AWow they couldn't put at least one woman or minority in a chairmanship? Just pathetic. Although from what a woman is the fourth in line of power in the house which is the highest a woman has gotten in the GOP for congress. So I guess that's something.
Reply

The inimitable Princess Sparkle Pony outlines the next four years of the GOP's new strategy:

http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2012/11/...rriba.html

Quote:
December 10, 2012: Fox and Friends debuts new, wider couch designed to accommodate five people wearing three-foot-wide novelty sombreros.
February 6, 2013: Peggy Noonan seen walking timidly into Upper East Side Chipotle, staring at the menu, and uttering, "Oh my god."
Reply
A[quote name="VTRan" url="/community/t/145661/the-republican-party-going-forward-v-2-0/100#post_3430731"]RM has an interesting idea regarding this Susan Rice witchhunt.
Maddow: GOP attacking Rice so Kerry will leave Senate
part of me it thinking that this is giving the GOP too much credit...but another is all too aware of the diabolical machinations of the GOP[/quote]

That's pretty much what's happening. Even today after two different republican senators met with Rice, the first thing they were sure to say to the press is how much they love John Kerry and how they would confirm him asap.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: frankypanky, huntertarantino, 2 Guest(s)