If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   More GOP infighting: The moderates are revolting   (dailykos.com) divider line 228
    More: Followup, GOP, infighting, Speaker Boehner, moderates, Saxby Chambliss, Health Care, International, American Solutions  
•       •       •

9527 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 9:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



228 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-11 04:37:39 PM
Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.
 
2012-11-11 04:52:40 PM
I'll say... they stink on ice
 
2012-11-11 04:53:32 PM
Yep, the right does consider moderates revolting.
 
2012-11-11 04:54:15 PM
Mitch McConnell is pretty revolting, and he's not a moderate.
 
2012-11-11 04:56:29 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Candian conservatives aren't equatable to US Conservatives. Not by a long shot.

Canadian conservatives are equatable to US Blue dogs at WORST.
 
2012-11-11 04:59:28 PM
Of course moderate Republicans are revolting. That's why they call them RINOS. They smell like the Rhino pen at the zoo, what with their gay brothers and sisters, their "black friends", their insistance on foolishlessness like "making jobs", or "a living wage" or worse yet, "buy America" and "bring our boys home alive".

If they were in charge, you'd get nothing but "liberalism lite". Moderate Republicans agree with centrists and liberals on almost everything except how much to tax moderate Republicans.
 
2012-11-11 05:04:51 PM
No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.
 
2012-11-11 05:05:47 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


I don't want your newsletter.
 
2012-11-11 05:12:20 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Canadian conservatives think the GOP is batshiate insane. Canadian conservatives could not get elected in the US South
 
2012-11-11 05:12:38 PM
Headline randomly grabbed from Free Republic: "Boehner Tells House G.O.P. to Fall in Line (Time for Conservatives to divorce the GOP)"

And within that thread, this pic:

i1182.photobucket.com

This is going to be delicious.
 
2012-11-11 05:12:48 PM
People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.
 
2012-11-11 05:14:34 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


The Progressive Conservative Party that went down is not the same party that came back from the grave. It's like when somebody is bitten by a vampire and comes back. They are not the same loved one you buried. They are a blood-sucking demon in human form.

The same thing happened to the Republican Party--it was once the party of Lincoln and the abolitionists (far to the left of him). It was once a centrist party, with liberal and moderate wings keeping it stable and close to the people of small town, middle class America.

But it was taken over from within like a caterpillar being devoured by wasp larvae.

Today's Conservatives are basically the Northern wing of the Republicans. They are fundamentalist Christians, anti-tax suburbanites and ass-kissers of the Oil Patch and the Super Rich Tories of Toronto.

To give you an idea, the two surviving Members of Parliament after the crash were Elsie Wayne (a right-winger from Saint John, New Brunswick, whose opinions are often unreconstructed and whose language and methods are "colourful" even by right-wing New Brunswick standards, and Jean Charest, who is still he Liberal Prime Minister (or Premier) of Quebec.

Jean Charest is more to the left than a Massachusetts Republican and Elsie, God Bless Her, is a flake who is prone to wearing Christmas sweaters that light up more than her latest anti-gay statement.

The Conservative Party died. It is just the reanimated corpse that is walking the Earth. The New Conservatives, like their neo-Con and libertarian American counterparts, are no more centrist, moderate, liberal, or sane than the Reverend Bumfackus of the Super-Church of Jesus Christ of Backwoods, Nigeria is a Universalist Christian.

he vampire or zombie analogy is a sound one. The old name covers a skin full of new sins and very, very old cons.

Harper is a cunning player but his only "real" job as a trained economist was to shill for rich Tories on every anti-tax, anti-environment, and anti-liberal con job that came down the tubes from the ultra-right think tansks.

The Conservative Party was weak when it merged with the Reform Party, and neither of those two parties really survive in the present-day Conservative Party. A revolution has taken place, using the right wing peasantry and working class reactionaries as cannon fodder, but the only result of the revolution was o place the revolutionaries at the top. Not unlike the Mexican Revolution, the French Revoluition, the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution, etc.

Remember your horror movies: what you get back from the grave is not what you buried.
 
2012-11-11 05:38:38 PM

Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.


Why do we need another center right party, we already have Democrats.
 
2012-11-11 05:40:11 PM

propasaurus: Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.

Why do we need another center right party, we already have Democrats.


Well, center right compared to the current GOP, I mean.
 
2012-11-11 05:58:46 PM

brantgoose: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

The Progressive Conservative Party that went down is not the same party that came back from the grave. It's like when somebody is bitten by a vampire and comes back. They are not the same loved one you buried. They are a blood-sucking demon in human form.

The same thing happened to the Republican Party--it was once the party of Lincoln and the abolitionists (far to the left of him). It was once a centrist party, with liberal and moderate wings keeping it stable and close to the people of small town, middle class America.

But it was taken over from within like a caterpillar being devoured by wasp larvae.

Today's Conservatives are basically the Northern wing of the Republicans. They are fundamentalist Christians, anti-tax suburbanites and ass-kissers of the Oil Patch and the Super Rich Tories of Toronto.

To give you an idea, the two surviving Members of Parliament after the crash were Elsie Wayne (a right-winger from Saint John, New Brunswick, whose opinions are often unreconstructed and whose language and methods are "colourful" even by right-wing New Brunswick standards, and Jean Charest, who is still he Liberal Prime Minister (or Premier) of Quebec.

Jean Charest is more to the left than a Massachusetts Republican and Elsie, God Bless Her, is a flake who is prone to wearing Christmas sweaters that light up more than her latest anti-gay statement.

The Conservative Party died. It is just the reanimated corpse that is walking the Earth. The New Conservatives, like their neo-Con and libertarian American counterparts, are no more centrist, moderate, liberal, or sane than the Reverend Bumfackus of the Super-Church of Jesus Christ of Backwoods, Nigeria is a Universalist Christian.

he vampire or zombie analogy is a sound one. The old name covers a skin full of new ...


I'm totally confused here. Others are saying the Conservatives in Canada are to the left of the US Republican Party. You seem to be saying the opposite.
 
2012-11-11 06:09:17 PM
cdn2-b.examiner.comi1182.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 06:21:47 PM

GAT_00: The GOP will not fall apart.


Hm. What odds would you want to give for a wager on that? Specifically, with you paying out if more than 20% of the current House GOP membership OR more than half the Senate GOP membership leave the GOP before election day 2014, whether defecting to the Democrats or establishing a new party.

Though a more interesting question might be what odds Nate Silver would give....
 
2012-11-11 06:34:28 PM

abb3w: GAT_00: The GOP will not fall apart.

Hm. What odds would you want to give for a wager on that? Specifically, with you paying out if more than 20% of the current House GOP membership OR more than half the Senate GOP membership leave the GOP before election day 2014, whether defecting to the Democrats or establishing a new party.

Though a more interesting question might be what odds Nate Silver would give....


I don't know. I'm pretty confident of it, no matter how the fiscal cliff turns out too. Any outcome there will piss them off. Anything will be Boehner giving in. They'll scream a lot but stay GOP.

Now, do you consider the Tea Party Caucus a separate party? That matters too.
 
2012-11-11 06:36:54 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


So, 20 years of sanity? I'm ok with that.
 
2012-11-11 06:48:30 PM
Popcorn get your popcorn here.

This is going to be very very interesting. Just imagine the finger pointing the
gnashing of teeth and the foot stomping not to mention all those tears of impotent
Republican rage. Oh we have all that now? How bout the volume will go up to 12. Better?
 
2012-11-11 06:51:31 PM
Boehner must be a librul plant, right?
 
2012-11-11 06:55:54 PM

Kittypie070: Boehner must be a librul plant, right?


Of course, I've seen him golfing with the enemy.

i.usatoday.net
 
2012-11-11 06:56:39 PM
Honestly, aren't most liberal Republicans essentially moderate Democrats? The Democratic Party has shifted so far to the right (though one could argue that it's just more heterogeneous and thus covers both liberal and moderate strands), that I'm not really sure a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, national security hawk Republican would feel SO uncomfortable there.
 
2012-11-11 06:58:20 PM
"It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, just don't reload the gun," Graham said,

The real first openly lesbian US Senator has a point there.

Here's the thing.

The GOP's "balk at everything" strategy they've kept up for the last 4 years but especially last two WILL NOT FLY for the next 4.

The brighter professional pols in the GOP recognize this and are trying to signal the others of the sea change but the Teatard contingent are doubling down on derp and calling them all RINOs.

And me?

I'mma just sitting in front of my 'puter scarfing down popcorn and washing it down with a fresh bottle of "GOP Tears of Unfathomable Sadness".

Mmmm 2012, an excellent year.  :>D
 
2012-11-11 07:01:11 PM

Kittypie070: Boehner must be a librul plant, right?


I read Robert Draper's "Do Not Ask What Good We Do" over the summer. From that analysis, Boehner appeared to be a conservative Republican, but also a quintessential party man. In other words, he would prefer to make deals and keep the Republican party viable electorally rather than stick to pure right-wing ideology. That's one reason he's had a hard time getting votes from the rancorous Tea Partiers that won in 2010 and have made his life hell. Well, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor have as well, but they are also in that ideological stream. It will be interesting to see if he can keep his majority in check this time around.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 07:19:29 PM

Ambivalence: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

Candian conservatives aren't equatable to US Conservatives. Not by a long shot.

Canadian conservatives are equatable to US Blue dogs at WORST.


Yep. The Democratic party would qualify as conservative pretty must anywhere outside of the US. The GOP would be a far right party.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 07:20:11 PM

GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.


No, but it will change.
 
2012-11-11 07:41:55 PM
Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.
 
2012-11-11 07:42:29 PM

Ambivalence: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

Candian conservatives aren't equatable to US Conservatives. Not by a long shot.

Canadian conservatives are equatable to US Blue dogs at WORST.


Eh... dammit. You're probably right. I'm rusty on my understanding of current Canadian politics since I stopped going over the border on a monthly basis and moved out of the CBC broadcast range. I still kind of hate Harper, though.

Then again, I got to high-five multiple Canadians at a show last night because Michigan voted against Mr. Burns.
So in that spirit of camaraderie even Harper gets a pass for the time being.



brantgoose
: Remember your horror movies: what you get back from the grave is not what you buried. 

Oh, I am totally going to have to steal that from you for future use.
 
2012-11-11 07:45:39 PM

mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.


Who is assuming that? If she was, I don't know if she's be stepping down as Secretary of State. I could see her as VP nominee, possibly, but she's getting on in years. She'd be almost 70 if she ran in 2016 IIRC.
 
2012-11-11 08:00:34 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Who is assuming that?


No one. I don't even want to hear about 2016. Can we have 6 months to digest this whole nightmare?
 
2012-11-11 08:01:01 PM
Wait a minute, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol and Saxby Chambliss are the moderates in the party now?
 
2012-11-11 08:01:58 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Which means absolutely nothing.
 
2012-11-11 08:02:18 PM
A bath , a haircut and a tuxedo can work wonders.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-11 08:09:07 PM

NewportBarGuy: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Who is assuming that?

No one. I don't even want to hear about 2016. Can we have 6 months to digest this whole nightmare?


I'm not making any assumptions. I just try to debunk stupid ones as a public service.

I really, really hate that the 2014 House campaigns are probably going to be starting up soon though.
 
2012-11-11 08:09:33 PM

vpb: Ambivalence: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

Candian conservatives aren't equatable to US Conservatives. Not by a long shot.

Canadian conservatives are equatable to US Blue dogs at WORST.

Yep. The Democratic party would qualify as conservative pretty must anywhere outside of the US. The GOP would be a far right party.


I really more wish people would understand this. The nearest thing the UK has to the current GOP is the National Front. Read their policy positions -- the NF, which is considered a far-right nationalist group in the UK, is actually more liberal than the current GOP. The only thing more "radical" that the NF does is they actually acknowledge their white-supremacist position, where the GOP deals in dog whistles and euphemisms about "real Americans".
 
2012-11-11 08:37:19 PM

vpb: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

No, but it will change.


Yep, it's going to go further right.
 
2012-11-11 08:52:33 PM

GAT_00: vpb: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

No, but it will change.

Yep, it's going to go further right.


And the further right it goes the smaller and more irrelevant it will become.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 09:00:27 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.



Politics, it works like a pendulum. Who would have guessed?
 
2012-11-11 09:07:30 PM
Hannity and Co. are embracing the Dem stance on immigration. Bill Kristol is giving the OK to raise taxes on the rich. This election is already having major effects on the future of the US, and it hasn't even been a full week.
 
2012-11-11 09:07:52 PM

Krymson Tyde: And the further right it goes the smaller and more irrelevant it will become.


Until it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub.
 
2012-11-11 09:16:15 PM

vpb: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

No, but it will change.


Everything changes all the time. The question is whether the GOP will change for the better or worse.
 
2012-11-11 09:18:29 PM

NFA: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Politics, it works like a pendulum. Who would have guessed?


In 2004 there were at least as many stories about the impending collapse of the Democratic party. In 1996 there were the same stories about the collapse of the Republican party. 1984? You would have thought Ronald Reagan had slaughtered the Democratic party itself. Any time a President wins a second term the press treats it like it was unexpected instead of the usual pattern in national elections.
 
2012-11-11 09:29:53 PM
The Reactionaries have not bolted to Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party. When they do, then we'll see some changes. Until that happens, there will be no breakdown of the Republican Party.
 
2012-11-11 09:32:24 PM

Mentat: Wait a minute, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol and Saxby Chambliss are the moderates in the party now?


I'm surprised about Chambliss. But Kristol and Graham are Dick Cheney/Paul Wolfowitz neoconservatives and have been for a long time. They have not historically cared very much for Grover Norquist and the rabid anti-tax wing. They have no inherent problem with deficit spending.
 
2012-11-11 09:34:34 PM

GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.


The fact is that if you take the evangelicals out of this election, Mitt Romney is President.

The GOP is dying and every facet of the party knows that it's dead without an expansion of the base. The only question is how the GOP tries to achieve it. Do they drop the social issues and stay tight on fiscal and small government issues to capture the stable middle class and upper middle class? Or do they do the opposite in the hopes of mobilizing the Latino vote?

They can't do both, and it leaves at least one of the facets of the party out in the cold.
 
2012-11-11 09:41:26 PM

Lsherm: NFA: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Politics, it works like a pendulum. Who would have guessed?

In 2004 there were at least as many stories about the impending collapse of the Democratic party. In 1996 there were the same stories about the collapse of the Republican party. 1984? You would have thought Ronald Reagan had slaughtered the Democratic party itself. Any time a President wins a second term the press treats it like it was unexpected instead of the usual pattern in national elections.


This country is ruled by the moderate middle. If either side goes too far to the extremes, the moderate middle grabs them by the throat and yanks them back. Sometimes, an event like 9/11 allows one side to get away with more than usual, but they always overreach. That said, there's nothing that says either political party has a right to survive. The labels may change, but that's all the Republican Party is.
 
2012-11-11 09:44:02 PM
Two derps enter, one herp leaves!
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-11 09:46:05 PM
oi50.tinypic.com 
 
2012-11-11 09:46:07 PM
Well, they're mostly just rude.
 
2012-11-11 09:46:36 PM
The real RINO's are the members of the Theocratic-Industrial Complex.

A little religion and encouraging business is republican, but they've been using the whole chicken.
 
2012-11-11 09:46:52 PM
They won't fall apart, because they will find another boogey man...and if they don't have Obama, they will find someone else (remember McCarthy) and that is a fact.
 
2012-11-11 09:47:31 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


It's also not the same conservative party. The Progressive Conservatives lost badly, the current party is the Conservatives, a lot of the same folk, but slightly more to the right. You could also say that the Liberal party also has fielded some brutal candidates since Chretien as a reason for the current situation.

csb time: I bumped into former PM Brian Mulroney on the street in Toronto (without bodyguards), he seemed like a nice guy.
 
2012-11-11 09:50:31 PM
img507.imageshack.us

agrees

/oblig
//no need to thank me citizens
 
2012-11-11 09:51:46 PM
If the Republican Party would just quit bashing immigrants, science, gays, and women's reproductive health and prove to me that 'trickle down' actually works, I might be convinced to vote for them again.

But then they'd be Democrats, so who cares anyway?
 
2012-11-11 09:52:38 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Well yeah, but just how conservative is Canada's conservative party compared to the US Democrats? There's nothing wrong with sane conservatism.
 
2012-11-11 09:53:17 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Ambivalence: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

Candian conservatives aren't equatable to US Conservatives. Not by a long shot.

Canadian conservatives are equatable to US Blue dogs at WORST.

Eh... dammit. You're probably right. I'm rusty on my understanding of current Canadian politics since I stopped going over the border on a monthly basis and moved out of the CBC broadcast range. I still kind of hate Harper, though.

Then again, I got to high-five multiple Canadians at a show last night because Michigan voted against Mr. Burns.
So in that spirit of camaraderie even Harper gets a pass for the time being.



brantgoose: Remember your horror movies: what you get back from the grave is not what you buried. 

Oh, I am totally going to have to steal that from you for future use.


Mr. Stotch, I know what you're thinking. I'm here to talk you out of it.
 
2012-11-11 09:53:43 PM
Newsflash....the GOP is revolting.
 
2012-11-11 09:55:00 PM
The GOP has a faux reorganization every few years.

Southern Strategy --> Moral Majority (too preachy) --> Christian Coalition (preachy + business, but still a bit too preachy) --> Neocons (all the hate, half the religion) --> Teabaggers (twice the hate, twice the stupidity, with implausible deniability for the Bush years)...

It's just McDonalds or Coke changing logos and slogans to get the same set of workers to vote for the rich.
 
2012-11-11 09:56:14 PM
We know they are revolting. Can you tell us a bit about what is going on now?
 
2012-11-11 09:56:54 PM
I can handle the Moderates, it's the current status quo of the GOP that I find revolting. A bunch of whiny 4 year olds who had their popsicles taken away.
 
2012-11-11 09:58:03 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Canadian conservatives are basically Democrats. Still, this country is pretty firmly center-right, so it's not like we'll see any kind of Sweden-like Socialist Democracy anytime soon. Moderate Democrats like Obama, Clinton, Reid et al. will be the loudest voices in the party (in terms of national direction) for the foreseeable future.
 
2012-11-11 10:02:27 PM
28.media.tumblr.com
Stupid Saxby Chambliss.
 
2012-11-11 10:03:26 PM

mikemoto: Take a guess which party controls their government now.


The Liberals handed them the initial minority on a plate and they bought their second term majority the old fashioned Bush way: by stimulating a housing bubble of catastrophic proportions. The Cons won't see a third term.
 
2012-11-11 10:04:26 PM
Both parties should be split into two.
 
2012-11-11 10:05:05 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


That happened in 1992 and gave us Newt Gingrich and the Bush years. One can only hoped the American populace has learned.
 
2012-11-11 10:05:57 PM
Brantgoose, Jean Charest is no longer the Quebec premier. He got defeated in september and has fled the country gone on a 6 month world tour.

/Not going to quote your wall of text, since Fark Mobile doesn't allow me to edit it to keep only the relevant bits.
 
2012-11-11 10:06:03 PM
I'm waiting for the return of the Whigs.
/We need more men like Millard Fillmore!
 
2012-11-11 10:06:24 PM
One of two things has to happen within the GOP:

Either they have to disavow the Teahadists in their ranks, toss them out, admit they MUST move back towards the center (although they'll likely stay farther right than they were) in order to regain the support of the right-moderates in the nation; or,

They will have to continue to move farther right, in which case there will be a breakaway of the moderates among them and the formation of a center-right third party.

There's really no third option for the Republicans at this point. If they continue to court the far right ultranationalists and Tea Party conservatives, they will continue to lose the center and moderate-right within their own ranks. Now, those moderates can either defect to the left, which is increasingly doubtful as the nation continues to polarize, or they'll have to move to the Libertarians and change the focus of that party's economic philosophy (because pure Randian economics can't work in today's political climate) or else form their own New Republican party).

Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.
 
2012-11-11 10:07:26 PM

brantgoose: Remember your horror movies: what you get back from the grave is not what you buried.


I knew there was a good reason I had you faved.
 
2012-11-11 10:10:46 PM
The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

This is precisely what happened between 1972 and 1980. The repubs disgraced themselves, the government was thrown into the hands of the Democrats and they proceeded to push through thoughtless progressive legislation that wrecked the economy and paved the way for the Reagan Revolution. Come to think of it, it happened again in 2000 when the Democrats disgraced themselves (or were tricked into giving the appearance of being disgraced), the government was thrown into the hands of the repubs and they proceeded to push through thoughtless conservative legislation that wrecked the economy and paved the way for Obama. If the Democrats can keep their pants zipped up, avoid hubris and put country before ideology, they have a chance of holding on to power; more importantly, of doing something useful with it. But they probably won't. 

Wouldn't it be nice to having two grown-up parties again, one dedicated to making the country a better place for the poor and the disadvantaged, one to keeping the country on an even financial keel, neither particularly interested in poking their noses into other people's bedrooms? Sigh, the good old days...
 
2012-11-11 10:11:20 PM
I expect there to be much wheeling and dealing during the lame duck session, just as there was in 2010. If there's one thing you can count on Republicans for, it's giving up their ideals and values the second there are no electoral consequences for it.
 
2012-11-11 10:12:36 PM
That's one of the stupider political posts I've ever read. The whole post can be summed up as: Moderates from the other party may bail, which will cost them votes, which will allow us to kick our own moderates to the curb! Wonderful idea, you'll have the shortest lived super majority since . . . the last time the Democrats had a super majority.
 
2012-11-11 10:13:14 PM
The moderates are revolting
classiccinemaquotes.com
They soitenly are...
 
2012-11-11 10:14:17 PM
They've always been revolting. Now they're rebelling.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-11-11 10:17:33 PM

Wireless Joe: The moderates are revolting
[classiccinemaquotes.com image 454x365]
They soitenly are...


*shakes impotent fist of rage*
 
2012-11-11 10:18:55 PM

Kurmudgeon: /We need more men like Millard Fillmore!

  
 
2012-11-11 10:19:41 PM
As if the Republicans have a choice. The Tax cuts are expiring. They can either be on the right side of history, or kiss control of Congress goodbye in 2014. What would you do?

The fallout from the most extreme public will be glorious as they realize they're irrelevant and antiquated. I'm genuinely excited.
 
2012-11-11 10:20:39 PM
Well crap...

Kurmudgeon: /We need more men like Millard Fillmore!

 

www.mindhuestudio.com
 
2012-11-11 10:25:48 PM

RedPhoenix122: Kittypie070: Boehner must be a librul plant, right?

Of course, I've seen him golfing with the enemy.

[i.usatoday.net image 490x360]


You know Boehner doesn't seem unreasonable. He spouts a little demagoguery once in awhile but it's just lip service. It seems him and Obama have a pretty well thought out compromise put together but Boehner knows he can't get the wingnuts to go along.
 
2012-11-11 10:31:38 PM
Mark the year on your calendar. 2014. We Minnesotans shall remove the Michele Bachmann, the chair of the Tea party, from office. Republicans, this one's free.
 
2012-11-11 10:31:56 PM

brandent: RedPhoenix122: Kittypie070: Boehner must be a librul plant, right?

Of course, I've seen him golfing with the enemy.

[i.usatoday.net image 490x360]

You know Boehner doesn't seem unreasonable. He spouts a little demagoguery once in awhile but it's just lip service. It seems him and Obama have a pretty well thought out compromise put together but Boehner knows he can't get the wingnuts to go along.


Yeah, but if you get enough moderates to jump on board you can get things done and give the 'wingnuts' cover in this regard. In a certain way, it is almost a win-win for the republicans.

What the democrats risk here is that they get the tax increases passed and tax revenue fails to rebound from the hole it has been in for the last 4 years. Especially if all the spending cuts that each side says needs to be implemented fail to materialize and the deficits stay in the $1T range.
 
2012-11-11 10:32:36 PM

Gyrfalcon: One of two things has to happen within the GOP:

Either they have to disavow the Teahadists in their ranks, toss them out, admit they MUST move back towards the center (although they'll likely stay farther right than they were) in order to regain the support of the right-moderates in the nation; or,

They will have to continue to move farther right, in which case there will be a breakaway of the moderates among them and the formation of a center-right third party.

There's really no third option for the Republicans at this point. If they continue to court the far right ultranationalists and Tea Party conservatives, they will continue to lose the center and moderate-right within their own ranks. Now, those moderates can either defect to the left, which is increasingly doubtful as the nation continues to polarize, or they'll have to move to the Libertarians and change the focus of that party's economic philosophy (because pure Randian economics can't work in today's political climate) or else form their own New Republican party).

Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.


It's the ultranationalists. They're killing the willagers.
 
2012-11-11 10:33:12 PM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Mark the year on your calendar. 2014. We Minnesotans shall remove the Michele Bachmann, the chair of the Tea party, from office. Republicans, this one's free.


As a conservative, I would applaud that.
 
2012-11-11 10:34:16 PM

clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."


Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.
 
2012-11-11 10:35:55 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428808/80631883#c80631883" target="_blank">Stone Meadow</a>:</b> <i>clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.</i>


As a libby liberal...

I concur.
 
2012-11-11 10:36:52 PM

machodonkeywrestler: One can only hoped the American populace has learned.


LOL!
 
2012-11-11 10:37:13 PM

GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.


I agree. I think what you're going to have are the strategists and leaders among the GOP decide that they need to moderate their message, then those people will lose their primaries to more conservative challengers (perhaps backed by the tea party, perhaps not), then those more conservative challengers will be elected or not in the general election depending upon how batshiat insane they are.

In other words, just like the last 4 years.
 
2012-11-11 10:41:29 PM

mikemoto: I'm totally confused here. Others are saying the Conservatives in Canada are to the left of the US Republican Party. You seem to be saying the opposite.


The current iteration of the federal Conservative Party is indeed not unlike the Republican Party, although not quite as batshiat insane.

By the way, Obama, were he in Canada, would be considered a red Tory, so it's always amusing to hear some folks call him a communist.
 
2012-11-11 10:41:30 PM

The Great Gazoo: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

I agree. I think what you're going to have are the strategists and leaders among the GOP decide that they need to moderate their message, then those people will lose their primaries to more conservative challengers (perhaps backed by the tea party, perhaps not), then those more conservative challengers will be elected or not in the general election depending upon how batshiat insane they are.

In other words, just like the last 4 years.


I told a conservative friend of mine that the tea party cost the GOP the senate.

His response was "How so?"
 
2012-11-11 10:42:40 PM

Stone Meadow: Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.


That is a good point. One of the things that killed the dems where I am from is Clinton's steamrolling of some retarded environmental regulations/executive orders that had little support at the time. The backlash was swift and it is just now that democrats are starting to rise again here in the intermountain west. In fact, they are doing pretty well in some states like Montana, Colorado and Nevada. Hell, even here in Idaho, we had a Democratic Rep for a few years. However, that is something that can quickly change if the dems over-reach. It is always a tight-rope with party politics as being inclusive can often create friction with well defined ideals.
 
2012-11-11 10:46:20 PM

The Great Gazoo: I think what you're going to have are the strategists and leaders among the GOP decide that they need to moderate their message, then those people will lose their primaries to more conservative challengers


Not really. If you aren't smart enough to know how to push hard and fast during the primaries and then moderate your message during the general election, you are usually not smart enough to fill out the paperwork in the first place.

However, with some of those in 'my' party, I have to wonder sometimes.
 
2012-11-11 10:47:38 PM

Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.


I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.
 
2012-11-11 10:52:06 PM

HeadLever: One of the things that killed the dems where I am from is Clinton's steamrolling of some retarded environmental regulations/executive orders that had little support at the time.


Um, yeah.

I kinda remember it more as Gore distancing himself from Clinton because of impeachment nonsense and realizing a bit too late that that was kind of a stupid thing to do + social conservatives realizing hating on the gays could bring out the votes (checking Wiki they started doing those in 1998 but they picked up the most steam in 2004...).

Environmental regulations killing the Dems post-Clinton? Really? That's seriously the only time I've ever heard that theory. Maybe they lost some moderate conservative voters but those voters weren't about to leave the GOP just yet in 2000 anyway. Republicans had their act together at the time, especially for midterms + bringing together disparate elements like the evangelical right and the fiscal conservative folks. That helped.
 
2012-11-11 10:55:27 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.


My friend and I wandered into a diner in Ypsiltucky side of Ypsilanti, MI right before the elections and sat down and ordered before we saw the sign directing people to come to the Tea Partiers Meeting. I tried to bet him $5 that they'd all be white and over 40. He declined. Turned out they were all white and likely collecting Social Security (he should've gone up on the minimum age part of my bet and doubled the bet) And one guy had a cowboy hat! In Michigan!

So not legal, no, but if you challenged any of them to a footrace you'd win easy.

/extrapolate that as you will
 
2012-11-11 10:57:20 PM
There are still moderates in the GOP? Really?
 
2012-11-11 10:58:50 PM

HeadLever: The Great Gazoo: I think what you're going to have are the strategists and leaders among the GOP decide that they need to moderate their message, then those people will lose their primaries to more conservative challengers

Not really. If you aren't smart enough to know how to push hard and fast during the primaries and then moderate your message during the general election, you are usually not smart enough to fill out the paperwork in the first place.

However, with some of those in 'my' party, I have to wonder sometimes.


I'm saying they'll lose their next primary based on the moderation of their message NOW. The rank and file GOP voters are saying that they don't want to hear anything about compromise, moderation, inclusiveness. The politicians realize that it's necessary, but the ones who lead the way will lose their next primary based on what they say and do today.
 
2012-11-11 10:59:58 PM
What the author of this article doesn't seem to realize is that if the GOP splits into three factions that some Democrats will leave the Democratic party to join at least two of them. Maybe not in large numbers at first but it will happen.
 
2012-11-11 11:03:24 PM

mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.


I don't think Hillary is a safe assumption. Between Franken, Warren, Castro, etc., the Democratic party has a lot of rising stars that could upset her yet again, even assuming she does take another stab at it.

Remember, many assumed that Hillary would be the frontrunner for 2008, too. And the Clinton administration was a lot fresher in people's minds then.
 
2012-11-11 11:03:55 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Um, yeah.

I kinda remember it more as Gore distancing himself from Clinton because of impeachment nonsense and realizing a bit too late that that was kind of a stupid thing to do + social conservatives realizing hating on the gays could bring out the votes (checking Wiki they started doing those in 1998 but they picked up the most steam in 2004...).

Environmental regulations killing the Dems post-Clinton? Really? That's seriously the only time I've ever heard that theory. Maybe they lost some moderate conservative voters but those voters weren't about to leave the GOP just yet in 2000 anyway. Republicans had their act together at the time, especially for midterms + bringing together disparate elements like the evangelical right and the fiscal conservative folks. That helped.


I don't think you understood my point. Might want to re-read. The dems were placed on the sword HERE before Lewinsky was a household name. Also, social conservatives are not quite the presence here in the intermountain west as say.... the South. Most of the conservatives here are more of the 'fiscal' variety.

You may not be familiar with terms like 'the War on the West' or 'Cattle-free by 93', but for folks that lived and worked here (especially in the rural areas), it was big news. Of course, the intermountain west has always been small potatoes in the policital grand scheme of things, so this was not big national news at the time. However, it had big impacts upon the policital makup of the states that were in the middle of it.
 
2012-11-11 11:05:31 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.

I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.


The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views. I thought at first that they would break away from the GOP with Koch money and found out it cost more to break away then to parasite off off the GOP Dog.

One way of stopping Fox News is to go after their money and then their audience.
 
2012-11-11 11:06:31 PM
They will purge until a solid core of true believers decided to start a fascist movement. I think a political movement with an agenda akin to the Greek Golden Dawn party is a definite possibility here in America.
 
2012-11-11 11:07:58 PM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Your point would be more useful if the Canadian Conservative wasn't a little the left to a fair amount of the US Democratic party.
 
2012-11-11 11:09:39 PM

Mentat: Wait a minute, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol and Saxby Chambliss are the moderates in the party now?


Chambliss is chickenhawk loser.
 
2012-11-11 11:10:47 PM
If the Dems were smart, they would not accept moderates GOPpers. they would force a 3rd party to form and split the vote, sealing their cetner-right hold on power for decades.

If the Dems are completely farktards, which seems likely, they will accept the GOP "moderates" and they will take over the democratic party, creating the farthest right-wing 2 party system the world has ever seen. Since the US political system has become a 24 hour, 7 day a week hysterical biatchfest, obviously the Dems will be farktards and the USA is going to be run like Detroit city council forever and ever, or until they cut all their public school funding, fire all their scientists, and a nuclear reactor melts down and they melt everyone's faces off.
 
2012-11-11 11:14:24 PM

The Great Gazoo: I'm saying they'll lose their next primary based on the moderation of their message NOW. The rank and file GOP voters are saying that they don't want to hear anything about compromise, moderation, inclusiveness.


I am not so sure about that. One of our Represenatives here (Mike Crapo) just pushed through the legislative process a new wilderness area that was full of compromise, moderation and inclusiveness and he had no prolem with either his primary or general challenger. This is coming from one of the reddest and most 'anti-environmental' states in the union.
 
2012-11-11 11:18:56 PM
I could see the evangelicals splitting off and nominating Rick Santorum for President, only taking the South, Missouri, and Kansas in 2016. The tea party also needs to be aborted. Their views on abortion are medieval. Seriously, they are discussing about rape? Rape is rape and it's a crime.

My Dad predicted this would happen months ago if Romney had lost.
 
2012-11-11 11:20:51 PM

sonorangal: Uchiha_Cycliste: Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.

I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.

The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views. I thought at first that they would break away from the GOP with Koch money and found out it cost more to break away then to parasite off off the GOP Dog.

One way of stopping Fox News is to go after their money and then their audience.


They may have had a tiny (honest) grass-roots beginning but they were completely taken over and supported by Koch money as soon as they went national. The national rallies, the national news coverage, the national "support" were all supported by the Koch brothers (and to a lesser extent) by Fox news. I don't think they ever *really* planned to break away from the GOP, they being the leaders of the tea-baggers and the pupeteers who were really calling the shots. Their intent was a minor rebranding to give the impression of more fervent and widespread support from the masses than they actually had. And for the most part they were successful. My evidence that there was no intention of a break-away is that the GOP latched onto everything they said or did immediately, and that both parties are essentially run by the same people.
While I understand that the Tea-party does have a handful of fervent believers who no longer consider them selves Republicans, the vast majority are Republicans who are backing the tea-party drivel because it is the one
sort-of acceptable outlet they have for their ignorance and their hatred. somehow It suddenly became to scream N1&&er and Muslim and fascist because they changed their names from GOP to Tea-party.

Anyway, back to my main point, the Tea-party lives and dies by their Fox news collusion. There are surely a number of tea-baggers that believe they can survive with out Fox, and many that will try. However they will actually achieve no national success if they are only communicating their goals and accomplishments through right-wind online sites and fwd:fwd:fwd:re:fwd emails. They need Fox News, and Fox news is responsible for the sharp turn to the right we took after that damn Negroe took the presidency.
 
2012-11-11 11:23:11 PM

Lsherm: NFA: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Politics, it works like a pendulum. Who would have guessed?

In 2004 there were at least as many stories about the impending collapse of the Democratic party. In 1996 there were the same stories about the collapse of the Republican party. 1984? You would have thought Ronald Reagan had slaughtered the Democratic party itself. Any time a President wins a second term the press treats it like it was unexpected instead of the usual pattern in national elections.


No. Usually when presidents win second terms it's because of a policy or economic reason. Clinton & Reagan for the economy, Bush because of 9/11 and so forth. This losing party made a few rhetorical and policy changes and when the other party faltered they were able to step into the void.

This was the first re-election where demographics were a critical factor. The GOP didn't just get shellacked on ethnic minorities (Blacks, Hispanics and Asians(!?)) and women. But also the well-educated and urban.

If we look at the core of the GOP you have evangelicals, rural folks, uneducated white men & insanely rich people. Now the only thing these groups have in common is fear. Evangelicals fear the well educated and women. Uneducated white men fear/resent Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and the insanely rich people fear everybody.

So if you try to promote economic policies which line up uneducated white man, with Hispanics, Blacks and Asians you'll lose the Insanely Rich. If you try to bring in Urban people, you lose your rural base of support. If you try to bring in the women and well educated you'll lose the evangelicals.

This is why the GOP is f*cked.
 
2012-11-11 11:24:27 PM

sonorangal: The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views.


Well frankly, I would argue that almost all problems in international and domestic politics is man problems. If we had a lot more women in power we would probably have a lot less problems, which would be nice.

\stupid man world =P
 
2012-11-11 11:25:17 PM
Oh, yeah, this is totally the end of the current GOP. No, no, not like all the other ends of the GOP people have constantly said is coming. This one is REAL. It's totally going to happen this time.
 
2012-11-11 11:27:33 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: They may have had a tiny (honest) grass-roots beginning but they were completely taken over and supported by Koch money as soon as they went national. The national rallies, the national news coverage, the national "support" were all supported by the Koch broth ...


Fox doesn't want to govern. They want to make money. they make money by dividing and conquering the ideological space in people's minds, and dividing and conquering market shares for their advertisers. So, Fox stands to gain more by leading half the GOP to a party that can't win an election (but can win seats) than they can gain by backing a winning party..
 
2012-11-11 11:28:00 PM

theorellior: Well crap...


No, not that duck. Too much of that already...
 
2012-11-11 11:31:53 PM

Komplex: If we look at the core of the GOP you have evangelicals, rural folks, uneducated white men & insanely rich people. Now the only thing these groups have in common is fear. Evangelicals fear the well educated and women. Uneducated white men fear/resent Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and the insanely rich people fear everybody.


Lol, you really belive this? Wow. You may want to take a step out of the Fark/Kos Cocoon some time and go visit the real world sometime.

Always amuses me when one side pretends to know exactly what drives the 'other' side. Seriously? Fear?
 
2012-11-11 11:33:14 PM
Feed me your goddamned tears!
 
2012-11-11 11:33:33 PM

Komplex: Now the only thing these groups have in common is fear. Evangelicals fear the well educated and women. Uneducated white men fear/resent Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and the insanely rich people fear everybody.


i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-11 11:35:59 PM

Bucky Katt: There are still moderates in the GOP? Really?


Obama is a moderate Republican. Does he count?
 
2012-11-11 11:37:26 PM
Majick Thise
mikemoto:
Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

Canadian conservatives think the GOP is batshiate insane. Canadian conservatives could not get elected in the US South


From what I remember reading, I'm not even sure about their ability to get elected in Canada.
 
2012-11-11 11:40:40 PM

clambam: Wouldn't it be nice to having two grown-up parties again, one dedicated to making the country a better place for the poor and the disadvantaged, one to keeping the country on an even financial keel, neither particularly interested in poking their noses into other people's bedrooms? Sigh, the good old days...


What good old days?
They never existed.
America is better off now than it ever was before, even if we are locked between a conservative party and a fascist party and barely able to say we're a first world nation with a straight face anymore.
 
2012-11-11 11:40:57 PM
Well what needs to happen is that they need kick out that dirty little secret of theirs, the blatant racists. Deal with the hit. They are not going to do the GOP anymore favors from here on out. ( im guessing Hillary/Castro or Biden/Castro in 2016 )

But they wont they already think the answer is more derp

I do expect the Dems to take a knock in 2014 as long as they keep the Senate im happy
 
2012-11-11 11:41:26 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: sonorangal: The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views.

Well frankly, I would argue that almost all problems in international and domestic politics is man problems. If we had a lot more women in power we would probably have a lot less problems, which would be nice.

\stupid man world =P


Yes strong woman leaders like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.
 
2012-11-11 11:41:28 PM

GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.


Hell, they already did. We're just watching the corpse twitch at the end of the rope they hung themselves with.
 
2012-11-11 11:42:26 PM

Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.


Wouldn't it be "red dogs", if they were voting against Republican mainstream?
 
2012-11-11 11:43:15 PM

Cyclometh: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

Hell, they already did. We're just watching the corpse twitch at the end of the rope they hung themselves with.


The party is over (irrelevant) when the money goes elsewhere. They will survive if they focus on shilling for corporations and banks.
 
2012-11-11 11:43:43 PM
What they call a "Moderate" used to simply be a Conservative. The party has shifted HARD to the radical fringe, and still claim to be Conservative, when they are anything but.

Conservatism is based on a principles of thought and careful consideration of policy and actions. Not simple opposition to what the other guys propose, to be on the opposite side of an issue, and that is really more what we have now. It isn't even radical, it is just simply contrarian. "If'n he's fer it, I'mma ag'in it!" is NOT Conservatism. You cannot claim to be a fiscal Conservative and vote for blowing up the budget, just to "make a point." You can't claim to love the Constitution while systematically trying to deny citizens their rights. You cannot claim to be for freedom of religion and then seek to deny others their right to worship, or not, as they choose.

It isn't that "Moderates" are fleeing. It's that Conservatives are fleeing. Fleeing from a nest of radicals who despise anything that isn't Gods, Guns and Glory, and damn the budgets, damn the poor, damn the homos, damn the Unitarians, the Buddhists, and anyone else who isn't of the People of the Book, and a full third of those folks are right out too.

It isn't that "Moderates" are leaving, it's that Conservatives are leaving. Like myself. Like others around me. We cannot stay in a party that will NOT listen to reason, that will not accept facts, that wants to cherry pick its history and even matters of geography. When "math and science" becomes your "enemy" because it repeatedly refutes claims made, there's an issue. Good Conservatism adjusts course with the nation. Serves considered policy that relates directly with the facts on the ground. Not what we wish it were, but what is actually happening. NeoCons are in firm control of the party, and for many years, they were the wackadoodle fringe right, until Reagan and Bush started bringing them into the fold, and coupled with the inclusion of the Religious Right, it pushed the party away from good Conservatism, and far into the land of radicalism, and now with religious Fundamentalists who despise our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and that pesky separation of church and state, and THAT is a real danger. Because these folks don't seem to realize that we tried official state religions during the Articles of Confederation. People got hung for being in the wrong state. And that is the basis for religious freedom. Not some pie in the sky ideal, but from a very real issue that arose when the state and ministries were bound together. We've done it. It didn't go well. Not then, and it won't go well now.

Good Conservatism doesn't cherry pick from history, it learns lessons to apply today from the past. Not to hold up examples of what we want, but to see what's been tried before that did and DID NOT work. The willful ignorance to build up a case that has no basis in fact is a huge issue, and that is why folks are fleeing, and sadly, that means that the Idiot Brigade is being left behind, and that only makes their voices even louder...
 
2012-11-11 11:45:33 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: Well what needs to happen is that they need kick out that dirty little secret of theirs, the blatant racists. Deal with the hit.


Robert Byrd? I thought he died sometime ago.
 
2012-11-11 11:46:03 PM

nmemkha: Cyclometh: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

Hell, they already did. We're just watching the corpse twitch at the end of the rope they hung themselves with.

The party is over (irrelevant) when the money goes elsewhere. They will survive if they focus on shilling for corporations and banks.


Nah, I don't think so. Just look at the scrabbling Rove is having to do in the aftermath of the election. The super PACs are all taking a LOT of heat from the people who ponied up assloads of money and got jack and shiat for it. They're really pissed and I don't think they'll be throwing good money after bad.

The GOP is facing not only an internal crisis as they try to keep their various ideological bases from eating one another, but an external one as they are going to have a hard time getting money when they have shown they can't deliver.
 
2012-11-11 11:49:37 PM

hubiestubert: What they call a "Moderate" used to simply be a Conservative. The party has shifted HARD to the radical fringe, and still claim to be Conservative, when they are anything but.


I think we need to stop beating around the bush:.

s16.postimage.org

The GOP has become Fascist.
 
2012-11-11 11:50:21 PM

Bennie Crabtree: Uchiha_Cycliste: They may have had a tiny (honest) grass-roots beginning but they were completely taken over and supported by Koch money as soon as they went national. The national rallies, the national news coverage, the national "support" were all supported by the Koch broth ...

Fox doesn't want to govern. They want to make money. they make money by dividing and conquering the ideological space in people's minds, and dividing and conquering market shares for their advertisers. So, Fox stands to gain more by leading half the GOP to a party that can't win an election (but can win seats) than they can gain by backing a winning party..


Yeah, they do stand to gain more financially, but I feel they also share a lot of blame for the state of domestic politics. They are solely responsible for the idea that bullshiat stance that on any issue both sides deserve equal recognition. They are hurting this country my perpetuating that myth. It goes without saying that they are only in it for the money, but they are doing real damage in the meantime. As such it's a real cop-out for them to avoid the issue that they are having a real effect on politics and they can't avoid it by saying that they are an entertainment outlet.
 
2012-11-11 11:50:43 PM

nmemkha: Yes strong woman leaders like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.


I think the intention was compassionate pacifists like Golda Mier and Margret Thatcher.
 
2012-11-11 11:51:14 PM

Cyclometh: nmemkha: Cyclometh: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

Hell, they already did. We're just watching the corpse twitch at the end of the rope they hung themselves with.

The party is over (irrelevant) when the money goes elsewhere. They will survive if they focus on shilling for corporations and banks.

Nah, I don't think so. Just look at the scrabbling Rove is having to do in the aftermath of the election. The super PACs are all taking a LOT of heat from the people who ponied up assloads of money and got jack and shiat for it. They're really pissed and I don't think they'll be throwing good money after bad.

The GOP is facing not only an internal crisis as they try to keep their various ideological bases from eating one another, but an external one as they are going to have a hard time getting money when they have shown they can't deliver.


Who knows? I'm no Nate Silver.
 
2012-11-11 11:51:30 PM

nmemkha: Uchiha_Cycliste: sonorangal: The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views.

Well frankly, I would argue that almost all problems in international and domestic politics is man problems. If we had a lot more women in power we would probably have a lot less problems, which would be nice.

\stupid man world =P

Yes strong woman leaders like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.


They are neither women nor leaders =P.

And cut me some slack, it as the best comment I could come up with to take advantage of "man" instead of "main" It was not intended to be useful social commentary.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:36 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: nmemkha: Uchiha_Cycliste: sonorangal: The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views.

Well frankly, I would argue that almost all problems in international and domestic politics is man problems. If we had a lot more women in power we would probably have a lot less problems, which would be nice.

\stupid man world =P

Yes strong woman leaders like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

They are neither women nor leaders =P.

And cut me some slack, it as the best comment I could come up with to take advantage of "man" instead of "main" It was not intended to be useful social commentary.


Sorry I played the part of * that guy * =P
 
2012-11-11 11:54:29 PM

HeadLever: Komplex: If we look at the core of the GOP you have evangelicals, rural folks, uneducated white men & insanely rich people. Now the only thing these groups have in common is fear. Evangelicals fear the well educated and women. Uneducated white men fear/resent Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and the insanely rich people fear everybody.

Lol, you really belive this? Wow. You may want to take a step out of the Fark/Kos Cocoon some time and go visit the real world sometime.

Always amuses me when one side pretends to know exactly what drives the 'other' side. Seriously? Fear?


Yeah, pretty much. What do you think it is? Some kind of profit-driven Illuminati/Bilderberger carefully crafted takeover conspiracy? YOU may want to take a step out of your ivory tower and visit the real world you think you know. Or go read Mein Kampf.

It is fear, because it's the only thing that all the various disparate groups that form the core of the GOP really have in common. Poor whites really have more in common with poor blacks than they do with rich whites; but thanks to 200 years of fearmongering, they don't believe it any more. And rich whites now buy into their own scare stories and think that the n*gger armies are only a step away from driving them all into the sea. It's not some kind of calculated shuck that's going on over at Free Republic and Stormfront: That is genuine paranoia and both the rich and the poor devoutly believe it.

People who like to think that some smart, amoral sociopath cobbled together the Tea Party as a cunning ploy to secure his/her/their/its own ends are just stupid. They've forgotten--if they ever knew--the history of the Nazi party in Germany, or the Fascist party in Italy, or even the Bolshevik party in Russia before they came to power. They started off just like the Teahadists, and they progressed to power just like the Tea Party is doing now. And they played on middle-class fears--just like the GOP is doing now. But if it makes you feel better to pretend this is all just some play-acting the Republicans are doing in a power grab, and they'll quit when they get enough seats back in Congress, by all means, keep thinking that. I know the danger signs, and I'll be able to leave the country in plenty of time if the shiat ever gets real.
 
2012-11-11 11:55:21 PM

nmemkha: Uchiha_Cycliste: nmemkha: Uchiha_Cycliste: sonorangal: The man problem with the tea party is that the social conservatives took it over and tried to impose their views.

Well frankly, I would argue that almost all problems in international and domestic politics is man problems. If we had a lot more women in power we would probably have a lot less problems, which would be nice.

\stupid man world =P

Yes strong woman leaders like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

They are neither women nor leaders =P.

And cut me some slack, it as the best comment I could come up with to take advantage of "man" instead of "main" It was not intended to be useful social commentary.

Sorry I played the part of * that guy * =P


It's fine, I was un-arguably "that guy" first, by taking advantage of the stupid man world.
 
2012-11-11 11:57:50 PM

Emposter: Oh, yeah, this is totally the end of the current GOP. No, no, not like all the other ends of the GOP people have constantly said is coming. This one is REAL. It's totally going to happen this time.



They do seem to have painted themselves into a corner unlike anything they have dealt with in the past. They do one of two things: 1. Come to the center on immigration and social issues to win votes, or 2. Stay hard right and continue to lose elections, which will be guaranteed looking at the shifting demographics that are making the white vote less powerful. Those aren't wishful thinking -- it will be one or the other.

The short-term result will be good for those of us who are Democrats, as either scenarios mean a more liberal America. The long-term result will depend on how the factions within the GOP react to #1 or #2. If the GOP moves to the center, then there is a very good chance that the hardliners like the Teabaggers leave the party to do their own thing -- they aren't known for being rational or wise. If the GOP stays hard right and continues losing elections, then we'll watch as their moderates leave the party, likely going "Independent."

We can debate whether it'll be the end of the GOP, but change is definitely coming to their party.
 
2012-11-11 11:59:40 PM
ITT: Another resounding Democratic victory fueled by the Republicans being far to the right and out of touch with the mainstream means... the Dems should continue moving right.

You people are farking ridiculous.
 
2012-11-11 11:59:49 PM

mscleo: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428808/80631883#c80631883" target="_blank">Stone Meadow</a>:</b> <i>clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.</i>


As a libby liberal...

I concur.


I don't live in a major metro area (I did live in Louisville for 8 years but that's hardly "major"), so that may cloud my views, but I just don't see gun control as an important issue for true leftists. Maybe the middle of the road, "compassionate conservatives" that sell themselves as Blue Dogs or whatever, maybe it matters to some of them.

Most of the leftists I know see crime as a consequence of the social order, for the most part. And maybe it was the fear of Bush and the government after 9/11, but I don't really know any leftists at all who are against guns now.


Gun control is like the hairy bobbing man-ass: I don't know who that's for.
 
2012-11-12 12:00:30 AM
Uchiha_Cycliste:Yeah, they do stand to gain more financially, but I feel they also share a lot of blame for the state of domestic politics. They are solely responsible for the idea that bullshiat stance that on any issue both sides deserve equal recognition. They are hurting this country my perpetuating that myth. It goes without saying that they are only in it for the money, but they are doing real damage in the meantime. As such it's a real cop-out for them to avoid the issue that they are having a real effect on politics and they can't avoid it by saying that they are an entertainment outlet.

It's all just spiralling lacunae of bullshiat I guess. And for that, Fox News is dangerous as all hell turned loose.
 
2012-11-12 12:01:12 AM
Oh crap. Sorry about the bold.
 
2012-11-12 12:02:52 AM

Blue_Blazer: I don't live in a major metro area (I did live in Louisville for 8 years but that's hardly "major"), so that may cloud my views, but I just don't see gun control as an important issue for true leftists. Maybe the middle of the road, "compassionate conservatives" that sell themselves as Blue Dogs or whatever, maybe it matters to some of them.

Most of the leftists I know see crime as a consequence of the social order, for the most part. And maybe it was the fear of Bush and the government after 9/11, but I don't really know any leftists at all who are against guns now.


Gun control is like the hairy bobbing man-ass: I don't know who that's for.


Gun control is a centrist liberal issue and pretty much always has been. The actual left is not all the het up about it; it's a NIMBY thing, "trying to do something" about crime and social problems without actually doing the hard work to address the underlying causes.
 
2012-11-12 12:04:03 AM
sometimes bold statements require bold farkups =D

Do you agree that the Tea-baggers live and die by Fox new's willingness to portray them in a favorable light?
 
2012-11-12 12:05:41 AM
Dammit. I just wrote a long and boring post with proof that the current Conservative party of Canada is more like the Republicans than they ever used to be, and my browser ate it. I'll keep it short this time.

Key points:
1. Conservative VOTERS in Canada are mostly still left of the Republicans, but the gov't is way further right these days.
2. You can't use politician's statements on public health care as a litmus test for left-vs-right in Canada, because anyone proposing privatization would be run out of town. Voters are terrified of "American-style" healthcare. The conniest con who ever conned would not publicly admit to favouring privatization.

Anyway, here are some articles that show the Cdn gov't being anti-transparency, anti-science, and downright anti-fact in the past few years.
- Stockwell Day questions lower crime rates & "raised eyebrows among skeptical opponents as he suggested statistics showing a decline in crime rates can't be trusted because unreported crime is on the rise."
- Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan because Texas tried it and it failed.
- Long-form census cancellation taking toll on StatsCan data.
- Is the Conservative government muzzling federal scientists? Answer in article: YES.
- Stephen Harper's Conservatives mimic Mitt Romney's Republicans (editorial). 

/Hopefully not a threadjack since so many people were asking.
 
2012-11-12 12:09:44 AM

HeadLever: Komplex: If we look at the core of the GOP you have evangelicals, rural folks, uneducated white men & insanely rich people. Now the only thing these groups have in common is fear. Evangelicals fear the well educated and women. Uneducated white men fear/resent Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and the insanely rich people fear everybody.

Lol, you really belive this? Wow. You may want to take a step out of the Fark/Kos Cocoon some time and go visit the real world sometime.

Always amuses me when one side pretends to know exactly what drives the 'other' side. Seriously? Fear?


Yes, did you not hear about CRA that actually cased the financial collapse?

Yes. It's the only thing that makes sense. A friend of mine, he's a southern boy, unapologetic confederate, gun nut. And he thinks Obama is going to take his guns. When I explained to him, Obama actually expanded the rights of Concealed Carry where Mitt actually has a lengthy anti-gun position. He still thinks Obama is going to take his guns away.

Or the Rush Limbaugh Sandra fluke?
 
2012-11-12 12:10:18 AM

Gyrfalcon: YOU may want to take a step out of your ivory tower and visit the real world you think you know.


Ivory tower now? Lol. Hard to think that you could get any colder, but you have. You may want to stop making assumptions on the 'other' guy. You are obvioulsy not very good at it.

It is fear, because it's the only thing that all the various disparate groups that form the core of the GOP really have in common.

All humans have fear. To pretend that it is the only thing that holds the republicans together is weaksauce. Seriously, the 'rich fear everybody'? I though that the talking point was that they don't care about anybody.

And rich whites now buy into their own scare stories and think that the n*gger armies are only a step away from driving them all into the sea.

Lolwat? What have you been smoking? How far off your rocker can you go?

People who like to think that some smart, amoral sociopath cobbled together the Tea Party as a cunning ploy to secure his/her/their/its own ends are just stupid. They've forgotten--if they ever knew--the history of the Nazi party in Germany, or the Fascist party in Italy, or even the Bolshevik party in Russia before they came to power. They started off just like the Teahadists, and they progressed to power just like the Tea Party is doing now. And they played on middle-class fears--just like the GOP is doing now. But if it makes you feel better to pretend this is all just some play-acting the Republicans are doing in a power grab, and they'll quit when they get enough seats back in Congress, by all means, keep thinking that. I know the danger signs, and I'll be able to leave the country in plenty of time if the shiat ever gets real.

OhLawd.jpg. Shouldn't have asked.
 
2012-11-12 12:11:16 AM

Bennie Crabtree: Uchiha_Cycliste:Yeah, they do stand to gain more financially, but I feel they also share a lot of blame for the state of domestic politics. They are solely responsible for the idea that bullshiat stance that on any issue both sides deserve equal recognition. They are hurting this country my perpetuating that myth. It goes without saying that they are only in it for the money, but they are doing real damage in the meantime. As such it's a real cop-out for them to avoid the issue that they are having a real effect on politics and they can't avoid it by saying that they are an entertainment outlet.

It's all just spiralling lacunae of bullshiat I guess. And for that, Fox News is dangerous as all hell turned loose.


That bullshiat article looks really interesting, when I have a quiet hour to read, I'll look at it. It's opened now in my browser and over in my "I'll get back to it" area of tabs.
 
2012-11-12 12:13:12 AM

Ornery Alien: 1. Conservative VOTERS in Canada are mostly still left of the Republicans, but the gov't is way further right than they used to be these days.


FTFM. Not claiming Cdn gov't is way further right than U.S. Republicans. But I do believe they're well into actual-U.S.-Republican-like territory.
 
2012-11-12 12:16:01 AM
Hey HeadLever, why don't you tell us what you think the four groups (ultra wealthy, evangelicals,rural and ignorant whites) mentioned have in common? Surely you must have a brilliant explanation that is so much greater than the one posited (fear) that we will be amazed. There is no other reason you would be so scornful of such an obvious and seemingly correct answer.

go ahead, blow us away.
 
2012-11-12 12:17:33 AM
Or, you know, just continue to act like a blow-hard. Your choice, it's time to put up of shut up.
 
2012-11-12 12:18:42 AM
Nationally it's hard to believe either side could collapse give the money getting channeled to them. At most it might happen on a state level but who many states the Republicans care about are devoid of a top dog Republican to keep the rank and file in line?

/Guessing it's a pretty thin list.
 
2012-11-12 12:19:47 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'll say... they stink on ice


That's all I needed. Thanks.
 
2012-11-12 12:20:03 AM

Komplex: He still thinks Obama is going to take his guns away.


Well, after Obama floated a AWB renewal in 2009 and after he continued to express support for the AWB in the second debate, he may be right to be concerned. Overall, I don't think that he will have the political power to pull it off, but it does require us to pay attention.

And if you think that the firearm expansion was Obama's idea, you are very misinformed. That was a Republican rider attached to the Credit Card Reform BIll.

/Though in reality, I don't trust Mitt's position either.
 
2012-11-12 12:21:33 AM

Babwa Wawa: GAT_00: People are blowing this out of proportion again. I swear articles are being rerun from 2008 at this point. The GOP will not fall apart.

The fact is that if you take the evangelicals out of this election, Mitt Romney is President.

The GOP is dying and every facet of the party knows that it's dead without an expansion of the base. The only question is how the GOP tries to achieve it. Do they drop the social issues and stay tight on fiscal and small government issues to capture the stable middle class and upper middle class? Or do they do the opposite in the hopes of mobilizing the Latino vote?

They can't do both, and it leaves at least one of the facets of the party out in the cold.


I'm not so sure about that.

Romney's big spike in the polls was in the first debate when he basically pretended that his economic policies were going to be exactly the same as Obama's, but with nebulous, "cutting the fat" and getting rid of welfare queens. A majority of voters polled as supportive of a tax hike on the rich. The Rapeublicans may have lost their elections but I never saw people outside of the already-voting-democrat bloc bringing it up in relation to other races.

That said, the religious right votes GOP or they don't vote at all, so you don't actually have to throw them that much red meat to make them support you, you just have to convince them to go to the farking polling station in the first place and that takes less advertising and more GOTV. But the real problem remains, despite epic amounts of propaganda Americans are vaguely aware of how hard the rich are screwing them.

I think if anything the religious right only really mattered during the primary. During the primary all the "non-anointed" candidates took shots at him for being the weak, not-religious-enough guy while trying to claw their way to a candidacy they weren't going to be allowed anyway.
 
2012-11-12 12:24:40 AM
Uchiha_Cycliste:That bullshiat article looks really interesting, when I have a quiet hour to read, I'll look at it. It's opened now in my browser and over in my "I'll get back to it" area of tabs.

Coolness. I think it's a really fun essay.
 
2012-11-12 12:25:38 AM
Wtf bold? I'm gonna stop posting. My brain no good html today.
 
2012-11-12 12:28:19 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Hey HeadLever, why don't you tell us what you think the four groups (ultra wealthy, evangelicals,rural and ignorant whites) mentioned have in common?


A party with stated ideals/platforms that aligns with thier self-interest. I would think that this would be pretty obvious. Whether it be low taxes, small government, position on abortion, gun control, environmental issues, etc. these issues serve to be somewhat of the backbone for the party. It is not that tough of a concept

I would kind of think that something is simliar to the make up of thte Democratic party where you have many groups that are loosly aligned with the party over labor, women's/minority rights, environmental issues, etc.

It is nothing new.
 
2012-11-12 12:28:33 AM

nmemkha: They will purge until a solid core of true believers decided to start a fascist movement. I think a political movement with an agenda akin to the Greek Golden Dawn party is a definite possibility here in America.


upload.wikimedia.org

We already have one of those. That's where serious Reactionaries who take their views seriously tend to end up, like Alan Keyes.
 
2012-11-12 12:30:18 AM

clkeagle: oi50.tinypic.com


images59.fotki.com
 
2012-11-12 12:51:10 AM

Emposter: Oh, yeah, this is totally the end of the current GOP. No, no, not like all the other ends of the GOP people have constantly said is coming. This one is REAL. It's totally going to happen this time.


They are already working to re-write immigration history. Give it a couple years. They will be claiming they were always the party that wanted to allow illegal immigrants citizenship. Just the dirty Democrats wouldn't let them.
 
2012-11-12 12:54:33 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


1: As has been pointed out, those aren't the same sorts of Conservatives and are well left of our Conservatives. Ditto for those Conservatives in the UK. Obamacare would be considered the compromised law that it is there, and universal healthcare is a non issue despite Conservatives being at the head of both the UK and Canadian government. Etc.

2: Voter turnout in the US is generally lower than in Canada and other western countries. Especially during a congressional voting year rather than presidential. Of course its not really fair to compare. Most countries vote for their whole government in one swoop, thus they have to make it work in most cases or it all falls apart. There are other changes too like Australia requires you to vote or you face a fine.

3: The demographics in this country have changed considerably since 2000 and will only continue to change. The youth vote is no longer a joke, women are the majority of American's voting, and minorities are are only growing in significance. Oh and for once a candidates god is less of an issue as those not affiliated with any religion grow in numbers along with the others mentioned. The conservative right turned out in force, but didn't matter this time. We are a diverse country, more so than a lot of other countries and arguably its one of our biggest strengths. Whatever the case, the GOP stance on issues at the moment and for 2012 alienates these important voting blocks and thus is why they are scrambling to make inroads to continue to be relevant.

This is good for our country, because the GOP will be forced to grow up or they will be banished to American history. That being said, we've still got a lot of work to do but that such cartoon characters that the GOP has put forth the past few years will soon be a thing of our past is a good thing. We aren't going to stand for this shiat anymore, and hopefully that means we can finally get back to working together for the betterment of this country for crying out loud.
 
2012-11-12 12:58:40 AM

HeadLever: Uchiha_Cycliste: Hey HeadLever, why don't you tell us what you think the four groups (ultra wealthy, evangelicals,rural and ignorant whites) mentioned have in common?

A party with stated ideals/platforms that aligns with thier self-interest. I would think that this would be pretty obvious. Whether it be low taxes, small government, position on abortion, gun control, environmental issues, etc. these issues serve to be somewhat of the backbone for the party. It is not that tough of a concept

I would kind of think that something is simliar to the make up of thte Democratic party where you have many groups that are loosly aligned with the party over labor, women's/minority rights, environmental issues, etc.

It is nothing new.


The problem that I see here is that there is a huge gap between the ideas the GOP professes to have and what they actually legislate. The GOP's fiscal policies only benefit the ultra wealthy, often at the expense of everyone else. They only get away with it by lying to the public. See: lower taxes on the wealthy == more jobs. Or even better, that raising the wealthy's taxes will harm everyone. It's pure unadulterated BS. Now you also mention the socially conservative views the evangelicals hold, but those are ALL at odds with their claim that they want smaller government. Similarly all of the claims that business men need fewer regulations to operate more freely are again bullshiat and only benefit the ultra wealthy (ie the owners of those businesses). Only the ultra-wealthy faction of the GOP's goals are not hypocritical and against their own interests. Essentially, at least fiscally, the GOP exists in order to benefit the rich. Everyone else gets the shaft when the GOP is successful passing legislation. Consequently, I thinks its fallacious to claim that the poor and ignorant's goals are in line with the wealthy's goals. The GOP may claim that they want lower taxes and that everyone can get behind it, but they really only want more wealth to themselves, and they have already made it abundantly clear that when they get their bigger slice of the pie, they don't trickle down some scraps to the poor. They hoard and invest and use their wealth to widen the gap between the rich and poor. Just like all the noise about regulations, that again only benefits the rich and hurts the poor, so it can't be claimed to hold these people together either,
The wealthy may pay lip service to the social conservatives (evangelicals) but in practice they will do whatever they want, those social conservative claims be damned. The evangelicals simply want to restrict everyone;s freedoms in order to initiate a theocracy, something that the rich surely would not want.
While all the group may claim to want less taxes and smaller government. Only the rich *actually* want smaller government and in the end the shrinking middle class and the poor end up with a greater burden from "lowered taxes".
I think the it's more correct to say they are all help together by fear. The rich fear losing their loopholes and tax rates that help them stay ahead of the real hard-working american's who slave away for them. The Poor white men fear they will (and have been) losing the advantages they used to enjoy before we made a bog push for equality among the genders and races. It used to certainly be true that merely being white and male have you a huge advantage in getting and keeping a job. The evangelicals fear the government allowing people to be free to live their lives without obeying what they believe the bible tells them to do. The GOP pays lit service to all these groups, but only ACTS in ways favorable to the wealthy. Everyone else (with the possible exception of the evangelicals, in very rare and narrow ways) is voting against their own interests and are too stupid to see it.
No, I don't think you can point to the policy positions of the GOP as the glue that holds them together. That view is not help up by the reality of the GOPs actions.
 
2012-11-12 01:08:40 AM
I will grant that all four groups are united by their hatred of non-whites and their disdain of Women (when woman have the audacity to be more than homemakers.) But they are equal parts hateful and fearful of minorities, and while not fearful of women they believe they are superior to women, and desire a return to the days when one had an advantage solely by possessing a y-chromosome.
 
2012-11-12 01:10:48 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-12 01:18:21 AM

HeadLever: A party with stated ideals/platforms that aligns with thier self-interest. I would think that this would be pretty obvious. Whether it be low taxes, small government, position on abortion, gun control, environmental issues, etc. these issues serve to be somewhat of the backbone for the party. It is not that tough of a concept


Except Republican voters are voting entirely against their self-interests.
1) They don't want low taxes, just low taxes for the rich. Middle class tax hikes is beloved by Republicans. Counter to self-interest.
2) They're not for small government. They support a huge security state, the prison-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, the War on Drugs, incarceration/death without trial, and a Christian theocracy involved in social issues. Counter to self-interest.
3) True, but it contradicts their "small government" platform and is motivated by misogyny and Christian theocratic tendencies. Also, obviously counter to any woman's self-interest, and men/society as a whole in reality.
4)Gun control is a non issue between the parties at this point. Maybe it's because I don't live in an area with heavy gun control, but gun control is about as irrelevant as sharia law and birth certificates at the national level at this point. The one area you listed that is in their self-interest.
5) Except for Republicans environmental issues boil down to "destroy it all", obviously counter to the voter's self-interest, at least in the long term.
 
2012-11-12 01:19:04 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: The GOP's fiscal policies only benefit the ultra wealthy


Talking Point. Bush's tax cuts increased my take-home pay. And I am a far cry from 'ultra wealthy'.

Only the rich *actually* want smaller government and in the end the shrinking middle class and the poor end up with a greater burden from "lowered taxes".

No. I want somewhat smaller government mosly because we cannot sustain the current scope and magnitude of our current fiscal trajectory. I am no fan of the republican no-tax stance, but we do have to get spending under control. That requires a smaller and more efficient government. As I see it, we need both smaller government and higher taxes.

I could go on, but it is quite late and I don't think that you are really interested in the ideas of this 'moderate conservative'.

However, let me say this before I go - Overall, I am in agreement with some of your arguments about taxes. However, most of your other points paint a boogy man made of money that is pretty much cliche (hey, we are in the Politics tab of Fark, what do you expect?) and misses the mark by quite a ways. I know that it is always easier to paint one big scary strawman to make it easier to tear down, but I am afraid that the issues run a little deeper than some fictional rich antagonist. Painting this picture may be great within the hive-mind of social media, but just remember that you typically don't get the full story when you hang out with those that only reinforce your preconcieved ideals.

Cheers!
 
2012-11-12 01:28:00 AM
I can get behind what your desires are for the party. but you are completely sidestepping the issue at hand, and the question that brought you into the conversation by tearing it apart while not contributing a counter-argument.
We contend that the rich, god-botherers, ignorant whites and rural folks are held together by fear. You claim they are held together by similar policy stances, but I disagree as is evidenced by the policies that are actually passed by the GOP.

If we had a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party I would support it, and we DO and it's the democrats. the GOP spends money we don't have to increase the size of the government and give tax breaks to the rich. I don't see how anything they have done in the last 20 years, or profess to desire for the future could possibly benefit me, or could have you

Finally, show me how my "Rich-bogeyman" is wrong. I was speaking honestly about my political observations in the last 12 years. Everything I've seen the GOP do has shown favoratism towards the rich and disdain for the poor and middle class. How am I mistaken?. It's worth stressing again the wide chasm between what they claim they will do and what they actually do. I'm all for having my thinking updated and changed, but merely saying I'm wrong won't cut it.

\Started college in '01 so it's approx when I started to give a shiat.
 
2012-11-12 01:28:41 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.


Walter Benjamin's talks about art's power shifting from the sacred to the secular with the ability to mechanically reproduce images and narratives. Henry Jenkins says that digital images will move the power of art from politics to entertainment.

If they are right (and I think they are) then that means that as our ability to share images and stories increases, politics will become less and less dominant in world affairs. Everything will be a kind of "reality" television. Leading to mass delusion when one of those narratives strays too far from fact.

We are all vulnerable to this experience. We need to develop tools and habits to cut through the shiny delusions or we too will fall prey to a compelling narrative that fits our preconceptions. But there is no getting away from the entertainment aspect of it. Although I think it will become less and less centralized.
 
2012-11-12 01:29:14 AM

vpb: The Democratic party would qualify as conservative pretty must anywhere outside of the US.


Actually in Europe they would be considered liberal because they use a different (more original) definition. A liberal in Europe is socially liberal and pro-capitalist. In Europe they actually have socialist parties with power so the Democratic Party would maintain itself as a liberal party, even in Europe. They would also be to the right of the social (ie socialist) liberals. Outside of western Europe, the Democrats are more liberal than most parties.
 
2012-11-12 01:31:48 AM

bbfreak: 1: As has been pointed out, those aren't the same sorts of Conservatives and are well left of our Conservatives. Ditto for those Conservatives in the UK. Obamacare would be considered the compromised law that it is there, and universal healthcare is a non issue despite Conservatives being at the head of both the UK and Canadian government. Etc.


You have to find a different metric to measure left vs right in different countries. Once you have public health care that more or less works, people don't want it taken away. How many U.S. right-wingers openly talk about completely dismantling Medicare? If they don't SAY they want to dismantle it, does that mean they agree that some forms of socialized medicine are ok? Or might they be philosophically opposed to it but scared to say so in public because they know it would lose them votes?

There's no way to know whether any modern Canadian or British conservative politicians are philosophically or morally opposed to universal healthcare as a general principle - because it would be political suicide to admit it. 

/Another way to think about it: Canada's had this health care system for decades. Wouldn't the true "conservative" approach be to leave it as-is unless it's seriously and demonstratively broken?
 
2012-11-12 01:32:40 AM
quickdraw, I'm running out to get some food but when I return I want to discuss your post with you. I'm intrigued.
 
2012-11-12 01:34:27 AM

HeadLever: Talking Point. Bush's tax cuts increased my take-home pay. And I am a far cry from 'ultra wealthy'.


The Bush Tax Cuts were made for a stupid reason initially. Bush thought that because we had a federal surplus (which, if you want to get truly technical, we never actually had), then we should have a temporary tax cut (and the tax cut was originally intended to be temporary) to redistribute the surplus to the tax payers.

Well, we don't have a surplus anymore (not that we ever did), but we're still extending that tax cut and it's one of the largest reasons why our debt grows so fast.

Anyway, getting back to the question of whether Republican fiscal policies benefit the wealthy or not, here's a graphic from the International Business Times from earlier this year regarding savings due to differing plans (between the GOP and Obama) to extend the Bush tax cuts.

img.ibtimes.com

I wonder, which plan looks to benefit the wealthy and which one is more fairly applied?
 
2012-11-12 01:34:41 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.

I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.


You must be young. The Tea Party is just the latest manifestation of the John Birch Society which was just a fairly recent version of something that recurs with great regularity. Base human instincts to protect yours manifest as protecting your culture, your wealth, your women and children from the corrupting influence of "them", be they brown, funny talking, or basically anything that isn't your self-proclaimed parochial "we", being whatever group you can attract, whose main virtue is not being "them" and not liking "them" either. One can marginalize such people, sometimes, but they are like weeks that will grow back. They are a permanent fixture of any free society.
 
2012-11-12 01:37:49 AM
You went the wrong way, old King Mittens,
Now we must put you on the shelf.
That's why the people are revolting, 'cause Mittens,
You're pretty revolting yourself!
 
2012-11-12 01:53:52 AM
Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.
 
2012-11-12 01:56:54 AM

randomjsa: Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.


1/10
 
2012-11-12 02:03:31 AM

randomjsa: Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.


Yes.

The mainstream GOP says, "KILL `EM ALL!" whereas the moderates say, "Just let `em die."
 
2012-11-12 02:05:02 AM

randomjsa: Yes, unlike the Democrats, the GOP does still have moderates.


so we've resorted to ending threads now? oh, how the mighty have fallen.
 
2012-11-12 02:12:04 AM

wademh: Uchiha_Cycliste: Gyrfalcon: Probably tossing the Teahadists is the easiest course open to them, since it would be easier to put in old-school politicians in most areas; but we'll see if the Tea Party, having tasted the heady nectar of political power, are willing to go back to being on the outside looking in.

I don't think this is really that difficult of a thing to force to happen. I also believe that it is completely out of the GOPs hands. The tea-party was essentially, nurtured and created by fox news, under the guise of a grass roots movement (something we all know to be utter codswallop). If Fox News was willing to completely marginalize these idiots that would be the end of them. They have one outlet for their idiocy, and while the right-wing derp-o-sphere-of-tubes will continue to carry their water for them, they simply don't have enough penetration into American households to make a difference. They are loud for sure, but have a tiny amount of real influence. It only seems like they have more because they are generally walking lock-step with Fox.
Were Fox willing to not give them air-time, the tea party would die on the spot and moderate republicans would have a shot.

On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.

You must be young. The Tea Party is just the latest manifestation of the John Birch Society which was just a fairly recent version of something that recurs with great regularity. Base human instincts to protect yours manifest as protecting your culture, your wealth, your women and children from the corrupting influence of "them", be they brown, funny talking, or basically anything that isn't your self-proclaimed parochial "we", being whatever group you can attract, whose main virtue is not being "them" and not liking "them" either. One can marginalize such people, sometimes, but they are like weeks that will grow ...


Well, you are right, I've only been politically open-minded for a decade or so, and have not yet seen my 30th orbit of the sun. I had been led to believe that the tea-baggers were a spontaneous appearance of a large number of like minded assholes and bigots. I saw how it happened pretty clearly, but no one ever mentioned that they were quite possibly all politically grouped through comparable societies in the past. They were certainly all old enough and white enough to have been the main fighting forces against miscegenation and racial integration... I suppose it makes sense their is a party/pseudo-party they all belonged to back in the day as well. These days you never hear anything about the GOP prior to Saint Reagan. It's like the GOP, it's policies and actions all started in 1980, and nothing prior to that is relevant or even exists.

\At least that has been my impression of American politics.
\\I can guaran-damn-tee I'll never vote for the GOP. Ever.
 
2012-11-12 02:15:21 AM
We don't have a two-party system. We have the liberals, and then we have the coalition of business, christers, white power, and anarchists.
 
2012-11-12 02:17:50 AM
The Republicans won't revolt until they lose control of the house, the Dems have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (a real one, not 2008), and Dems have won 3 or more consecutive presidential races in a row. That is a pretty tall order and won't likely happen. Dems will have to be in power after the next Census to redraw the lines and another charismatic leader has to come out of the party. The Republicans will continue doing what they did the last four years: stonewall until the next election. Sure it didn't work in 2012, but it worked great in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me at all that the Dems take another hit in 2014 if they didn't learn their lesson in 2010.

Right now, I just don't see anyone able to take the reins after Obama leaves and Dems will probably be left with Gore 2.0. Most of the names I've seen floating around would be terrible.
 
2012-11-12 02:23:52 AM
5 out of the last 6.

That is how many elections Republican's have LOST the popular vote.

The demographics are changing so fast and breaking so hard, I can't see how within the next two election cycles the general population make up of the US doesn't grow even more outside the Republican Party's current grasp. I know Bill O'Reilly was bemoaning the loss because this meant the end of rule for White Male America, but in many respects he was right.

The Republican party that is anti-immigrant (pissing off the Latinos), anti-intellectual/anti-science (pissing off the asians), that advocates policies using rhetoric that seem to have grown out of Jim Crow and the Old South (Pissing off Blacks), and that is anti-abortion/choice and anti-birth control (pissing off a lot of women), is DOOMED to failure, everywhere except that Old South area they currently control.

However, as many political scientists have noted, even Texas could be in play for the Democratic vote within the decade. (I think it may go out faster than that as that generation between the WWII group and the baby boomers begins to die out.) The polls are quite clear, most under the age of 35-40 could not care less about fighting about gay marriage (they're for it); abortion/choice (exit polls last week showed 66% approval for keeping it legal from actual voters); and any polling of those with an education is always going to find a significant difference on the issue of racism/bigotry, with their under-educated/uneducated counterparts.

In short, the Republican Party may not be dead (or capable of being revived): but it's pretty damned clear the Republican Party with a fistful of policy platforms revolving around making abortion illegal, keeping gay marriage illegal, favoring racist policies or using racist rhetoric, being anti-science all the while doubling down on tax and fiscal policies that espouse the "trickle-down" approach that favors the rich above all others.....well, that Party is dead. It's just some of them don't have the sense to know they've actually consumed a fatal dose of political poison, they just haven't died yet.
 
2012-11-12 02:24:38 AM

quickdraw: Uchiha_Cycliste: On a side note it is sickening that an entertainment outfit has so much control over our politics. Unfortunately, there is no legal mechanism available to lessen their influence.

Walter Benjamin's talks about art's power shifting from the sacred to the secular with the ability to mechanically reproduce images and narratives. Henry Jenkins says that digital images will move the power of art from politics to entertainment.

If they are right (and I think they are) then that means that as our ability to share images and stories increases, politics will become less and less dominant in world affairs. Everything will be a kind of "reality" television. Leading to mass delusion when one of those narratives strays too far from fact.

We are all vulnerable to this experience. We need to develop tools and habits to cut through the shiny delusions or we too will fall prey to a compelling narrative that fits our preconceptions. But there is no getting away from the entertainment aspect of it. Although I think it will become less and less centralized.



I think that if all the news stations that are not Fox News are going to be branded as liberal traitors anyway, they should go ahead and start being a little more liberal. They should go out of their way to inform the rest of the country of the bullshiat that Fox says (as TDS and Colbert do) and try their damndest to marginalize FOX and steal their more moderate viewers.
My personal experience with Media for the last four years or so has been solely thorough torrenting TV shows I dig, and listening to KQED (my local NPR affiliate). I feel that NPR, PRI, APM, BBC etc all do a fantastic job of relaying the world's news and most importantly don't bombard me with commercials. I find that I can't watch TV or listen to music on the radio because the commercials irritate me too much. I really don't see that group of content providers will change much in the future, I think they will stay the same and the gulf between them and more profit driven entertainment outlets will simply widen. At least I hope that will be the case. However, as you note, this will likely lead to a less learned population which is a damn shame. There is no way to force others to consume less slanted news or to even get them to realize that better sources are available and that what they prefer is not so great.
In the end I think we will see a smaller and smaller percentage of the population that is well informed and a larger portion that just doesn't care that they are ignorant. The problem is obviously when the ignorant hold all the power. I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.
 
2012-11-12 02:25:07 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: quickdraw, I'm running out to get some food but when I return I want to discuss your post with you. I'm intrigued.


I'm sleepy but I'll get back on in the morning and check the thread - otherwise eip. I'd be happy to chat about it actually. These trends have been very much on mind.

But check out Walter Benjamin. He describes the power shift from theocratic to secular that accompanied the ability to rapidly reproduce images.

What happened with the GOP is (imo anyways) very similar with what happened with Y2K and there is probably a simple reason for that. Drudge. The GOP is being driven by the Drudge narrative. And hes an awesome story teller.

We need a new story - badly. Luckily Obama has a really good one - complete with a tragically dead mom just like all the heroes get in movies. But we are going to need more compelling stories and images if we are going to move events in a positive direction. I think the shift from secular politics to participatory narrative make-your-own-adventure is going to be a healthy one,but its going to create some monsters on the way.

The GOP probably wont completely disappear but it will become a vestigial organ. Like the British monarchy. I dont know whats going to happen with the Dems. But it is clear that its important to make sure the reality you choose is one with facts. I expect that the occupy movement will become more of a political force since they are adept at using real time narrative and images as tools of civic engagement.
 
2012-11-12 02:25:18 AM

hubiestubert: Technocratism is based on a principles of thought and careful consideration of policy and actions.


FTFY. Conservativism is doing what has always been done just because of tradition's sake. Don't rock the boat. If it's not broke don't fix it.
 
2012-11-12 02:27:44 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


Well, in the past.. 20 years.. The Progressive Conservative party (on a federal level) pretty much died following the 93 election. In the following years the Reform party, led by Preston Manning and Harper slowly picked up the votes when they expanded out of the west. They then "merged" with the PCs forming a new party, the current Conservative party. Then when Chretien stepped down, and the sponsorship scandal rocked the Liberal party, the new conservative party was able to pick up a minority government.

Since then we've been in minority limbo up until the last federal election when the left was split down the middle between the NDP and the Liberals, allowing Harper to gain a majority gov't. The NDP had been in a position to offer the olive branch to the Liberals following the election and merge parties, but with Layton passing away and the Grit heavy hitters clinging on to nostalgia, the left is still divided. And now that Justin Trudeau is starting to make some noise, the Liberals won't sit down, even though they're still on the bottom of the totem pole.

If anything, the GOP in-fighting can be likened to the split between the Liberals and NDP. Unless they can merge and provide a unified front, the cons will stay in power. If the GOP splits, the Dems can expect to hold on to power for a long time to come.
 
2012-11-12 02:31:02 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.


We are the media now. 25% of the country is over 65. The country is getting very old. And those old dudes are not going to change. But everyone else will keep moving forward. And they will quickly be outnumbered.

Its not so much the GOP as a political party thats dying - its the Republicans themselves. This is the cause of the panic. And there is a fair amount of dementia at work here. I think simple biology is a big reason why they act so deluded.
 
2012-11-12 02:36:07 AM

quickdraw: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.

We are the media now. 25% of the country is over 65. The country is getting very old. And those old dudes are not going to change. But everyone else will keep moving forward. And they will quickly be outnumbered.

Its not so much the GOP as a political party thats dying - its the Republicans themselves. This is the cause of the panic. And there is a fair amount of dementia at work here. I think simple biology is a big reason why they act so deluded.


yes, and loss of control is a serious matter especially when it involves ones bladder.
 
2012-11-12 02:44:12 AM

quickdraw: I'm sleepy but I'll get back on in the morning and check the thread - otherwise eip. I'd be happy to chat about it actually. These trends have been very much on mind.


sleep well, lets talk about it tomorrow.
 
2012-11-12 02:46:43 AM

Truncks1: Most of the names I've seen floating around would be terrible.


If Hilary ran I think she'd win in a landslide.
 
2012-11-12 02:48:23 AM

bootman: Two derps enter, one herp leaves!
[i.imgur.com image 450x315]


Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?
 
2012-11-12 02:48:47 AM

quickdraw: Uchiha_Cycliste: I don't see a solution, only consolation in my belief that NPR will continue to keep my well informed and more worldly informed than domestic media.

We are the media now. 25% of the country is over 65. The country is getting very old. And those old dudes are not going to change. But everyone else will keep moving forward. And they will quickly be outnumbered.

Its not so much the GOP as a political party thats dying - its the Republicans themselves. This is the cause of the panic. And there is a fair amount of dementia at work here. I think simple biology is a big reason why they act so deluded.


How in God's name does the GOP think that concentrating their stupidity and narrowing their appeal will result in winning elections? What part of your analyses screams, oh we lost because we were too moderate? Why aren't there any intelligent adults making decisions in their HQ?

\I suppose it could be that anyone intelligent enough to see these things packed up and joined the dark side long ago. Hell we even have Weaver and hubies now =D
 
2012-11-12 03:13:40 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.

Who is assuming that? If she was, I don't know if she's be stepping down as Secretary of State. I could see her as VP nominee, possibly, but she's getting on in years. She'd be almost 70 if she ran in 2016 IIRC.


Yes. She is getting on in years. She would be 69. Almost 70. And your point is?
 
2012-11-12 03:36:51 AM
Anyone considering a Libertarian/Republican because of the religious right?

/It happened before with the Republican-Democrats and could happen again.
 
2012-11-12 03:54:09 AM
Let's play a game.

Let's say that you're a major political party in the United States, and you're losing 90+ percent of African-American vote, 70+ percent of both Hispanic and Asian vote, and 55+ percent of women.

Now I ask you, by what thought process does one arrive at the conclusion that this party should run candidates that are further to the right?

If you can answer this question, then you will have succeeded in an endeavor that has failed at many points in the past -- namely, explaining the logic of the Republican party.
 
2012-11-12 04:05:12 AM

seventypercent: explaining the logic of the Republican party.


Logic is for gay hippie atheist muslim socialist commie lieberal demoncrat scum. Next you'll be telling me that Jayzus didn't want us to ritualistically sacrifice homeless children on the blood-altar of Great Mammon.
 
2012-11-12 05:43:08 AM
i915.photobucket.com">
 
2012-11-12 05:45:39 AM

hubiestubert: What they call a "Moderate" used to simply be a Conservative. The party has shifted HARD to the radical fringe, and still claim to be Conservative, when they are anything but.

Conservatism is based on a principles of thought and careful consideration of policy and actions. Not simple opposition to what the other guys propose, to be on the opposite side of an issue, and that is really more what we have now. It isn't even radical, it is just simply contrarian. "If'n he's fer it, I'mma ag'in it!" is NOT Conservatism. You cannot claim to be a fiscal Conservative and vote for blowing up the budget, just to "make a point." You can't claim to love the Constitution while systematically trying to deny citizens their rights. You cannot claim to be for freedom of religion and then seek to deny others their right to worship, or not, as they choose.

It isn't that "Moderates" are fleeing. It's that Conservatives are fleeing. Fleeing from a nest of radicals who despise anything that isn't Gods, Guns and Glory, and damn the budgets, damn the poor, damn the homos, damn the Unitarians, the Buddhists, and anyone else who isn't of the People of the Book, and a full third of those folks are right out too.

It isn't that "Moderates" are leaving, it's that Conservatives are leaving. Like myself. Like others around me. We cannot stay in a party that will NOT listen to reason, that will not accept facts, that wants to cherry pick its history and even matters of geography. When "math and science" becomes your "enemy" because it repeatedly refutes claims made, there's an issue. Good Conservatism adjusts course with the nation. Serves considered policy that relates directly with the facts on the ground. Not what we wish it were, but what is actually happening. NeoCons are in firm control of the party, and for many years, they were the wackadoodle fringe right, until Reagan and Bush started bringing them into the fold, and coupled with the inclusion of the Religious Right, it pushed the party ...


Here hear.
 
2012-11-12 05:50:35 AM

seventypercent: Let's play a game.

Let's say that you're a major political party in the United States, and you're losing 90+ percent of African-American vote, 70+ percent of both Hispanic and Asian vote, and 55+ percent of women.

Now I ask you, by what thought process does one arrive at the conclusion that this party should run candidates that are further to the right?

If you can answer this question, then you will have succeeded in an endeavor that has failed at many points in the past -- namely, explaining the logic of the Republican party.


They think that by moving further to the right they can win the votes of fundie white women.

Of course, the GOP is not completely brain dead, so next time they'll be sure to get the word out to candidates to STFU about rape rape. Think about it, whites are still 72% of the US population. The GOP could run the show for another generation by appealing strictly to whites, without having to modify their stance on immigration, gay rights, or even abortion.

Okay, modify that last point...they will need to back off the absolutist anti-abortion stance they currently espouse, but not a whole lot. Women understand that abortion is not undertaken lightly, but they also know that sometimes it's the right answer. If the GOP modifies its position to acknowledge that abortion is going to happen sometimes, they could pull white women back into the party in enough numbers to make a difference.

Don't believe me? Just think about the polling in MO and IN before their GOP Senate candidates opened their yaps about rape rape. Both of those guys were shoe-ins for the Senate. Instead, white women voted for the Dem and they both went down in flames. Words have consequences, and subtle messaging can make a huge difference in an election.
 
2012-11-12 05:51:53 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


I'll take conservative Canadians over conservative Americans any day.

One of my best friends is French. She's what they call conservative over there. She'd be a hard-core Dem over here, trust me.
 
2012-11-12 06:01:47 AM

mikemoto: brantgoose: mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.

The Progressive Conservative Party that went down is not the same party that came back from the grave. It's like when somebody is bitten by a vampire and comes back. They are not the same loved one you buried. They are a blood-sucking demon in human form.

The same thing happened to the Republican Party--it was once the party of Lincoln and the abolitionists (far to the left of him). It was once a centrist party, with liberal and moderate wings keeping it stable and close to the people of small town, middle class America.

But it was taken over from within like a caterpillar being devoured by wasp larvae.

Today's Conservatives are basically the Northern wing of the Republicans. They are fundamentalist Christians, anti-tax suburbanites and ass-kissers of the Oil Patch and the Super Rich Tories of Toronto.

To give you an idea, the two surviving Members of Parliament after the crash were Elsie Wayne (a right-winger from Saint John, New Brunswick, whose opinions are often unreconstructed and whose language and methods are "colourful" even by right-wing New Brunswick standards, and Jean Charest, who is still he Liberal Prime Minister (or Premier) of Quebec.

Jean Charest is more to the left than a Massachusetts Republican and Elsie, God Bless Her, is a flake who is prone to wearing Christmas sweaters that light up more than her latest anti-gay statement.

The Conservative Party died. It is just the reanimated corpse that is walking the Earth. The New Conservatives, like their neo-Con and libertarian American counterparts, are no more centrist, moderate, liberal, or sane than the Reverend Bumfackus of the Super-Church of Jesus Christ of Backwoods, Nigeria is a Universalist Christian.

he vampire or zombie analogy is a sound one. The old name covers a skin ...


He is wrong. The policies of the Cons is mild, left of Obama. Harper is on record with supporting Canadian (and foreigners) right to be married and also on record to not want to touch the abortion question.

There is a difference between belief and policy. Harper and many of the elected cons might believe certain things, but the policy they enact is centre-right.

It is a typical Canadian solution, hold the centre. And for those who were thinking back in the 1990s under Chretien, he balanced the budget by downloading services to the provinces, which then downloaded to the cities, which then cut services. It had to be done, but in now way was the liberal party of 1995 crazy left. They were centre-left and sometimes centre-right.
 
2012-11-12 06:17:53 AM

mscleo: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428808/80631883#c80631883" target="_blank">Stone Meadow</a>:</b> <i>clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.</i>


As a libby liberal...

I concur.


Not only that, but the Blue dogs and the RINOs would team up like the "Gang of #" you hear about whenever compromise is needed.

//They could use a rino as their part logo.
 
2012-11-12 07:05:58 AM

Publikwerks: mscleo: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428808/80631883#c80631883" target="_blank">Stone Meadow</a>:</b> <i>clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

Agreed...this is wishful thinking. Not only is it unlikely in the extreme given the makeup of the Democratic party right now, but the backlash would be epic. The Dems just need to stay center-right, minding the store and rebuilding the economy without going off the deep end over guns, climate change or any of a number of other hot button issues.</i>


As a libby liberal...

I concur.

Not only that, but the Blue dogs and the RINOs would team up like the "Gang of #" you hear about whenever compromise is needed.

//They could use a rino as their part logo.


I am ok with this.
 
2012-11-12 07:45:08 AM
FTA: It is no secret that the GOP has effectively joined three different factions to create their ruling majority. That is, the business wing, the libertarian wing and the evangelical wing have hung together since Nixon created the southern strategy--drawing disaffected southern bigots who had previously been democrats.

Since the dawn of the Southern Strategy, did Christianity in America change from compassion to the poor, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24), to "Prosperity Doctrine" as preached by many of the popular evangelicals today.

And if so, did Richard Nixon destroy Christianity?

I'm just asking questions.
 
2012-11-12 07:48:29 AM

Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.


If they were REALLY moderate Republicans, they'd be happy that Obama won.
 
2012-11-12 07:49:31 AM
Today, I think, that may have just happened.

Is this referring to something specific? What 'first shot' are they referring to?
 
2012-11-12 07:57:23 AM

Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.


But... But if a politician did that, they'd lose *influence* and *status*!

No, far better to be associated with the Rape Apologists than to risk *that*
 
2012-11-12 08:04:47 AM

dervish16108: "Prosperity Doctrine" as preached by many of the popular evangelicals today.


I'm not sure I count as Christian anymore (grew up in the very liberal UCC, spiritual views have drifted-I'm probably more a Pratchettist/Pratchian, if anything), but the Prosperity Doctrine still makes me rage, and rage hard.

I mean, the bible, in multiple places, EXPLICITLY STATES IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. "You cannot serve both God and Mammon" "God causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust, and rain to fall on the good and the wicked", etc etc.

I just. It. ARRRGGGGGHHH
 
2012-11-12 08:14:35 AM

Aarontology: propasaurus: Aarontology: No they won't.

They'll fall in line like they always do. If they really wanted to revolt, they'd leave and become blue dogs or start their own center right party.

Why do we need another center right party, we already have Democrats.

Well, center right compared to the current GOP, I mean.


So, the Democrats.
 
2012-11-12 08:21:46 AM
I said this the very first day the GOP hooked up with the Tea Party, that it was a poor choice and would lead to problems down the road. It's like taking crack...it might give a big boost initially, but it will eventually destroy you.

The Tea Party arguably had valid points at first. But it was soon occupied by the craziest of the crazy....incapable and certainly unwilling to: compromise, think outside the box, admit when they are wrong. And now we have the same stupid morons, except they are empowered and will likely remain so.

Good job, GOP...you took what was only a dispute between ideologies and turned it into a bathiat crazy looney bin. I hope you are proud.
 
2012-11-12 08:56:37 AM
Moderates revolt against whom and why? Themselves?

They got their choice in the primary as the nominee twice now. They ran the convention their way, with those pesky conservatives or libertarian Republicans muzzled. They had Romney run his campaign they wanted him to, just like McCain, and they lost the Presidency again, like they always do.

Sound more like they're trying to deflect blame for their loss.

Or trying to redistrubute it, like the socialists they really are
 
2012-11-12 08:57:23 AM

Macinfarker: The Tea Party arguably had valid points at first.


Sure, it did: MOAR TAKS KUTZ. Was there anything else?



[gabbyjohnson.jpg]

Oh, right. That, too. Both salient points have been duly noted.
 
2012-11-12 09:11:02 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.

Who is assuming that? If she was, I don't know if she's be stepping down as Secretary of State. I could see her as VP nominee, possibly, but she's getting on in years. She'd be almost 70 if she ran in 2016 IIRC.


Isn't she the same age as Romney? I never see anyone saying he should not have run in 2012 because he'd be "getting on in years" if he ran for reelection in 2016.
 
2012-11-12 09:12:47 AM
I think there's a issue of perception here...

The United States currently has a strong Center/Center-Right party.

The Democrats.

A mild inching towards a slightly less offensive position on Immigration (and not much else) does not make these guys 'Moderates' by a long shot.

Give me Huntsman.. Collins.. Snowe... THOSE are as solid Right as one would ever farking want. Not moderate, but solid Capital C Conservative. Anyone else is delving into the far-right fundie fringe.
 
2012-11-12 09:34:47 AM
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-11-12 09:40:39 AM

mikemoto: Another thing to ponder. After 1964, you could easily have written this same article. Goldwater lost far more convincingly than Romney had and where were we 4 years after that? Also, one would assume Hillary is the frontrunner for 2016. Don't be so sure that she's a lock to win the presidency.


Johnson didn't run in 1968 and Nixon ran a southern strategy leveraging on the passing of the Civil Rights Act that Johnson had passed. There's no chance of such a repeat in 2016.
 
2012-11-12 09:57:00 AM

mikemoto: Before you liberals get too cocky, you might want to look to Canada where the Conservative Party took an unbelievable shellacking in 1993. Take a guess which party controls their government now.


I don't care if the Republicans come back so long as they learn a few things on the way:

* Stop demonizing immigrants
* Stop demonizing Muslims
* Stop demonizing gays
* Stop demonizing atheists
* Stop demonizing women
* Stop demonizing blacks

Well... you get the picture. If the GOP can drop all the stupid hatred, maybe they can start moving back towards sanity.

Likewise, if they can stop denying basic biology, math, and physics, maybe we can have a talk about letting you guys have some power, again. In the meanwhile, enjoy your walk through the wilderness while you figure yourselves out.
 
2012-11-12 10:14:16 AM

brandent: RedPhoenix122: Kittypie070: Boehner must be a librul plant, right?

Of course, I've seen him golfing with the enemy.

[i.usatoday.net image 490x360]

You know Boehner doesn't seem unreasonable. He spouts a little demagoguery once in awhile but it's just lip service. It seems him and Obama have a pretty well thought out compromise put together but Boehner knows he can't get the wingnuts to go along.


Boehner always did seem to be the guy who is willing to at least have a rational conversation with Obama, but keeps getting distracted by Tea Party bomb he is trying to defuse. I kind of feel bad for him in that the Tea Party is probably going to take their rage out on him and primary him out in 2014.
 
MIU
2012-11-12 10:16:55 AM

brantgoose: Jean Charest, who is still he Liberal Prime Minister (or Premier) of Quebec.


Small quibble, but Charest was ousted recently by Pauline Marois of the PQ. He was a very long-serving Liberal premier, as you said, though.
 
2012-11-12 10:44:54 AM

Some 'Splainin' To Do:
I don't care if the Republicans come back so long as they learn a few things on the way:

* Stop demonizing immigrants
* Stop demonizing Muslims
* Stop demonizing gays
* Stop demonizing atheists
* Stop demonizing women
* Stop demonizing blacks

* Stop demonizing science and scientists
* Respect the separation of church and state
 
2012-11-12 11:02:09 AM

StopLurkListen: If the Republican Party would just quit bashing immigrants, science, gays, and women's reproductive health and prove to me that 'trickle down' actually works, I might be convinced to vote for them again.

But then they'd be Democrats, so who cares anyway?


Promote a less interventionist stance on foreign policy (read: cut military spending and foreign aid, wean Isreal from the US taxpayer teat) and I think we have a party platform!
 
2012-11-12 11:34:23 AM

clambam: The line I found disturbing nfrom that articl is this one:

"First, of course, is that the GOP won't be able to get anywhere near 50% of the vote. Democrats will win. More so, democrats can win without the need for blue dogs. We will be able to pass progressive legislation without needing to water it down."

This is precisely what happened between 1972 and 1980. The repubs disgraced themselves, the government was thrown into the hands of the Democrats and they proceeded to push through thoughtless progressive legislation that wrecked the economy and paved the way for the Reagan Revolution. Come to think of it, it happened again in 2000 when the Democrats disgraced themselves (or were tricked into giving the appearance of being disgraced), the government was thrown into the hands of the repubs and they proceeded to push through thoughtless conservative legislation that wrecked the economy and paved the way for Obama. If the Democrats can keep their pants zipped up, avoid hubris and put country before ideology, they have a chance of holding on to power; more importantly, of doing something useful with it. But they probably won't. 

Wouldn't it be nice to having two grown-up parties again, one dedicated to making the country a better place for the poor and the disadvantaged, one to keeping the country on an even financial keel, neither particularly interested in poking their noses into other people's bedrooms? Sigh, the good old days...


Thoughtful analysis thanks .. and I agree the Dems got a bit crazy (much like the Bennite Labour party in my country) but I think the influence of the oil crisis/OPEC etc is something that needs to be considered as well.

A lot of European countries (the usual.. Sweden, Finland, Germany ... ) stuck with social policies much the same as those in the US and UK but tempered them with an Ordo-Liberal economic approach and therefore didn't feel the same pain when currencies starting going crazy..

As I said .. I agree with your sentiment that not thought through social policies and bending over for the unions gave us 30+ years of monetarist 'fiscal alchemy' but I think progressives have paid enough and learned from those mistakes that we can start talking about consensus politics again with, in the case of the US, a Liberal and moderately right party representing the people.
 
2012-11-12 12:30:45 PM
The thing I haven't noticed with all this "how will the Republicans react" is who will be voting in the primaries? You know, the people who removed the Lugars from the Senate and put rape candidates in their place? How about the endless parade of "not Mitt" candidates, Trump, 999, Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrinch?

Sham GOP primaries wouldn't surprise me. Fox news trimming its sails ever so toward reality will leave me mildly shocked. But unless the primary voters change, nothing else will.
 
2012-11-12 05:26:16 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I don't care if the Republicans come back so long as they learn a few things on the way:

* Stop demonizing immigrants
* Stop demonizing Muslims
* Stop demonizing gays
* Stop demonizing atheists
* Stop demonizing women
* Stop demonizing blacks


then they wouldn't be the GOP.
 
2012-11-12 08:05:39 PM
i.imgur.com

/bad kitty, meddling with a pro's artwork!
 
2012-11-12 08:50:05 PM

GAT_00: Now, do you consider the Tea Party Caucus a separate party? That matters too.


Only if they officially break from the Republicans, by holding separate primaries.
 
2012-11-12 10:59:14 PM

Roy_G_Biv: They got their choice in the primary as the nominee twice now. They ran the convention their way, with those pesky conservatives or libertarian Republicans muzzled. They had Romney run his campaign they wanted him to, just like McCain, and they lost the Presidency again, like they always do.


And how would you propose the GOP capture more of the vote? This is basic math here. Current GOP positions do not appeal to enough voters - in fact they alienate many people who would otherwise vote for the party.

It's pretty clear to both of us (and pretty much everyone else) that staying where they are is not a viable play. But it's also pretty clear to most that moving to the right will be a zero sum game where they lose as many moderates as they would gain in conservatives - at best.

Their best political bet is to actively court the Latino vote. Their best intellectually honest bet is drop the evangelicals.

An abandonment of the xenophobia and interventionist social policies is not abandonment of conservatism. Well, it's an abandonment of the conservatism of the last 20 years, but not real conservatism.
 
2012-11-13 12:12:43 AM

Babwa Wawa: But it's also pretty clear to most that moving to the right will be a zero sum game where they lose as many moderates as they would gain in conservatives - at best.


Nonsense. Moving to the right and purging the GOP of any vestiges of compromise will convince voters of the sincerity and correctness of their beliefs, and persuade increasing numbers of voters to become True Conservatives.
 
2012-11-13 03:43:34 PM

RexTalionis: The Bush Tax Cuts were made for a stupid reason initially. Bush thought that because we had a federal surplus (which, if you want to get truly technical, we never actually had), then we should have a temporary tax cut (and the tax cut was originally intended to be temporary) to redistribute the surplus to the tax payers.

Well, we don't have a surplus anymore (not that we ever did), but we're still extending that tax cut and it's one of the largest reasons why our debt grows so fast.


And then, of course, there's the fact that even if we had a budget surplus, we still had $5.7 trillion in debt to pay down. Which, if nothing had changed and the CBO 2001 estimates would've been correct, would have been wiped out by the end of Bush's presidency. Instead, we get the Bush tax cuts and a tripling of the debt in that time.
 
Displayed 228 of 228 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report