« previous   misc   next »

Time for a new Republican Party


By 121212   Follow   Mon, 7 Jan 2013, 2:51am PST   1,821 views   42 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

The Republican Party did not lose last Tuesday's election. It was obliterated, crushed, slaughtered, massacred, squashed, annihilated — and, let’s hope, extinguished.

For the party of Lincoln, it’s been a week of sifting through the carnage: What went wrong? How could a party that just a decade ago controlled all of government have been so completely nullified that an incumbent Democrat who was quite possibly the worst president in a century handily defeated the Republican nominee?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/11/curl-time-for-a-new-republican-party/

« First     « Previous     Comments 3-42 of 42     Last »

thomaswong.1986   Mon, 7 Jan 2013, 4:36pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 3

121212 says

The Republican Party did not lose last Tuesday's election. It was obliterated, crushed, slaughtered, massacred, squashed, annihilated — and, let’s hope, extinguished.

i hardly would call a 48% as a massacre.. what do you tell those who voted for the GOP in 2012 .. they will be back..and GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

Massacre is something like Mondale in '84 who carried only one state while the GOP carried the majority.

The bigger question for you is what happened to the 10 Million of 2008 Obama voters who didnt vote for him 2012. You do see the future ? You completely lost 10 million of your past supporters.

tatupu70   Mon, 7 Jan 2013, 10:49pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4

thomaswong.1986 says

and GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

Not really. Demographics are not in the Republican's favor. It's more likely that the GOP ranks will continue to decline in the forseeable future.

Peter P   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 1:46am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

The GOP needs to learn. Young people love idealistic bullshit. They should add a few elements taken from Utopia. No need to deliver. Just blame the other party. :-)

Dan8267   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 1:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 6

121212 says

For the party of Lincoln

Post 1960s Republicans are not the party of Lincoln. The two major parties switched roles in the 1960s.

But why try to create a new Republican Party anyway? That party has become so corrupt and obscene, it's best to just let it end. Instead, we should let the Democratic Party (which is basically almost everyone who isn't a Republican religious nutjob or godless greedy financial parasite), to break up into several smaller, more organized parties. Then we would have real competition.

Of course, the only way to allow that is to have major structural reform in the way elections are ran.

Peter P   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 1:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

Barry Goldwater would have been the best president ever.

curious2   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 2:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

thomaswong.1986 says

GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

Not with the party's theocratic policies, which poll at or below 40% and falling. Romnesia campaigned on amending the Constitution to prohibit abortion even in cases of rape or incest (30%) and to prohibit same-sex marriage and even domestic partnerships (30%). (Opposition to same-sex marriage generally is around 40%, but amending the Constitution polls around 30%.) The GOP base is largely elderly religious voters, who (because they are elderly) tend to be dying off. Yet, they even lost Florida, which has a high % of elderly and religious voters. Democrats and Democratic policies are much more popular among younger voters, so the trend favors Democrats.

That could change of course. I suspect Republicans might campaign in 2016 on returning social issues to the states. That would mean reversing Roe v Wade to allow states to prohibit abortion, so it might corral enough religious fundamentalists to win, but it wouldn't prohibit abortion outright, so it might not energize opposition. Likewise marriage: Cheney's view was that the federal government should generally defer to the states on marriage, which was the law from the founding of the republic until 1996. So, Republicans can try to split the baby, campaigning on states' rights, and they might hope to get enough support in enough states to win.

I prefer Dan's solution though, because the GOP has become a fundamentally corrupt organization built around manipulating people into voting against their own interests. Meanwhile, the Democratic party has become a bloated unaffordable patronage network. Alas the way elections are currently structured, the major party system will remain binary unless someone like Mike Bloomberg or Bill Gates decides to fund a viable movement.

121212   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 9

thomaswong.1986 says

hardly would call a 48% as a massacre

Yes it was!

Obama First Since Ike to Win 51% Twice, Final Tally Shows
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Eisenhower-electoral-college/2013/01/04/id/470148
Obama 51%

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/mitt-romney-47-percent-vote-total/60613/
Romeny 47%

thomaswong.1986 says

The bigger question for you is what happened to the 10 Million of 2008 Obama voters who didnt vote for him 2012. You do see the future ? You completely lost 10 million of your past supporters.

Foolish idiot ,there is no bigger question, he won.

The bigger question for you is how on earth the Republicans can win every again!

121212   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:05am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 10

Peter P says

The GOP needs to learn. Young people love idealistic bullshit

Yes they want moon bases and Newt

121212   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:07am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 11

Dan8267 says

That party has become so corrupt and obscene, it's best to just let it end

No, according to
thomaswidiot.1986 the democrats should be worrying why 10 million voters didn't vote Obama, even after he won handsomely. Idiot

121212   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 12

tatupu70 says

thomaswong.1986 says

and GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.

With which demographic foolish imp? Hey, wake up delusional Republican fool this is why you cannot win the White House. You cannot gerrymander the districts for President! You have no more increasing demographics, NONE!

121212   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 13

curious2 says

That would mean reversing Roe v Wade to allow states to prohibit abortion, so it might corral enough religious fundamentalists to win, but it wouldn't prohibit abortion outright, so it might not energize opposition.

NO!

The repupkes need to move away from SOCIAL ISSUES, it's the SOCIAL ISSUES that is sinking the party. They are FOOLS! They cannot see the shit on the edge of their own noses.

The continuing party platform is to Ban gay marriage, Ban Abortion, ban contraceptive, trans vaginal ultrasounds and the end of the REPUBLICANS PARTY as we know it.

CL   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Ha..." The party stands for smaller government, far less federal spending, individual freedom, less intrusion, a strong national defense, lower taxes and supply-side, business-friendly economics. Far more than half of America believes in just the same tenets: Make no mistake, the nation is still solidly center-right."

Yet, the party denies rights based on personal sexual preference, and pushes to deny women the rights to preserve physical autonomy.

So, maybe I'll make the mistake..the country is not center-right, and the article is built on shaky truisms.

thomaswong.1986 says

i hardly would call a 48% as a massacre..

Obama is the first President to be elected and re-elected with these margins since Ike. That's impressive.

Peter P   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 3:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

121212 says

curious2 says

That would mean reversing Roe v Wade to allow states to prohibit abortion, so it might corral enough religious fundamentalists to win, but it wouldn't prohibit abortion outright, so it might not energize opposition.

NO!

The repupkes need to move away from SOCIAL ISSUES, it's the SOCIAL ISSUES that is sinking the party. They are FOOLS! They cannot see the shit on the edge of their own noses.

The continuing party platform is to Ban gay marriage, Ban Abortion, ban contraceptive, trans vaginal ultrasounds and the end of the REPUBLICANS PARTY as we know it.

You are spot on!!

Peter P   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 4:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 16

And they should support universal healthcare if they are serious about helping small businesses.

curious2   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 4:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

CL says

Obama is the first President to be elected and re-elected with these margins since Ike.

And he's the first Democrat to win a majority twice since FDR. But he's also the first President in American history to get re-elected with fewer votes than he got the first time. Going into the election, his approval rating was at or below 50%. The 10 million drop that thomaswong.1986 mentioned shows that people are unhappy with current policies (e.g. Obamacare, which polls around -10%), but not so crazy as to embrace Republican theocracy.

I agree with 121212 and Peter P that Republicans should move away from social issues, but I don't see that happening. They have climbed up that dying tree and they don't know how to climb down. That's why I think they'll try to split the baby, i.e. campaign on states' rights, so they can campaign on social issues in the Bible belt without getting clobbered everywhere else. I don't know if that will work for them either, but it avoids the pain of admitting they're wrong on every level, and most people try to avoid pain.

Vicente   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 5:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

They'd be better off dissolving the GOP and starting up the Whigs again. The brand name is polluted for years. Arthur Anderson was known for the Enron scandal, so they rebranded as Accenture.

CaptainShuddup   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 5:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 19

50% of the country should dissolve?
"Why don't you people just go HOME!"

"Because we ain't got no where else to go..."

121212   Tue, 8 Jan 2013, 8:11am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 20

I am no raving liberal, I believe in the rule of law, equally for everyone.

If anything the hypocritics of all politics blows my mind.

I am no liberation, I am no hard right conservative, I am no hard left liberal.

I am neither left or right , I am either up or down.

Help me, I am looking for the Republicans to come to their senses!

You leave the people with no choice with this Platform.

There is so much on the conservative side that would help us, how do we get to the top of BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN!

So is someone going to get a clue?

No, instead we are going for the Three-PEAT in March 2013.

Fiscall Cliff threat part 2
Sequester threat part 3
Debt Limit Cliff threat part 2

Your side is breaking the government decision making process apart at the seams with no option but austerity, European style austerity, how does that make any sense?

In the Uk they have adopted craziness lowering capital gains, income taxes on the rich, lowering seniors benefits to pay for it! and much much more austerity on students and more.

This is causing the UK to face another recession, it's 3rd since 2008. It does not work.

WE NEED HIGHER JOB GROWTH, PASS THE BILLS AND GET IT DONE!

It solves a whole heap of short, middle term government issues from increased revenue and greater consumer confidence.

This is not hard, create more vocational education directed towards an education that works for YOU! You wonder how Germany does it, look at it's Schools for 16 year olds.

It's not by accident that Germany manufactures shit, they planned and created jobs to fill the auto industry.! NOT OUTSOURCING!

CL   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 12:45am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

curious2 says

I agree with 121212 and Peter P that Republicans should move away from social issues, but I don't see that happening.

Sure. They can embrace the Democratic positions, and lose the voters that crave what they've left behind. The old adage is that, if given a choice of {Party} and {Party-lite} they'll choose the real one every time. The GOP is screwed...hoisted on their own petards.

curious2 says

The 10 million drop that thomaswong.1986 mentioned shows that people are unhappy with current policies

Or, that the economy is still in trouble, people are in pain and that Obama was given all of our goals and aspirations and was expected to solve them all in his first term. I suspect as the economy improves, all of those numbers will too.

Peter P   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 12:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

CL says

They can embrace the Democratic positions, and lose the voters that crave what they've left behind.

They can have the same positions for certain issues. They do not need to oppose each other for everything.

Moderate Infidel   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 1:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

Let's give the GOP Utah and be done with it. They can all go live with baby Jesus and his army of fat white guys in camouflage defending their god given right to subjugate poor minority homosexual atheists.

CL   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 4:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 24

Peter P says

CL says

They can embrace the Democratic positions, and lose the voters that crave what they've left behind.

They can have the same positions for certain issues. They do not need to oppose each other for everything.

Yeah, except that's not the way politics works. If there is a constituency out there, they want representation. They vote and get like-minded people to run for the office. There is a reason that the GOP embraced racists, misogynists, and so on in the past. There is (or at least, was) electoral gold to be mined there.

The races are won in the margins many times. Can they abandon the nativists and gain hispanic or black votes at a rate that renders the need for the nativists obsolete? That's for the part leaders to calculate.

I suspect the answer is no, because when elections get tight, they fall back on those positions every time.

socal2   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 7:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

121212 says

tatupu70 says



thomaswong.1986 says



and GOP ranks can only increase in coming years.


With which demographic foolish imp? Hey, wake up delusional Republican fool this is why you cannot win the White House. You cannot gerrymander the districts for President! You have no more increasing demographics, NONE!

Dude - you really think the Liberals have a strong and durable coalition of:

- Single mothers
- Minorities
- Welfare recipients
- Young and stupid
- Unions

I think it is safe to say that our country will have to be even in worse shape if we have more single mothers (and guaranteed poverty) welfare recipients and dopey college kids with no jobs and a mountain of debt.

Seriously, doesn't it mean that the Democrats are a total failure if their constituency grows in the coming decades?

socal2   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 7:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

121212 says

Your side is breaking the government decision making process apart at the
seams with no option but austerity, European style austerity, how does that make
any sense?


In the Uk they have adopted craziness lowering capital gains, income taxes on
the rich, lowering seniors benefits to pay for it! and much much more austerity
on students and more.


This is causing the UK to face another recession, it's 3rd since 2008. It
does not work.

There has been no austerity in Europe. Certainly no austerity in the US.

We just raised taxes on "the rich" and we are still trillions in debt. We will never get more than 18-20% of GDP in taxes. Yet our government spending is 24% of GDP and growing.

Not hard math dude. We either need to tax the shit out of EVERYONE to pay for this big government that 51% of the population apparently wants. Or we are going to have to cut spending. Either way, you, the poor and the rich are going to feel the pain. Either in increased taxes or reduced services.

Pick your poison.

Then again, we could follow former Enron-advisor Paul Krugman's advice and mint a trillion dollar coin.

CL   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 27

socal2 says

this big government that 51% of the population apparently wants.

We don't want big government. We can cut the Pentagon by a whole lot and that majority you mentioned will be quite happy.

curious2   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:17am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

CL says

We can cut the Pentagon by a whole lot....

Perhaps, but even reducing it to zero would not balance the budget.

The current deficit exceeds $1T/year. Not coincidentally, federal medical spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare) also exceeds $1T/year, and is the biggest single category. You can't balance the budget without reducing medical spending, unless you increase annual taxes by $4k/person to pay for it.

The trend is in the opposite direction though. Obamacare increases federal medical spending, in addition to increasing total national medical spending. Whether the Obamacare taxes will exceed the spending remains to be seen, but most people doubt it, and in this instance I think most people are right.

Tim Aurora   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:39am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

curious2 says

CL says



We can cut the Pentagon by a whole lot....


Perhaps, but even reducing it to zero would not balance the budget.

I get the point but in 2013 the estimated deficit is exactly the same as estimated defense budget.

That said healthcare,defense and SS costs need to be reigned to efeectively reduce the budget deficit

curious2   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:45am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

Tim Aurora says

I get the point but in 2013 the estimated deficit is exactly the same as estimated defense budget.

Whose estimates? Everything I've seen puts the deficit at nearly twice the defense budget. The only category that adds up to as much as the deficit is medical spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare).

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

socal2 says

We will never get more than 18-20% of GDP in taxes

dogmatic belief not fact in evidence. Other countries -- countries with AAA credit ratings still -- get double that.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

curious2 says

Everything I've seen puts the deficit at nearly twice the defense budget

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

that would be $1.6T

your data is bad

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:49am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

Tim Aurora says

SS costs need to be reigned

SS has very little cost to rein in.

Now, if you want to cut SS benefits, screw you, LOL

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 34

curious2 says

The trend is in the opposite direction though. Obamacare increases federal medical spending, in addition to increasing total national medical spending.

this is very true. PPACA is very troublesome from a budget standpoint. Many families are going to get $10,000/yr insurance subsidies. I don't think this is going to be paid for by the law's tax rises, either, though they will bring in a bit more money from the 1% now.

$50B a year in revenue:

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/01/wm3100_table1_750px.ashx

curious2   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Bellingham Bill says

your data is bad

Even your link showed a deficit of $1.1T, which is around 70% of $1.6T. I said "nearly," which might be somewhat more than your link (which is based on White House data) but is consistent with other estimates.

curious2   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

Bellingham Bill says

SS has very little cost to rein in.

True, Social Security operates quite efficiently. If we have a choice between subsidizing Social Security vs subsidizing Medicare, I'd rather subsidize Social Security and let the recipients decide for themselves how to spend the money. FDR said Social Security should protect people from having to worry about going hungry in their old age, an affordable goal that I support; Medicare is a totally different story.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 9:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 37

I agree about Medicare.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W824RC1

As long as the SSTF has money in it SS doesn't need any subsidization, FICA payers just need their damn bonds they were made to collectively buy 1989-2009 paid on.

carrieon   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 10:29am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

When the Republican Party starts another currency that is tax-free, the Democratic Party will self-destruct.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 11:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 39

^ good luck with that

carrieon   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 9:04pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 40

The Red State Socialism chart demonstrates how each State ranks at managing their Federal spending and showing a profit. Where is the glamour in being on the bottom of this chart?

socal2   Thu, 10 Jan 2013, 2:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 41

Bellingham Bill says

socal2 says



We will never get more than 18-20% of GDP in taxes


dogmatic belief not fact in evidence. Other countries -- countries with AAA credit ratings still -- get double that.

Double that? Really? Which countries?

How much would taxes have to go up on EVERYONE in America to get where you think we need to go?

Vicente   Fri, 11 Jan 2013, 12:26pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 42

socal2 says

Double that? Really? Which countries?

Example, Sweden. Hardly a "commie gulag hellhole".

How far will they have to go DOWN before we achieve Perfect Freedom?

Afghanistan has very low tax vs GDP. Also Angola, Algeria, Congo, Iran.

This notion that endlessly cutting taxes will sooner or later lead to Utopia..... doing the same thing over and over and expecting better results next time is one definition of insanity.

« First     « Previous comments    

121212 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net