State of the Republican Party

[David G]

I hope the Republican Party does some soul-searching and comes back around to representing a viable alternative to the Democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/op...homaslfriedman

[Chris Coose]

Romney emerging as the front runner makes some sense. But he is still dressed as a clown by the company he keeps in that Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are polling right up there with him.

I have a friend who is certain that when Ron Paul picks Olympia Snowe or Condi for VP, he is certain to be the next president. But then you have to know this friend who has always been a far left liberal and is now registered as a Republican. Let's just say he's never had both oars dipped.

[Hal Forsen]

“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.”
~ Barry Goldwater, November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience

[Ian McColgin]

Good heavens. A Friedman column with which I agree. Well posted and thank you.

[David G]

I really don't follow the polls and prognostications all that much. I see some predicting a very close race - Romney vs. Obama. I see some predicting a rout of the Republicans. I'm mildly curious as to which y'all think it'll be. If I had to bet the farm... I guess I'd put my chips on the latter. However... I'm more curious whether you think the latter would create a profound re-evaluation by the party, and a return to its more moderate and conservative roots. I'm hoping so - as I believe that'd be best for the health of our body politic - but so far it's just hope. I have no firm conclusions as to the likelihood. You?

[pefjr]

I hope the Republican Party does some soul-searching and comes back around to representing a viable alternative to the Democrats:

No need, there is one in the WH already. Dems sign off on Bo, because he wears their t- shirt.

[SamSam]

I have a friend who is certain that when Ron Paul picks Olympia Snowe or Condi for VP, he is certain to be the next president.

There's a few assumptions here, one is that Snowe or Condi would even want to be associated with Ron Paul, the other is that the Republicans even want to win the Presidency.

[Soundbounder]

I see some predicting a very close race - Romney vs. Obama. I see some predicting a rout of the Republicans.

A lot can happen between now and November, but I think Obama will win comfortably - not a blowout, though not "very close" either. A margin of victory similar to 2008 is my guess.

No matter who the candidates are, there are numerous states in the south and Rocky Mountain zone which will never vote for a Democrat.

[Soundbounder]

Well, I'm going to guess that the GOP will indeed change a lot, regardless of whether it's a blow-out or a modest loss. The soul of the party is at stake, and the radicalization of the far right is demonstrating, I believe, that much more of a rightward shift will mean more losses in the future. Yet, those radical right elements are NOT going to moderate. I think a fairly significant third party is a much stronger possibility in 2016, as the split between the mainstream and the fringe grows wider.

I sometimes think the Republicans will have a soul searching moment similar to the post-1964 era. If Romney is the nominee, however, I'm not so sure. There will be a large segment within the party (including Hannity and Limbaugh) claiming they lost simply because Romney wasn't conservative enough.

[John Smith]

I hope the Republican Party does some soul-searching and comes back around to representing a viable alternative to the Democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/op...homaslfriedman

I've had the thought of this nature, but I've come to the conclusion that we need to give Obama a filibuster proof majority so he can do what he wishes, and we'll see if it works or not.

The one thing we, as a nation, cannot afford is continued stalemate.

As to parties, I don't think more parties will improve the situation, and they would increase the need for money, split the vote, and screw up our process. Two parties screw it up more than enough.

I would love a NO party system. Everyone is an independent.

[Tall Boy]

The GOP who? I can't hear them, do they exist? I haven't heard a meaningful rebutal to anything this administation has done or is doing that made any sense yet. It's a freakin soccer riot, a side show, both sides are slobering all over themselves while the country goes to crap. I don't think it matters who get's elected, until the old guard is replaced on both sides, we're on autopilot to hell.

[Paul Pless]

and comes back around to representing a viable alternative to the Democrats:

Because the Democrats are really sucking!

[CWSmith]

Take a look at the thread "Those Poor Bishops" about a Democratic governor and Republican representative who had the guts to vote for gay rights. Put both of those front and center and I'll listen with interest to the debate because I know they won't be running for just some Americans.

[CWSmith]

I would love a NO party system. Everyone is an independent.

Won't happen. Can't happen. It's against human nature. Either they exist in public or they exist in secret.

[Lew Barrett]

No need, there is one in the WH already. Dems sign off on Bo, because he wears their t- shirt.

It's true that Obama has proven a lot more conservative and yielding than had been anticipated by his original base. Yet he continues to be characterized by many Republicans as a wild eyed radical, but how is your observation a bad thing if you are a Republican or conservative?
His critics can't have it both ways, insisting that Obama represents the worst possible radical solution driving the nation to a "European Socialist Oligarchy"
while he is at the same time a "DINO" (Democrat in Name Only). So which is it?

Is he a compromising, conservatively oriented Republican in a Democrat's team jersey or a radical wide eyed idealist hell bent on destroying American Capitalism and instituting the new rule of the Proletariat? Your post suggests the former, and an excellent reason for an open minded feller like yourself to give him the nod.

[Paul Pless]

I've had the thought of this nature, but I've come to the conclusion that we need to give Obama a filibuster proof majority so he can do what he wishes, and we'll see if it works or not.

The one thing we, as a nation, cannot afford is continued stalemate.

I'll take a slow deliberative and sometimes stalemated Congressional/White House relationship any day over a rubber stamped reactionary governance such as gave us The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

[CWSmith]

I'll take a slow deliberative and sometimes stalemated Congressional/White House relationship any day over a rubber stamped reactionary governance such as gave us The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

There must be a third option that includes reasonable compromise. There was an article on TV last night about important cancer-fighting drugs that are disappearing because the FDA can't do what it needs to do to keep them around. Everyone seems to agree they are needed, but Congress won't act. That's just 1 example. I agree with you that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security are bad ideas, but some actions are needed in some areas of government and we're not getting what we paid for right now.

[SMARTINSEN]

As per usual, America's Finest News Source gets it right:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...ate-rep,27371/

[Paul Pless]

From the perspective of politics... and the perspective of the Republican Party, it really doesn't matter. They can paint him BOTH ways, because most people can't recognize the cognitive difference. That is why Romney can criticize Obama for not cutting entitlements... AND criticize him for cutting entitlements... in the very same paragraph!

There are of course other options, such as that Obama is indecisive and unwilling to expend political capital. And, that he's inept at negotiating legislation through Congress that might meet his approval. Essentially he's pretty lame. . .

[wardd]

what gets me is as bad as the republican party is at present there are those that will lay all reason aside to defend it

[John of Phoenix]

As per usual, America's Finest News Source gets it right:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...ate-rep,27371/

Uncanny resemblence.

[wardd]

Hmmmm... that's rather vague and highly subjective. I'd argue that he's been remarkably successful at his craft. But then again, most angst directed at Obama IS rather non-specific

no it's not, they come right out and call him a terrorist loving muslim forigner

now how specific can you get?

[John of Phoenix]

There are of course other options, such as that Obama is indecisive and unwilling to expend political capital. And, that he's inept at negotiating legislation through Congress that might meet his approval. Essentially he's pretty lame. . .

Like when reds turn their noses up at their own ideas simply because Obama is now proposing them. Yeah, that's lame alright.

[Boater14]

Maybe this has been mentioned. You want the reeps to return to sanity? Hold the PA, NJ, NY, OH, FLA AND CA primaries on the same day as New Hampshire. You can't talk crazy and win in those states. You can talk money, we relate to that but you can't wedge us as easily.

[Lew Barrett]

From the perspective of politics... and the perspective of the Republican Party, it really doesn't matter. They can paint him BOTH ways, because most people can't recognize the cognitive difference. That is why Romney can criticize Obama for not cutting entitlements... AND criticize him for cutting entitlements... in the very same paragraph!

And that's how it's done! You dig your heels in on every initiative the other guy raises, and then critique him for being ineffective, all while he is (some might say foolishly) trying to meet you in the middle in the spirit of compromise.

A singular quality I think is the hallmark of a reasonable man is a willingness to seek compromise and middle ground on issues. Unsurprisingly in this toxic environment, this quality that Obama brings in spades to the game has become yet another bat with which to beat him. All the while, the Republicans have come up with one litmus test after another to determine even in their own ranks, who is the most conservative.

Mirror, mirror on the wall
Who's the most conservative of all?

Where ideology, however distorted and inane, becomes the most important virtue, it becomes exceedingly clear that competence is not the most admired quality, and competence of itself becomes a meaningless word. Competence can't be proven in today's toxic environment. It stands no chance against such rancor, and reasonable men are at disadvantage. That's the true shame of it.

One may even be called a bigot for coming to believe such a thing!

[pefjr]

It's true that Obama has proven a lot more conservative and yielding than had been anticipated by his original base. Yet he continues to be characterized by many Republicans as a wild eyed radical, but how is your observation a bad thing if you are a Republican or conservative?
His critics can't have it both ways, insisting that Obama represents the worst possible radical solution driving the nation to a "European Socialist Oligarchy"
while he is at the same time a "DINO" (Democrat in Name Only). So which is it?

Is he a compromising, conservatively oriented Republican in a Democrat's team jersey or a radical wide eyed idealist hell bent on destroying American Capitalism and instituting the new rule of the Proletariat? Your post suggests the former, and an excellent reason for an open minded feller like yourself to give him the nod.

So, which is it? Neither, he is a puppet, an MIC puppet in a leadership vacuum. It's a bad thing because he has no leadership qualities to break away from the MIC, but unless you can see Ron Paul as the answer, then who else do you have to choose from? Another puppet. I gave him the nod in 08 and like Samuel Jackson, I was immediately disappointed in the "Good War" you boys wanted. Since then there has been nothing to brag on other than he represents high morals and sets a good example for the youth. Hell of a sight better than the last dem. With anyone else(except RP) currently running I would still give him the nod, but it is just a nod, not an enthusiastic endorsement. I, like SJ, again hope that he gets "scary" in his second term and brings in the change he promised. Hope in one hand, s#$t in the ............

[Lew Barrett]

,

With anyone else(except RP) currently running I would still give him the nod, but it is just a nod, not an enthusiastic endorsement. I, like SJ, again hope that he gets "scary" in his second term and brings in the change he promised. Hope in one hand, s#$t in the ............

Keep hope, and it looks like you may have an opportunity to find out just what his second term will come to. I always have thought of you as more reasonable than the average bear, and your response demonstrates that to me, even if we don't agree on all the particulars.

I am a little perplexed about "the Good War us boys wanted." I haven't been much in favor of any of our wars, and it seems to me the major ones (discounting Libya and our interminable co-mingling in the affairs of everyone else) were not of his making. Although I grant he has been less than stellar in his actions towards items like Gitmo, rendition and the like. It is here that Paul takes the most principled stand. But with little else to recommend him from my perspective.

I recognize, and did when I wrote my first prick to you, that you are not a Republican in the sense that the word is being used here.

[CWSmith]

Maybe this has been mentioned. You want the reeps to return to sanity? Hold the PA, NJ, NY, OH, FLA AND CA primaries on the same day as New Hampshire. You can't talk crazy and win in those states. You can talk money, we relate to that but you can't wedge us as easily.

The reason against this is a good one - money. The more you front load the primary season the more victories go to the best funded. What is said in Iowa and NH is not lost on the other states. Candidates can't walk away from their speeches as much as they try. But a slow start allows poorly known candidates to get known and maybe get funded. You can argue that NH is not representative of the nation (it's why I live here), but then who is? Give yourself maybe 1 other early state, but then see who still has the support for the big push.

[pefjr]

Not my problem.

It's yours.

If it is not your problem, then you are an indoctrinated American imperialistic warmonger. It's in your blood, course you have lots of company, and to all of you it really doesn't matter who is elected in 2012. Ron Paul has already had an influence in this upcoming election, and his views will continue to grow, and he is the only other choice you have.

[pefjr]

,

Keep hope, and it looks like you may have an opportunity to find out just what his second term will come to. I always have thought of you as more reasonable than the average bear, and your response demonstrates that to me, even if we don't agree on all the particulars.

I am a little perplexed about "the Good War us boys wanted." I haven't been much in favor of any of our wars, and it seems to me the major ones (discounting Libya and our interminable co-mingling in the affairs of everyone else) were not of his making. Although I grant he has been less than stellar in his actions towards items like Gitmo, rendition and the like. It is here that Paul takes the most principled stand. But with little else to recommend him from my perspective.

I recognize, and did when I wrote my first prick to you, that you are not a Republican in the sense that the word is being used here.

The Good War" was the Afghan. escalation by the Prez. the day he took office. It was enthusiastically endorsed by the bilge dems and maybe you were not one of them. He recently has thrown it in reverse and corrected his mistake, however as Brian W has exposed, it may be just a change of uniforms.

[Soundbounder]

The reason against this is a good one - money. The more you front load the primary season the more victories go to the best funded. What is said in Iowa and NH is not lost on the other states. Candidates can't walk away from their speeches as much as they try. But a slow start allows poorly known candidates to get known and maybe get funded. You can argue that NH is not representative of the nation (it's why I live here), but then who is? Give yourself maybe 1 other early state, but then see who still has the support for the big push.

I like the idea of the first primaries held in small states too. However, I'm starting to think a state such as Delaware or Rhode Island would be a much better choice.
New Hampshire is too monolithic, with little ethnic and almost zero racial diversity.Even an Asian girl sticks out like a sore thumb in many of the towns. I think a state with a more diverse economy, a better mix of urban/suburban/exurban/rural towns, along with a more balanced population would better serve the primary process.

[pefjr]

Wow.. I didn't know that... thanks for informing me!

Anytime

[MiddleAgesMan]

The Good War" was the Afghan. escalation by the Prez. the day he took office. It was enthusiastically endorsed by the bilge dems and maybe you were not one of them....

I'm certainly not one of them. By the time the previous administration was willing to take a second look at the war they had abandoned in favor of Iraq the cause was lost. In early to mid-2008 a diverse group of generals and military experts warned (in a non-partisanl report) that winning in Afghanistan would require massive injections of money and troops, well beyond what might possibly be seen as acceptable to the US citizen. IIRC their report stated it would take at least 500,000 troops to take the country away from the Taliban and al Qaeda.

I kept hoping to hear Candidate Obama cite that report as the reason for NOT upping the ante in Afghanistan, but I was sorely disappointed.

[Tylerdurden]

Romney emerging as the front runner makes some sense. But he is still dressed as a clown by the company he keeps in that Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are polling right up there with him.

I have a friend who is certain that when Ron Paul picks Olympia Snowe or Condi for VP, he is certain to be the next president. But then you have to know this friend who has always been a far left liberal and is now registered as a Republican. Let's just say he's never had both oars dipped.

Never happen, They voted for NDAA that big bill of treason. Paul would never accept compromise on that level.

[Gerarddm]

As I have noted before, next election vote out every Republican, from every office, at every level. Be patriotic.