patrick.net

I think they are likely to marginalize social/religious conservatives as they will discover that they are hurting their election results. This will happen as soon as the wealthy shotcallers come to this realization. What they are likely to do next is to appoint/nominate minorities to candidacy in an attempt to fracture minority vote to the dems. Yes, to a certain extent it will be amount marketing and "lipstick on a pig" but they really don't have much to lose by trying this out.

But seriously, Barry Goldwater was right.

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.

The "Southern Strategy" and kowtowing to the fundamentalist nutters has been a long-term disaster. Those people were a boost of energy but it was the wrong kind.

Honestly, the GOP as currently constructed will never be a party capable of winning national elections again. This reality slapping them in the ace as we speak.

The is HUGE opportunity in the middle, as you mentioned:
edvard2 says

He along with a number of other GOP leaders seem to be some of the most
reasonable people in this whole thing. How come people like he are not more
decisive in this? I have a number of friends who are absolutely as Republican as
they come. Yet they also have common sense and though we don't agree on things,
they have my respect.

In ten years time, I believe the GOP will cast off the Teatards, though it will be spun as the Tea Party leaving on their terms.

A populist moderate party will emerge, a split of the current Republicans with a few fiscal conservative Democrats.

This party will gain majority status over the next 25 years, as the winning strategy has been shown: pigeonhole your opponent into extremism and they become exactly the strawmen you have been describing.

15 years ago, a majority of Republicans were not bible thumping, gay hating, war mongering, racist plutocrats. They aren't today either but those are the policies they are all forced to defend.

There is definitely room in the middle for limited government, limited tax, socially progressive thinking individuals. Right now these folks are democrats because they are petrified of more war, unfettered capitalism, or are gay or a minority.

They don't like paying taxes either, or are skeptical of Obamacare as an example - but they have decided to put up with these things rather than put on their "I'm with stupid" t-shirt.

I'm not so sure. It's likely that this phenomenon of gerrymandering districts to be highly republican can guarantee a republican power base in the house for the foreseeable future.

They may be willing to have that and while the odds for winning the presidency decrease. Although they want to rig it to win that too.

The Tea Party ain't going away. They will attempt military takeover or succession, and then perhaps armed insurrection after that.

What percentage of the American public believes the world is younger than 10,000 years? 15%?

Jesus comes before America, and if you believe that the Founding Fathers meant for only your people to govern, then a government of non-fanatics has no legitimacy.

edvard2 says

What will the GOP be like in 10 years?

Best case scenario:

John Bailo says

That is a real divide between Republicans and Democrats, small centralized government versus big centralized government.

Nobody in the GOP cares about cutting government spending or gives a rat's ass about the deficit. Nobody in the GOP cares about reducing the size of government.

Since January 1981 they have consistently grown government when in power and preached the virtues of small government only for rhetorical purposes.

Wake up. Do you need another 32 years of evidence to see what's in front of your face?

John Bailo says

What Cruz did is phenomenal. In a single month he united Republicans by focusing on a real issue, government fiscal policy and spending.

I think you might want to see what he had to say today at the conference I was referring to. He was basically using every single cliche' in the book of how to talk in a "Socially conservative" way. As such, he is not really doing the GOP any favors, if as you said- move beyond social conservative rhetoric.

Let me put it this way: I can to some degree go along with the notion of fiscal conservatism. But when social conservative ideology gets injected into the debate then forget it because that sort of attitude is what turns me off of the GOP entirely, and I'm sure many, many others. The GOP needs to get away from social conservatism and instead focus more on fiscal conservatism.

edvard2 says

The GOP needs to get away from social conservatism and instead focus more on fiscal conservatism.

On this I could not agree more.

HydroCabron says

John Bailo says

That is a real divide between Republicans and Democrats, small centralized government versus big centralized government.

Nobody in the GOP cares about cutting government spending or gives a rat's ass about the deficit. Nobody in the GOP cares about reducing the size of government.

True to dat.

Conservatives love big, centralized government with control over all social aspects and people's personal lives. What they don't like is when any black person gets a handout. Now handouts to giant corporations and the warfare industry are great. Taxes banks impose on commerce for the use of electronic money are great. Taxes used to make sure a black woman gets prenatal care are bad.

If only conservatives could comprehend that black people are here to stay and that big business and the warfare industry cost way more than poor black people, and that conservative policies are exactly why African Americans have remained poor and needy over generations, maybe they could get over their emotional baggage and stop passing the very legislation that causes so many people to rely on welfare.

edvard2 says

I am definitely someone who leans left.

Hard to believe - really?? Can't be!!

HydroCabron says

John Bailo says

That is a real divide between Republicans and Democrats, small centralized government versus big centralized government.

Nobody in the GOP cares about cutting government spending or gives a rat's ass about the deficit. Nobody in the GOP cares about reducing the size of government.

Since January 1981 they have consistently grown government when in power and preached the virtues of small government only for rhetorical purposes.

Wake up. Do you need another 32 years of evidence to see what's in front of your face?

Don't confuse the man with facts. It's not fair.

control point says

Honestly, the GOP as currently constructed will never be a party capable of winning national elections again. This reality slapping them in the ace as we speak.

Don't bet on it. The dems are perfectly capable of stepping on their dicks hard enough to vault the Reps back into power.

Vicente says

But seriously, Barry Goldwater was right.

Liberals qouting Goldwater.. oh thats rich. You guys were
calling GW a nazi for decades.

If liberals take over there won't be a country in 10 years. All we'll have is bunch of perverts in their gay pride parades, a nation in rubble, while decent families are fleeing probably to Mexico to escape the perversion and the ultimate demise of what once was a great nation.

FortWayne says

If liberals take over there won't be a country in 10 years. All we'll have is bunch of perverts in their gay pride parades, a nation in rubble, while decent families are fleeing probably to Mexico to escape the perversion and the ultimate demise of what once was a great nation.

Funny thing is, it's possible that this is a real person who actually believes this hyperbole.

FortWayne says

If liberals take over there won't be a country in 10 years. All we'll have is bunch of perverts in their gay pride parades, a nation in rubble, while decent families are fleeing probably to Mexico to escape the perversion and the ultimate demise of what once was a great nation.

Any family that would flee to Mexico to escape gay people are so fucking retarded that their absence would benefit our gene pool.

And what the hell is wrong with gay pride parades? The whole reason they exist is that people have used violence and the power of the state to physically harm gay people like the brutal murder of Mathew Shepard. That alone justifies having gay pride parades everywhere so that the bigots can't hurt any more innocent people.

FortWayne says

If liberals take over there won't be a country in 10 years. All we'll have is bunch of perverts in their gay pride parades...

I don't think about gays much. Any reason for your particular interest in them?

My only goal is to pussify America and eliminate responsibility and self-reliance.

FortWayne's comment reminds me of a line in the novel Slaughterhouse Five. It went something like, "You think that prostitution is perverted? War is the greatest perversion.".

I'd suggest reading that book. There is nothing that gays do that is even remotely as perverted as war.

Fine, can we have a hetero pride parade too? Or would that be wrong?

Dan8267 says

Any family that would flee to Mexico to escape gay people are so fucking retarded that their absence would benefit our gene pool.

See Dan it's not that bad when there are only a few and they don't bother everyone. But when our morality fails nationwide, and the only thing people are into is sex, drugs, violence, homosexuality, and corruption the way liberals are pushing us (to celebrate and spread their deviances)... we'll burn faster than Rome did.

Way I see it, if we do same thing Romans did we ain't gonna be any different. It's in the history books and in the bible for crying out loud, Sodom, Gomorrah, Rome.

As morality goes, so goes the nation.

Quigley says

Fine, can we have a hetero pride parade too? Or would that be wrong?

I have a hetero pride parade every Saturday morning. For some reason, most people call it the Walk of Shame. I call it the Walk of Awesome.

In any case, no gay person or real American -- you know, people who believe in equality under law -- would have a problem with heterosexual people promoting non-violence against heterosexuals. Of course it would be silly because gay people haven't gone around lynching and imprisoning straight people ever in history. But if you want to hold a parade to discourage events that have happened only in your imagination, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it as long as you don't end up holding a gay bashing parade.

Quigley says

Fine, can we have a hetero pride parade too? Or would that be wrong?

Pride goeth before a fall.

I never really understood why all those deviants in this country are so proud of themselves for being the way they are. Whats there to take pride in exactly?

From: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s3.html

We find in Xenophon's Banquet a very lively description of a republic in which the people abused their equality. Each guest gives in his turn the reason why he is satisfied. "Content I am," says Chamides, "because of my poverty. When I was rich, I was obliged to pay my court to informers, knowing I was more liable to be hurt by them than capable of doing them harm. The republic constantly demanded some new tax of me; and I could not decline paying. Since I have grown poor, I have acquired authority; nobody threatens me; I rather threaten others. I can go or stay where I please. The rich already rise from their seats and give me the way. I am a king, I was before a slave: I paid taxes to the republic, now it maintains me: I am no longer afraid of losing: but I hope to acquire."

The people fall into this misfortune, when those in whom they confide, desirous of concealing their own corruption, endeavor to corrupt them. To disguise their own ambition, they speak to them only of the grandeur of the state; to conceal their own avarice, they incessantly flatter theirs.

The corruption will increase among the corruptors, and likewise among those who are already corrupted. The people will divide the public money among themselves, and, having added the administration of affairs to their indolence, will be for blending their poverty with the amusements of luxury. But with their indolence and luxury, nothing but the public treasure will be able to satisfy their demands.

We must not be surprised to see their suffrages given for money. It is impossible to make great largesses to the people without great extortion: and to compass this, the state must be subverted. The greater the advantages they seem to derive from their liberty, the nearer they approach towards the critical moment of losing it. Petty tyrants arise who have all the vices of a single tyrant. The small remains of liberty soon become insupportable; a single tyrant starts up, and the people are stripped of every thing, even of the profits of their corruption.

Democracy has, therefore, two excesses to avoid--the spirit of inequality, which leads to aristocracy or monarchy, and the spirit of extreme equality, which leads to despotic power, as the latter is completed by conquest.

FortWayne says

Pride goeth before a fall.

So pride in one's work is a bad thing? Pride in one's children is a bad thing? Sorry son, I'm not proud of you because that would be wrong.

FortWayne says

I never really understood why all those deviants in this country are so proud of themselves for being the way they are. Whats there to take pride in exactly?

Gay pride parades aren't about pride. They are about

1. Confronting the anti-gay bigotry and demonstrating that it is no longer acceptable.

2. Ensuring that anti-gay laws are not passed. That's something that happens when enough people get to persuade politicians that gay people are subhuman, criminal, or evil.

3. Taking power away from the mega-assholes who would try to shame gays in submission for something that should be no more shameful than prideful. Sex shaming is evil no matter who does it or who it is directed at.

The bottom line is that any historically oppressed people must actively fight the negative stereotypes and falsehoods that have been used to oppress them and pass unjust laws. And that is the purpose of gay pride parades.

This is why gay pride parades are held. When shit like that is a thing of the past, so will gay pride parades.

Dan8267 says

So pride in one's work is a bad thing?

Being gay isn't work or an accomplishment.

FortWayne says

sex, drugs, violence, homosexuality, and corruption the way liberals are pushing us

On violence

Violence is evil, but liberals are the least violent people on the planet. Liberals are far less violent than conservatives and science has shown exactly why that is. Conservatives have larger amygdalas, the part of the brain that causes fear, and thus are much more fearful of strangers than liberals and thus are much more violent and warmongering.

Atheists, who are typically most liberal, are statistically the least violent people and are heavily underrepresented in prisons. Per capita, theists are many times more likely than an atheist to commit a violent crime.

Now there is plenty of violence on the left, but those leftist are as far away from being liberals as those on the right who bomb abortion clinics.

The bottom line is that liberal thinking has a very strong, negative correlation with violence. So if you are truly against violence, you should be for liberalism.

On corruption

Liberalism also has a very strong, negative correlation with corruption precisely because one of the tenets of liberalism is transparency in government. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is difficult for corruption to take place in a transparent system because such corruption is detected, exposed, and punished. Corruption requires secrecy, which is something conservatives love in government.

Backroom deals, national secrets, and a lack of accountability of law enforcement including agencies like the NSA. The NSA represents the polar opposite of transparency, which is why it is corrupt. There are no liberals who work for the NSA as we liberals find that organization to be the most repulsive thing we can imagine.

So, if you are truly against corruption, you should favor liberalism.

On drugs

The dividing line between what drugs are legal and what are illegal is largely arbitrary or based on corruption. Why is alcohol legal but marijuana illegal? Alcohol is dangerous, kills people including children, and is far more of a gateway drug. In contrast, marijuana has no proven negative effects.

It makes sense that some drugs like crack are illegal, but it doesn't make sense that drugs like Ritalin are. Even worse, Ritalin is forced on children who act like children. But Ritalin is a cash cow for big pharmacy, whereas marijuana could be grown by anyone. Follow the money.

Nevertheless, there is no liberal or even leftist movement to legalize any drug use other than marijuana, for which there is no legal justification for it having ever been made illegal. Furthermore, all those red state people have no problem with the drug call alcohol and even sing about it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/o1JOFhfoAD4
http://www.youtube.com/embed/PKpQRjj_WbU
http://www.youtube.com/embed/uL1cz1KZ2xk
http://www.youtube.com/embed/PseaxMUIzfg

Hell, just about every country song involves one of the following
- drinking, your truck breaking down, your wife leaving and taking the dog with her
- drinking, your dog breaking down, your wife leaving and taking the truck with her
- drinking, your wife breaking down, and truck leaving with the dog

In any case, just because liberals believe that government should not be allowed to use violence to enforce arbitrary laws creating victimless crimes, does not mean liberals are promoting drug use. I've never use marijuana and I rarely drink.

On sex and homosexuality

I have yet to hear a single reason why any consensual sex, gay or straight, is in any way immoral. There are practical tradeoffs between following monogamous and polygamous relations, but those practical tradeoffs are not choices of morality.

The arbitrary tying of arbitrary sexual preferences to morality is ludicrous and unjustifiable, which is why no one has ever been able to offer a single reason why any consensual sex is immoral that isn't easy to dismiss using even basic reasoning. See Why the hell is gay sex immoral?

If something is immoral, it is damn easy to justify why it is immoral. I don't have to think hard to explain why drowning puppies is evil. So when people argue that some arbitrary, consensual sexual act is evil, they are only demonstrating their own bigotry. There is nothing inherently evil about sex. Nor is there any evidence that sexual freedom harms society. In fact, throughout history, the societies with the highest standards of living have always been sexually free while the sexually oppressed societies have always been the most stagnant.

In any case, liberals believe in personal choice and responsibility. Just because liberals protect your right to free speech, doesn't mean liberals force you to say one thing instead of another. Just because liberals protect your right to make your own sexual decision, doesn't mean liberals are forcing or even advocating you engage in polygamous relationships. In contrast, conservatives, by denying equal marriage rights, are actively discouraging monogamy in the homosexual population.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

So pride in one's work is a bad thing?

Being gay isn't work or an accomplishment.

And no one has ever claimed that.

The gay rights movement is about equality under law. That includes what laws are written, marriage equality, equal taxation, and eliminating law enforcement discrimination against gays, both in terms of police crimes against gays and civil crimes against gays that the police ignore.

I'm not for gay rights because I'm gay; I'm for gay rights because I'm American and real Americans believe in equal rights for all.

As it is now, I'd say the GOP seems likely (at least much more likely than at any point in my lifetime) of splintering into factions. The real Republicans are the RINOs, and that ideological slice will live on or be absorbed into the Dems (who now awkwardly hold the "left", the middle and part of the Republican right.)

The teabaggers are true believers, not into compromise (despite our system necessitating it); they are neophytes and have alienated the business wing and other factions of the GOP. Unfortunatly, for the GOP, this is also their base. And their base hates the GOP in almost the same numbers as they hate the Dems.

Business will roll toward the Dems in the midterms and that will costs the GOP dearly. Already, Republicans are running "pro-business" candidates against the bagger faction. Polls for baggers are even worse than the anemic polls for GOP as a whole (except in bagger districts).

At that point, either the Baggers will realize there's more to the game than talking to idiots in a homogenous closet and become normal Republican-politicians, or they create their own party.

Either way, when viewed in addition to the Demographics, they seem to be destined for outsider status for the next few cycles, at the very least.

Used to be the constantly fractured Dems could be relied upon to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and they still may. However, the GOP has been really deserving the award for that lately.

My score: doom for the GOP, either semi-long term, long-term, or permanent.

And for the record, I've never, ever thought that would be a prediction that would fall from my pen, lips or keyboard.

ABC news proves that there is a huge double standard (i.e., bigotry) when it comes to what is acceptable behavior for straights and gays. A straight couple can kiss in public, but if a gay couple does, southerners call the police. Anyone who thinks that is reasonable is a bigot and should not be respected by anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2O7IW1CP0jA

FYI, heterosexual men are also discriminated against as shown in this ABC News experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-57-i1S95Kk

As a liberal, I don't see the difference between a man drugging a woman and a woman drugging a man. Both are doing evil and obviously intend on doing even more evil later. Both should be confronted.

edvard2 says

What will the GOP be like in 10 years?

GONE, hopefully. Flush that shit down and be done with 'em.

FortWayne says

But when our morality fails nationwide, and the only thing people are into is sex, drugs, violence, homosexuality, and corruption the way liberals are pushing us (to celebrate and spread their deviances)... we'll burn faster than Rome did.

Way I see it, if we do same thing Romans did we ain't gonna be any different. It's in the history books and in the bible for crying out loud, Sodom, Gomorrah, Rome.

Get a life. Roman empire fell because of corrupt politicians, dividing the empire, citizens dodging military service, currency debasement, poor trading practices, and the huge rise in number of and cooperation between the barbarian tribes. Morality wasn't the issue.

People have been into sex, drugs, violence, homosexuality, and corruption since Columbus landed. Nothing is different today except it's more reported.

sbh says

Neither is being a Christian bigot.

Dan8267 says

Of course it would be silly because gay people haven't gone around lynching and imprisoning straight people ever in history.

The biggest group that has harmed and killed Gays by the 100,000 are gay people themself all due to AIDS.. you need not point to some Christian Bigot.. You did it to yourself..

Many gays actually believed back in early 80s it was their HUMAN RIGHT to go out and Fuck anyone anyplace and anytime... And certainly many died of it... it took them 10 years and well over 100,000 dead to see how bad it gotten since no cure was found. I have no problem with GAYS but they do live/think with their DICK and not any brains. Yes, thats an immoral lifestyle.. and thats what you get...

How many gays have AIDS today.. 1 Million 2 Million.. 5 Million.. ??

so skip the finger pointing at Christians..

Once again tom proves what an idiot he is. Equating the morality of the deliberate burning of people at the stake to a natural epidemic is the most moronic thing ever posted on PatNet.

bob2356 says

People have been into sex, drugs, violence, homosexuality, and corruption since Columbus landed. Nothing is different today except it's more reported.

since so many here claim to be Jeffersonians... brutal stuff!!!

In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy, however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.

"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

Dan8267 says

natural epidemic

it certainly isnt natural. you have to be very wreakless to get it today.. and yet 30,000 of gays get it from wreakless behavior last year...and those who get it dont care if they pass it others.

Wait, there are people on PatNet who don't ignore TomWong??

Dan8267 says

I'm for gay rights because I'm American and real Americans believe in equal rights for all.

But what rights are being denied people based on their sexual activities? That's what I don't understand. When I go to vote, no one asks me where I put my dick last night.

Sure, there's the marriage issue, but is marriage a "right"? Or is it more like a government-enforced contract between two individuals? And why do we limit the definition of marriage to *only two* people? Doesn't that discriminate against polygamists?

One might even wonder why government is involved in personal relationships at all. And with a 50% divorce rate, what does marriage really mean? It seems like marriage is mainly a cash cow for divorce lawyers.

As a Real American (tm), I believe that gays should have equal opportunity to lose half their assets in divorce court. ;-)