The best advice always falls on the deafest ears.

the social conservatives need to go away. it was their asinine leadership that put the Republicans into the hole. Not that the faux religious types are able to admit to screwing up...oh no, they're blaming the smaller government/fiscal conservatives for the entire mess. Because the minority Republican faction that didn't have any say in any of the party decisions over the past 20 years was responsible for the rest of the country being disgusted with the Republicans...

idiots.

Nothing against Mickey, but we would go a long ways to reviving the GOP by dumping the branding of "Conservative" and "Moderate" and "Progressives"--who are damn near extinct--and put a simple maxim back into the party: put the good of the republic back into the Republican party.

That sort of gets lost, as folks scramble to be more Conservative than their neighbors. The Republican party isn't about Conservatives or Moderates, and hasn't really been Progressive since Teddy Roosevelt--and sadly, he was rejected and the party began a turn to show that they were tougher and harder then, and it made its final turn towards Looney Land with GW and the Neocons gaining control--but about the preservation of the republic. Long term solutions, efficiency in government, and a stalwart defense of the Constitution. That is what we need. Not "Conservatives" not to be "more" right, but to have actual ideas and actual policies--the push to simply opine the opposite of the folks in office isn't policy, it's sour grapes, and it does nothing to improve our standing or dignity as a party.

hubiestubert: Nothing against Mickey, but we would go a long ways to reviving the GOP by dumping the branding of "Conservative" and "Moderate" and "Progressives"--who are damn near extinct--and put a simple maxim back into the party: put the good of the republic back into the Republican party.

The problem you run into there is the current GOP trend of demanding idealogical purity.

When the powers-that-be in the GOP demand that their politicians (and candidates) follow each and every plank of the national party platform, you run into two problems. First off, you push people like Weaver out of the fold, because his libertarian beliefs do not mesh with the social platform. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you stifle discussion on the issues. The only way an answer is seen as acceptable is if it's "more" conservative. This leads to such absurdities as having "tax cuts" become the answer to virtually every issue.

Go back to the party of Eisenhower- a party where demanding a massive investment into infrastructure (the Interstate System) was seen, rightly, as a good thing for the US. Right now, the GOP is offering me Sarah Palin. That will not earn my vote.

Please, Republicans, for the good of the nation, fix your party.

No, we don't need a better GOP. We need a better 2nd party. I really don't care if its in the form of the GOP or not.

We need a viable, strong third-party. Maybe even a fourth if we want to get all crazy like.

DamnYankees: We need a better 2nd party.

This is what I was thinking. If anything we need an actual left wing party. Right now we have the far right wing GOP and the slightly less right wing Democrats.

DamnYankees: No, we don't need a better GOP. We need a better 2nd party. I really don't care if its in the form of the GOP or not.

If the GOP implodes, it'll take our two party system with it. THEN we'll see some 'hope and change'!

As a lifelong Dem, I have to agree with this, for the good of the country.

UNC_Samurai: The best advice always falls on the deafest ears.

I totally agree-- like people who think gays need to be kept out of the military.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: No, we don't need a better GOP. We need a better 2nd party. I really don't care if its in the form of the GOP or not.

If the GOP implodes, it'll take our two party system with it. THEN we'll see some 'hope and change'!

It's happened before to the old-style dems in 1860. As it turns out, it probably had some positive societal results despite some collateral damage with respect to size of government.

We need more than two viable parties. Trying to shoehorn political beliefs into just "democrats" and "republicans" is pointless.

Also, Gonz, Ike wasn't even a republican until the convention. Both parties were trying to get him to show up to their conventions because neither side knew where he fell. Just so happened he picked the republicans. Choosing Ike drove further right-ists like Bob Taft and Nixon crazy, but they hadn't won an election since 1928, so they acceded to the need to try something different, even at the expense of a little 'ideological purity'.

Also, in the new movement toward revisionist right-wing ideological purity, there are a couple of books out now like this one (new window) stating that McCarthy got a bad rap from liberals such as Nixon and Bob Taft and the arch-enemy, Eisenhower. You can just imagine what the author has to say about Truman and FDR.

SilentStrider: We need more than two viable parties. Trying to shoehorn political beliefs into just "democrats" and "republicans" is pointless.

This is the most intelligent post I've ever seen in a Fark politics thread.

SilentStrider: We need more than two viable parties. Trying to shoehorn political beliefs into just "democrats" and "republicans" is pointless.

That's a nice idea, but to be quit honest, unless we adopt a Parliamentary system sometime soon, a third or fourth party is just an instrument to handing one party a much larger margin for victory by splitting votes.

It's a nice idea, but our system is not geared for third party viability, except in very exceptional circumstances.

hubiestubert: SilentStrider: We need more than two viable parties. Trying to shoehorn political beliefs into just "democrats" and "republicans" is pointless.

That's a nice idea, but to be quit honest, unless we adopt a Parliamentary system sometime soon, a third or fourth party is just an instrument to handing one party a much larger margin for victory by splitting votes.

It's a nice idea, but our system is not geared for third party viability, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Thank you...a multi-party system has its own (huge) slate of problems. We DO NOT need a multi-party system. It is NOT the answer.

The reason they call it the GOP is because it's SOOOO old and it just hasn't had the good graces to die yet.

monkeyman3875: The reason they call it the GOP is because it's SOOOO old and it just hasn't had the good graces to die yet.

You do realize that the Republican party is actually younger than the Democratic party, right? Founded in the 1850s. It survived competition with the Whigs who had replaced the Federalists...

UNC_Samurai: The best advice always falls on the deafest ears.



7of7: This is what I was thinking. If anything we need an actual left wing party. Right now we have the far right wing GOP and the slightly less right wing Democrats.

Let the blue dogs and the scant sane Republicans form a new party I say.

eqtworld: You stay classy.

"Obvious" tag not available, subby?

Sane Republicans +1

Mentat: Sane Republicans +1

Isn't that a contradiction in terms these days?

Gonz: hubiestubert: Nothing against Mickey, but we would go a long ways to reviving the GOP by dumping the branding of "Conservative" and "Moderate" and "Progressives"--who are damn near extinct--and put a simple maxim back into the party: put the good of the republic back into the Republican party.

The problem you run into there is the current GOP trend of demanding idealogical purity.

When the powers-that-be in the GOP demand that their politicians (and candidates) follow each and every plank of the national party platform, you run into two problems. First off, you push people like Weaver out of the fold, because his libertarian beliefs do not mesh with the social platform. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you stifle discussion on the issues. The only way an answer is seen as acceptable is if it's "more" conservative. This leads to such absurdities as having "tax cuts" become the answer to virtually every issue.

Go back to the party of Eisenhower- a party where demanding a massive investment into infrastructure (the Interstate System) was seen, rightly, as a good thing for the US. Right now, the GOP is offering me Sarah Palin. That will not earn my vote.

Please, Republicans, for the good of the nation, fix your party.


Who is this exactly? Serious question.

+1 from a life-long Republican who defected to non-affiliated during the 2008 Presidential election.

Yes, it does. The one we have had for the last 40 years or so has been co-opted by the bible banging fascist pigs who would have intercourse with their grandmothers if they could profit from it.

That being said, I hope it goes through trials by fire and 40 or so years in the electoral wilderness before it realizes that being a party with a big tent means accepting people who want to join and that by excluding some will alienate their friends as well. But, in a burst of sanity and lucidity, I realize these are Republikkkans I am talking about. They can all go to... Maybe the Greens and Progressives will rise up from the left and challenge the Dems to be truly a party of all the people.

Let the republikkkans wallow in their own filth while they wail at the altar of flush limberger and cheney's dick about Obama's spicy mustard.

GreenAdder: SilentStrider: We need more than two viable parties. Trying to shoehorn political beliefs into just "democrats" and "republicans" is pointless.

This is the most intelligent naive post I've ever seen in a Fark politics thread.

FTFY

"Republicans have to put a leash on attack-dog tactics and engage in a constructive manner to deal with serious problems facing the country."

Seriously, what would Rush do if he had to get a real job?

.

Tor_Eckman: Who is this exactly? Serious question.

Ah. I know where you're going with this question, and no, I didn't mean Rush.

I was mainly talking about the big money donors. The ones who will pour cash into the coffers of politicians who vote with the party, no matter what.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Seriously, what would Rush do if he had to get a real job?

I hear ShamWow has an opening.

Gonz: Tor_Eckman: Who is this exactly? Serious question.

Ah. I know where you're going with this question, and no, I didn't mean Rush.

I was mainly talking about the big money donors. The ones who will pour cash into the coffers of politicians who vote with the party, no matter what.

No. I was not baiting you. I really want to know who actual conservatives consider to be the leaders of the party right now.

dodecahedron: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Seriously, what would Rush do if he had to get a real job?

I hear ShamWow has an opening.

The camera guy refuses to follow him.

dodecahedron: GreenAdder: SilentStrider: We need more than two viable parties. Trying to shoehorn political beliefs into just "democrats" and "republicans" is pointless.

This is the most intelligent naive post I've ever seen in a Fark politics thread.

FTFY

naive? Really? For wanting a political system that actually better represents my interests?

This must be some new definition of naive I was previously unaware of/

Tor_Eckman: No. I was not baiting you. I really want to know who actual conservatives consider to be the leaders of the party right now.

Not sure it's safe to answer that question anymore, next time something looney comes out it's critical to have the ability to deny accountability.

This headline is full of DUH.

I understand we need an opposition party, but holy crap am I enjoying the freakout. I thought after the election that I would be kind of bored, but every day a conservative is on tv claiming the government is the devil, they need a hip hop makeover, or that obama is a fascist socialist that likes his hamburgers gay.

Screw 'em.

No, we don't need a better GOP. To be honest, we need a better constitution.


Don't get me wrong-- I think the U.S. constitution is a damn fine document, and I'm a real fan of Thomas Jefferson.

But think of all the changes that have happened in the last 230 or so years. American society today is vastly bigger, more advanced, and more complicated than T.J. could have ever dreamed.

Even worse, it seems that our elected officials in Washington feel free to ignore the constitution more with each passing year. Sometimes it's for worthy causes-- like getting representation to the people of D.C.-- but they're failing to go through the amendment process like they're supposed to do.

============================================

We need a new constitution that makes sure EVERY adult citizen has the right to vote, whether or not they are in jail, prison, or insane asylum. One that makes sure that one or two political parties are not favored on who gets on the ballot or how district lines are drawn. One that formally declares that the government is a secular institution. One that makes sure elected representatives are not able to legally accept bribes in the form of "campaign contributions."

We need a new constitution that makes sure the government is denied the power to arbitrarily spy on citizens, and will NEVER be allowed to torture. One that guarantees the right of all consenting adults to do as they please in private.

We need a new constitution that keeps the innocent from going to prison only because he/she can't afford a good lawyer. One that makes sure only the bare minimum necessary of its citizens are locked up, and the ones that do end up incarcerated are decently treated.

SilentStrider: naive? Really? For wanting a political system that actually better represents my interests?

This must be some new definition of naive I was previously unaware of/

It's just that there are already quite a few more than two parties already. Plus there's potentially a lot more to be gained (IMO) by retooling (pun intended) the existing republican party than by relaunching it under a new name.

Didn't mean to insult you because I think we agree a lot of the time, but I do think it's a naive assumption that yet another party is going to make any difference, particularly launched from scratch.

Riche

2nd.

Riche: No, we don't need a better GOP. To be honest, we need a better constitution.

Disagree. I think need all potential congresspeople to pass a test on the constitution, to attend a certain number of continuing constitutional educational classes annually, and to pass an updated test before they're up for re-election.

Seriously, you have to pass tests to be a doctor or a lawyer, at least you should have to do the same kind of thing on the constitution before you start farking around with our country's laws.

Tor_Eckman: No. I was not baiting you. I really want to know who actual conservatives consider to be the leaders of the party right now.

Oh, well, hell, I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm one of those libs that "actual conservatives" rail against.

dodecahedron: Riche: No, we don't need a better GOP. To be honest, we need a better constitution.

Disagree. I think need all potential congresspeople to pass a test on the constitution, to attend a certain number of continuing constitutional educational classes annually, and to pass an updated test before they're up for re-election.

Seriously, you have to pass tests to be a doctor or a lawyer, at least you should have to do the same kind of thing on the constitution before you start farking around with our country's laws.

That sounds democratic!! /sarcasm

/psst, there's a test built in - it's called an election!!

Riche: We need a new constitution that makes sure EVERY adult citizen has the right to vote, whether or not they are in jail, prison, or insane asylum. One that makes sure that one or two political parties are not favored on who gets on the ballot or how district lines are drawn. One that formally declares that the government is a secular institution. One that makes sure elected representatives are not able to legally accept bribes in the form of "campaign contributions."

No we don't. We do need an aware electorate that holds its representatives accountable. We have those protections already, but we don't exercise them.

We need a new constitution that makes sure the government is denied the power to arbitrarily spy on citizens, and will NEVER be allowed to torture. One that guarantees the right of all consenting adults to do as they please in private.

We have those protections already. See the above. That we fail to demand the exercise of the protections that we already have, is the fault of the electorate. Blame a lazy and indifferent electorate for accepting excuses for the infringement of the right to privacy.

We need a new constitution that keeps the innocent from going to prison only because he/she can't afford a good lawyer. One that makes sure only the bare minimum necessary of its citizens are locked up, and the ones that do end up incarcerated are decently treated.

Again--see the above. All the things that you've enumerated, we have, if the electorate so decides. But, we don't. We allow a great deal on our watch, but that is not the fault of the Constitution, but an electorate that does not demand better.

All that you have a problem with is not the fault of the Constitution, but lies squarely on the shoulders of the body politic.

Accept some goddamn responsibility, and stop looking for folks to blame.

The nation needs a better GOP

I (as a Republican) have been saying this for years. You can't save the world, until you save America; you can't save America, until you save the Republican Party. The best way to do this is not through diract action but direct infiltration. The fundamentalist Christians have hijacked my party and crashed it into the Constitution. And I want to take it away from them.

Riche: No, we don't need a better GOP. To be honest, we need a better constitution.


Don't get me wrong-- I think the U.S. constitution is a damn fine document, and I'm a real fan of Thomas Jefferson.

But think of all the changes that have happened in the last 230 or so years. American society today is vastly bigger, more advanced, and more complicated than T.J. could have ever dreamed.

Even worse, it seems that our elected officials in Washington feel free to ignore the constitution more with each passing year. Sometimes it's for worthy causes-- like getting representation to the people of D.C.-- but they're failing to go through the amendment process like they're supposed to do.

============================================

We need a new constitution that makes sure EVERY adult citizen has the right to vote, whether or not they are in jail, prison, or insane asylum. One that makes sure that one or two political parties are not favored on who gets on the ballot or how district lines are drawn. One that formally declares that the government is a secular institution. One that makes sure elected representatives are not able to legally accept bribes in the form of "campaign contributions."

We need a new constitution that makes sure the government is denied the power to arbitrarily spy on citizens, and will NEVER be allowed to torture. One that guarantees the right of all consenting adults to do as they please in private.

We need a new constitution that keeps the innocent from going to prison only because he/she can't afford a good lawyer. One that makes sure only the bare minimum necessary of its citizens are locked up, and the ones that do end up incarcerated are decently treated.


You know there comes a point when the constitution becomes so outdated and so dogmatically revered that it's basically a new bible. The constitution should not be easy to change but it also should not be so hard to change that no one ever tries.

It would be easier in many ways to let the GOP die and have the current Democratic Party become the moderate conservtive party (which they are right now) and make a new party that is truly liberal. The GOP is beyond salvageable at this point due to their reliance on their lunatic base. The GOP can't get rid of that lunatic base as to do so means they won't win at all and they can't move forward with them.

Dee Snarl: /psst, there's a test built in - it's called an election!!

Psst, that alone tells you nothing about whether the person you are voting for knows what he or she understands about our country's laws.

So make anyone who wants to run for office take a comprehensive constitutional test, and then make the results public before the people vote. I'd like to be confident that the person I vote for knows what the hell, for one example, the first amendment is about, given that most people who run their mouth about it have no clue.

People could still vote for whom they want to, I'm just more comfortable voting for people who know what they're talking about. How about you?

Gonz:
Go back to the party of Eisenhower- a party where demanding a massive investment into infrastructure (the Interstate System) was seen, rightly, as a good thing for the US. Right now, the GOP is offering me Sarah Palin. That will not earn my vote.

Beautifully put, good sir.

Befuddled: It would be easier in many ways to let the GOP die and have the current Democratic Party become the moderate conservtive party (which they are right now) and make a new party that is truly liberal. The GOP is beyond salvageable at this point due to their reliance on their lunatic base. The GOP can't get rid of that lunatic base as to do so means they won't win at all and they can't move forward with them.

So, your solution for a radicalized right is to instead invite a radicalized left?

Brilliant...