20
   

Why will the G.O.P. become more, not less, extreme?

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:01 am
@blatham,
If I were running in a race and the prize was untold wealth and power...then even though I would at some level feel a degree of personal embarrassment for it I would, given the chance, prefer my opponent to be be from the special olympics rather than the regular olympics so by all means PLEASE make Sara Palin head of the republican party.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:03 am
@Setanta,
In addition to that, if it's the conservatives who are keeping their seats in Congress, and if it's the moderates who are losing theirs, why should it be the conservatives who break away? I would find it much more plausible for the Republicans' libertarian wing to secede and join the Rubin/Summers Democrats. Indeed, I still don't understand why they haven't done that ten years ago.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:08 am
@Thomas,
Once again, i'd say that any politico with an ounce of sense knows that you just cannot beat the institutionalized power of the "great two party system" (which is exactly what my high school history teacher called it, with a straight face--but she was the same one who used to rant about German superiority in all things and how Hitler was misunderstood and slandered).
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:13 am
@Setanta,
set

As I said to thomas, I think it is unlikely. But it is less unlikely than it would have been previously.

Obviously, it is the electoral realities which provide the counter-force to urges out there to break from the RNC machinery. But those sentiments and urges within the social/religious portion of the movement are strong and getting stronger. If, for example, Palin somehow concluded now that there was potential for her ambitions heading up such a breakaway movement, and if she could find the financial support to initiate this, she would immediately pull away millions of religious conservatives who don't think strategically. A tall order, for sure, but some of the dynamics are readily apparent right now.

blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:18 am
@Thomas,
thomas

Yes, the moderate seats are the ones that are going to fall. But even though those left tend to match extremist notions of the sort we are talking about, if they cannot deliver the goods (and they likely won't be able to) then that itself provides further 'rationale' for religious/social conservatives (already seriously pissed) to attempt some new paradigm.

I understand that the threats previously made by people like Perkins and Dobson are best understood as bluffs designed to gain more leverage. But there's no leverage there if the possibility is zero.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:18 am
@blatham,
I continue to opine that only some sort of Teddy Roosevelt/Barry Goldwater can bring back the republican party (primarily by disregarding the religious right-as goes Dobson, so goes the religious right, anyone see Dobson around lately?)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:20 am
@blatham,
Mr. Mountie wrote:
If, for example, Palin somehow concluded now that there was potential for her ambitions heading up such a breakaway movement, and if she could find the financial support to initiate this, she would immediately pull away millions of religious conservatives who don't think strategically.


A consummation devoutly to be desired. One could only hope.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:21 am
@dyslexia,
Well, I think so too, dys. But that species of leader will not be a happy thing for the religious right. And they are far more organized and coherent as a distinct political operation than they were ever before. They are not going to be happy with less power/influence, only more of it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:23 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
A consummation devoutly to be desired. One could only hope.


Oh yes. These folks are over the edge and half way down to the bottom.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:25 am
@Setanta,
Trust me, your teacher was right about German superiority -- Hitler was actually an Austrian.
Debra Law
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:04 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
The "religious right" represent a small percentage of Republicans that them leaving will have minimal real impact in my view..


Really? As unpalatable as those idiots are to enlightened people everywhere, it widely known that the GOP needs those small-minded hate- and fear-mongers in order to form a coalition of voters large enough to win an election. If garnering their support was not critical to GOP electoral success, then McCain's selection of Sarah "Armegeddon" Palin "to energize the base" was all "for naught."
TilleyWink
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:08 pm
@Thomas,
The religious right is an anomaly with a short half life in my opinion. After this election they may be down for the count, at least I hope so. The US has had many religious righteous surges in the past but eventually it recedes and then we cycle through a period of normalcy. I see a twenty year period cycle in political, economic, and religious history with points of view bouncing around from one extreme to another.

Having said that the last twenty years have just about killed me emotionally. To the point of not even bothering to vote being so tired of swimming up stream. It seems you cannot even talk to the neocon conservatives and religious right about anything if you don't agree with them. Such a negative position must surely die a natural death think "the Shakers".
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:21 pm
@Thomas,
Leaving aside your too, too vivid imagination--i've heard it said that the genius of the Austrians lies in having made the world believe that Hitler was a German, and that Beethoven was an Austrian.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:26 pm
@dyslexia,
Look we all know you have three major elements of the Republican Party. The wealthy provide the muscles/brain and the religious element the drive, with the more moderate social conservatives giving mass.

The moderate elements could end up moving more toward the Democrats right wing and give that party more of a balance by so doing, leaving the rest of the Republican Party to be a shell of it former self.



0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:26 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
As unpalatable as those idiots are to enlightened people everywhere, it widely known that the GOP needs those small-minded hate- and fear-mongers in order to form a coalition of voters large enough to win an election.

In that case, I need a history lesson: How did Eisenhower gather a large-enough coalition to win his elections? Why couldn't a moderate Republican gather a similar coalition today?
TilleyWink
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:07 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Why couldn't a moderate Republican gather a similar coalition today?


They had their chance in Collin Powell but I think his religious views plus the color of his skin made him a bit to risky. One must remember that no one knew the party of Ike prior to him deciding to run as a repub. Eisenhower would surely have talked to supposed enemy states and would certainly have not wanted to align himself with religious causes to the extent modern pols do.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:11 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
As unpalatable as those idiots are to enlightened people everywhere, it widely known that the GOP needs those small-minded hate- and fear-mongers in order to form a coalition of voters large enough to win an election.

In that case, I need a history lesson: How did Eisenhower gather a large-enough coalition to win his elections? Why couldn't a moderate Republican gather a similar coalition today?


Perhaps an in-depth study of changing party coalitions through the ages might help. Perhaps a review of this book might help us gain insight:

Changing Party Coalitions: The Mystery of the Red State - Blue State Alignment.

Perhaps the socio-political climate of 1952 was dramatically different than it is today. Eisenhower's election came prior to the birth of the civil rights movement when state-sponsored oppression of blacks, women, and other minorities was common. Back then, having babies out of wedlock was a scandal (the babies were called "bastards") and abortions were by wire closet hangers or back alley butchers. The right wing radicals of today cling to those days of yore when they could impose their morals on others through the operation of our laws. They want to turn back the hands of time, criminalize abortion, take reproductive rights away from women, put minorities in the back of the bus, shove gays back in the closet, and teach creationism in our public schools, etc.

The right wing radicals exist in significant numbers. If they didn't form a significant coalition, McCain would not have selected Sarah Palin as his running mate to "energize the base" of the Republican party and get them out to vote for his ticket.

Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:21 pm
Speaking of history, it was noted by a pundit that the only Republican tickets to win the presidency after the Great Depression are the tickets with a Bush or a Nixon. Because McCain didn't select a Bush or a Nixon for his running mate, he is doomed to fail. If McCain hadn't been so eager to distance himself from the current president, he would probably be leading in the polls if he had selected Jeb Bush from the great state of Florida to be his running mate. Wink
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:27 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

For one thing, projections suggest that this election will drive many of the remaining Republican moderates out of Congress, while leaving the hard right in place.

For example, Larry Sabato, the election forecaster, predicts that seven Senate seats currently held by Republicans will go Democratic on Tuesday. According to the liberal-conservative rankings of the political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, five of the soon-to-be-gone senators are more moderate than the median Republican senator " so the rump, the G.O.P. caucus that remains, will have shifted further to the right. The same thing seems set to happen in the House.

Also, the Republican base already seems to be gearing up to regard defeat not as a verdict on conservative policies, but as the result of an evil conspiracy. A recent Democracy Corps poll found that Republicans, by a margin of more than two to one, believe that Mr. McCain is losing “because the mainstream media is biased” rather than “because Americans are tired of George Bush.”
But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.
Paul Krugman http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?th&emc=th
paul krugman---


Well, this is all very self-congratulatory, but at any given moment about half the country wants to vote Republican, including now. Sometimes it's a little more, and sometimes it's a little less, but it's usually about half. It's not just a handful of nuts, as you present it. Indeed, Obama's success is due at least as much to his unusual speaking ability as to his platform, and if he were more average in his speaking ability, McCain would either be winning or even. This is not any kind of unusual repudiation of the current administration.

As for the question of systematic dishonest by the current Republican administration, if I asked for an example, you'd collapse like a house of cards, by which I mean that you'd escape through an insult, a joke, claim it had already been proven or is obvious, or else describe a case in which the Republican leadership was mistaken, but not lying. You all repeat your slogans to each other, and try to shout down anyone with an opposing opinion, but you pretty much can't back up any of it in a simple, dignified, objective discussion of the issues.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:33 pm
@Woiyo9,
But Woiyo, the Religious right, and the policies that the republican party holds that pander to them, are a significant reason why I do not side more often with the republicans.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 05:19:37