Party in disarray
Sarah Palin is still arguing with McCain staffers 5 months later.
And, House Republicans are tearing into each other over their "budget proposal" with many getting sore over their opinion that Eric Cantor is mugging for cameras.
This anti-Cantor sentiment kind of explains why someone "leaked" Cantor's attendance at a Britney Spears concert which he's now having to defend.
They haven't straightened their stuff out yet.
And, House Republicans are tearing into each other over their "budget proposal" with many getting sore over their opinion that Eric Cantor is mugging for cameras.
This anti-Cantor sentiment kind of explains why someone "leaked" Cantor's attendance at a Britney Spears concert which he's now having to defend.
They haven't straightened their stuff out yet.
posted by mikevotes at
4:28 PM
12 Comments:
As I've said before... when you see a big name Republican stand up and say we need to raise taxes, and not back down, that's when the Republican party will be back in business.
I really hope Obama can keep it together. If this whole stimulus thing cripples him, the Republicans will be able to get back in power without changing much.
And we need to change.
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 5:01 PM
I agree with your first statement. The problem is that the GOP has been winnowed of alot of its moderates, especially in the power positions, so there's no real base for that kind of Republican to emerge.
Personally, I think Charlie Crist would probably be best for that job, but he has been so completely shut out because the "social issues" right is so unsettled by the rumors of gay. Too bad. After navigating split down the middle Florida so well, he'd be a great figure for our current straits.
And, I don't think Obama gets politically cripped by this crisis or the budget stuff, at least not in the foreseeable midterm. I could be wrong, but I think he hasd awhile until it sticks to him.
(Probably his biggest near term political risk is if he's perceived as doing nothing, not "feeling our pain", and I don't think that's happening.
By
mikevotes, at 5:35 PM
Mike wrote:
"Probably his biggest near term political risk is if he's perceived as doing nothing, not "feeling our pain", and I don't think that's happening."
I was very afraid of Republicans "taking their meds" and peeling off enough Democrats on crucial issues to render Obama impotent.
Instead, they have returned (ostensibly) to their "core principles". No party regains power by doing this. Reagan won by the (then) novel strategy of forming an alliance with the evangelicals. W won by a massive GOTV effort among evangelicals. In both cases, they capitalised on damaged incumbents as well.
You win back power by broadening your base and turning them out. In Obama's case, it was an extremely high minority turnout (and a damaged incumbent). The GOP already has the Randroid vote; all they can gain by their "core principles" strategy is to increase the enthusiasm among the Ayn Rand crowd.
They can, however lose a lot of sane fiscal conservatives who don't believe in an unfettered plutocracy without a safety net. And the evangelicals don't really have a place in the John Galt vision.
..."so there's no real base for that kind of Republican to emerge."
Not only that, but the GOP is an extremely top-down organisation; no change can come from the rank-and-file. As one Republican consultant told me, "everything below the level of the State Party offices is just noise - it has no effect". In caucus states, the Republican precinct caucuses are really nothing more binding than a straw poll.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:27 PM
You know, I had that "rational republicans" fear after the election, and you talked me down from that. I can't tell you how right you were.
However, I might argue with your contention that the GOP can't change from the bottom up, but, for that to happen, it would take a very large coordinated and motivated bloc, and the only ones really capable of that are the fundies, and they're not going to do that because they're the ones who got things the way they are.
There's no great movement of moderates that's going to change the current leadership or direction.
By
mikevotes, at 9:58 PM
Todd, I am going to disagree with your statement that the Republicans cannot win by going back to core principles. I think they can, they just need to remember that those principles are not "lower taxes","smaller government" and "oh noes, teh gays!" (sorry, couldn't resist).
Reagan also peeled a lot of democrats, because he had a real unerlying philosophy.
What we really need is a Republican that can do integrity and responsibility, not just talk about it.
As can be expected, I want a Republican resurgence, but I want it done right. If we focus on doing better, being better, instead of just trying to win elections, winning elections will take care of itself.
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 12:40 AM
I agree with yoou in the longer term, but Reagan also came after Carter when alot more moderates were available. His presidency necessarily included an economic snapback from "malaise" which always makes a President popular.
Now there were things that Reagan did right as well, and his messaging was generally great, but, I would argue that in the near term, the environment is not the same, unless the economy does not snap back by 2011 or so.
As to the "core principles" argument, I think the GOP has got to change their "flavor" to get there.Bush is/was the face of the party, and if they want another "conservative" they've got to find somebody who can sell that message who is so mentally separate from Bush, maybe even just stylistically, that America can look at those ideas as fresh. (Again, Nixon to Reagan isn't a bad parallel.)
Bottom line. America ate bad fish at the Republican restaurant. They're going to have to do alot of convincing to get us to go back. Change the ownership. Change the signs. Change the spices. And even then we're going to remember that's where we got sick.
It's not impossible. It's just going to take time and distance.
(PS. There's a larger argument that the demographics are shifting out from underneath the Republican party that I'm leaving out. Their traditional base is shrinking, so, either they have to win an incredibly increasing oercentage of that white vote, or they have to find more voters somewhere. Best bet would probably have been +20 in Hispanics, but the anti-immigration folks screwed that,)
By
mikevotes, at 7:28 AM
OMR, I think that you are just re-defining the 'core principles' there. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It does, however, support my contention rather than militate against it. You are essentially saying that the GOP needs new core principles - IOW, broaden their base, not "purify" it.
It seems clear to me that the GOP has chosen to make a "final stand" on the principles outlined in a fictional work by Ayn Rand. They may have been better served by looking to fictional works by Tolkein, Clarke, or Rowling.
Could they change? Emphatically, yes - at least in theory. They have a base that is completely willing to be led by the nose and parrot virtually anything they are told, but they have no one at the top willing to abandon their alternate reality.
Mike wrote:
"Their traditional base is shrinking, so, either they have to win an incredibly increasing percentage of that white vote, or they have to find more voters somewhere."
That is absolutely right, and hardly going out a limb, IMHO. The GOP is an amalgamation of "niches" rather than a coherent philosophical advocate. The contradictions between these niches has been kept under control by iron Party discipline, and the promise of power. If either discipline or power is lost, the entire fabric becomes un-ravelled. That is why they are creating an alternate reality in which they are strong and relevant, and why they will only win national elections in an alternate reality.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:42 AM
I have long felt that ceding the civil rights movement to the Democrats was a huge mistake on my parties part.
And I am not sure 'choose' is the right word for what they are doing right now. 'Flailing' comes to mind...
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 9:56 AM
Todd, well, they lost the election. Definitionally they have to broaden their voter pool, the question would be whether they do so by trying to reappeal to those shrinking Reagan whites or branch outside to some new demo.
I still think the Republicans have a small business/hard work message that could reach hispanics, but they screwed up badly with immigration, and now they really can't go back. (I guess that's what happens when part of your party is the southern strategy.)
...
OMR, I think you're definitely right. There was a Libetarian opening there (that frankly, they should be using towards the gays right now.)
But, there was that fateful decision in Nixon's reelection to employ the "southern strategy" which effectively flipped the map and saddled the Republican party with the south. An intentional move for one election that led to the booming Reagan era, but is now costing them as white shrink as a percentage of the country.
I agree with your statement strongly. It was a huge mistake that will continue to cost them into the future.
I have a long post half written on all this that I just haven't finished or posted.
I would also add that the decision during the Reagan era to run against the 60's is bearing a similar, though lesser fruit. The GOP defined itself on "social issues" appealing to those who were troubled by the 60's. This has saddled them with those social issues, and as the 60's fade from view, and those 60's rejectionists play a smaller and smaller part, the cost of being "social values" is not generating the same electoral benefits.
I was actually going to finish that post this morning, but I though thge militia post was more current.
By
mikevotes, at 10:56 AM
"Definitionally they have to broaden their voter pool,"
No, they don't.
They really, truly believe that by "going Randian" they will pull back not only disillusioned Republicans, but also marginal Democrats. The GOP leaders have repeatedly said that the electorate punished them for being inadequately conservative, and they have defined "conservative" as Ayn Rand.
They only have to broaden their base if they want to win national elections in the real world.
The people in control of the Party at the moment are not living in the real world, however. So it's simultaneously possible for them to pursue a strategy that they think will broaden their base, but which will really only narrow it dramatically.
It's getting increasingly difficult to even discuss the GOP rationally any more because they have their own definitions and dictionary of words that mean different things to them than to the rest of the nation.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 1:25 PM
Meh.
The voters punished them for not having integrity, responsibility, and intelligence.
That's what we meant when we said they failed us. They got "you didn't shout the right slogan" out of it.
Bastards.
By
OpenMindedRepublican, at 1:35 PM
Todd, I don't think there's any one group running the GOP right now. That's a big part of their problem. The "social conservatives" and southern rump are defacto running things because they're the largest bloc, but it's mostly rudderless because there's no real plan in place and no one implementing. They're shattered and drifting more than pursuing a plan to be more stringent.
....
OMR, I would add thatthe voters punished them for the Bush years with Bush and the policies being the chief branding agent of the GOP.By continuing Boehner and McConnell, the Republicans didn't get any new faces or distance.
Everything we're hearing from the GOP is just echoes of the Bush years.
By
mikevotes, at 3:06 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home