Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Matt Yglesias (one of my favorite columnists) wrote a very well argued piece today about how Chris Christie might not be the saving grace (and only shot at) at the White House in 2016. Conventional wisdom and punditry holds that Christie, a well liked moderate, would be viable against Hillary and popular with independents and right-leaning Dems. He puts it this way:

I think this analysis of Christie's electoral strength is far too pat and simplistic. It's after all simply not the case that in the past two presidential elections Republicans have erred by demanding candidates with unblemished records of orthodox conservatism. On the contrary, compared with their major rivals, both Mitt Romney and John McCain were the moderates in the field. But while both Romney and McCain had some major moments of moderation in their records, they didn't have any moderation in their platforms as presidential candidates.​

​

And I agree; a moderate candidate alone cannot save the GOP from what they've become. In November of 2016, Christie will still be carrying the banner with the elephant on it and everything that comes along with it.​

 

Any sad devotion to that religion will not help them conjure up the lost economy...
In all seriousness the Republican party is in need of a major overhaul. The core members of the GOP are not as embracing as the Democrats. Both of these parties have strengths and weaknesses, but the strength of the GOP that I admire is Fiscal responsibility. No one wants to curb the spending of our politicians. Just my two cents.

 

The GOP are most certainly fiscally responsible. Because what says responsibility like threatening an economic catastrophe (is this their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th threat of default?) unless Obamacare is defunded?

 

Part of me says "go ahead", because they'll be done for at least a decade if they push us into default.

 

I'm fed up with them as a whole. You have bat**** crazy Bachmann doing her crazy antics. Then you have Steve King disparaging younger immigrants with his racial remarks. Did he mention blacks had an extra bone in their foot too so they can jump higher? Good grief. This is what happens when the social right dominates a party and people drink the creationist kool-aid. They just turn flat-out stupid.

 

Can we also stop calling the GOP the "Pro-Business Party"?

I mean, nothing is more anti-business than wanting to blow up the world economy and the value of the dollar and wreck havoc in financial markets.

 

They're not pro-business; they're pro-big business.

 

They're not even that. You could qualify that statement.

They're pro-big-lobbies harder and contributes more to our campaign-business.

They're not even democratically elitist.

 

Well, the problem I have with politicians is that they stand for nothing. Oh, sure, they'll take up a cause if they sense the wind is blowing in that direction (gay marriage), but they have no convictions and instead decide how they vote on the latest blurb they heard last. And no, I'm not lamenting that there was some sort of golden age where politicians had great conviction in their causes, but now it's more transparent and everybody in government seems okay with that.

 

Yeah, they're more blatant than ever about it.

 

When you frame it that way, it applies to Republicans and Democrats.

 

It's not even that. The Chamber of Commerce has been lobbying for massive infrastructure spending and comprehensive immigration reform. And they don' like it when the GOP plays with the debt ceiling and government shutdowns either.

It's the vocal minority of their primary voters that seems to be the real problem.

 

Vocal minority...I dunno, vocal minorities don't usually convince those in power to incorporate things into their platforms just by being loud. Also the primarying...yeah...that's really pathetic and I think endemic of the system of rot that the GOP has allowed to proliferate within their ranks. You could theoretically blame the 'Southern strategy' which is true, it did have a lot to do with the current state of affairs, but it's way too simplistic. Especially since the evangelical voters they have now were Democratic voters originally--in fact, Michele Bachmann was originally a Jimmy Carter voter. So I think it was a combination of issues that allowed the GOP to kind of wither into this angry party.

This isn't to say that the Democratic party is in any way 'pure' but it hasn't let the crazies have their turn at driving the bus yet and I doubt that they will unless and until they start losing big as has happened to Republicans. I'd also like to add that as with everything there are Republicans who are genuinely good people and you know...sane, but they're following a party that's veering way off the cliff to oblivion with their inability to adapt. And...well....as much as I hate to say it: the Democrats need someone to challenge their stupidity. I think the real shame here is that there really is no liberal party and hopefully with the death of the GOP that one can rise up and finally challenge the status quo.

 

People have been saying just that for years, that the two parties have their differences on specific issues but overall cater to moving the country in the same direction. The main problem with that suggestion though is that both parties whip their bases into such an competitive atmosphere that it becomes like a football game. The bases just want their side to win. But things dont seem to be changing for the better no matter who "wins". So many wont even entertain the idea that both sides seem to be moving this country in the same direction.

And you're right. There is no real liberal party in the U.S. I'm talking bona-fide liberalism. Did you read the story about Pelosi whipping her caucus into voting "No" on the recent amendment to stop NSA surveillance? I'm not suggesting the No vote was wrong(I think that specific amendment was too rash and went too far) but you had party leadership on both sides voting it down...and Pelosi made many of the same arguments Bachmann made in voting No.

The Green Party is out there but they seem to only pop up every four years like the libertarians to field a presidential candidate so they can get their name in the papers and not much else.\

The problem with a liberal party in the U.S. though is ,for one, the labor movement in this country was never as radicalized and political as in Europe for instance. Most Euros had a party tied directly to a working labor movement.

So the prospects for a true liberal party in the U.S. are problematic given the history and cultural differences our country has with the Europeans.

You could be right though. The democrats could seize the middle-right, drive the GOP to oblivion, or smaller niche party, and then the liberals splinter off from the dems as the establishment dems become more militant and in favor of things people thought of as traditionally republican.

 

Nearly 80% of Republican primary voters want immigration reform (and don't even more support background checks for gun purchases?):

​

A Republican pollster named Jon Lerner, who usually works for the most conservative of his party's candidates, did a poll this month for Fwd.us, the pro-immigration lobby financed by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.​

​

The results were analyzed last week by Molly Ball, who writes a blog for Atlantic magazine. She wrote:​

​

"Republican congressmen fear for their political lives. That's the explanation you most often hear for the GOP's reluctance to approve a comprehensive immigration bill: The members of the House of Representatives, most of whom come from strongly Republican districts, worry they'll lose primaries to conservative challengers if they vote for what opponents consider an 'amnesty' bill...."​

"Maybe not," she added.​

​

Lerner himself, in a memo about his telephone poll of 1,000 Republican primary voters across the country, reported:​

​

"There are around 20 percent of GOP primary voters who oppose most forms of immigration reform. This minority tends to be vocal, but their level of activism should not be confused with the size of their numbers. The large majority of primary voters see a badly broken immigration system and want it fixed."​

And just under 80 percent said it was "very important" to fix the country's immigrant system. The same number said an "imperfect" fix would be preferable to no action at all.​

​

My goodness! It seems that most Republicans are not as crazed as the obstructionists who represent them in Congress. The respondents, more than two-thirds of them, would allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens if they are willing to stay here 13 years, learn English, pay penalties and stay out of trouble.​

​

Said Lerner, who works for the Club for Growth (way right-wing) and has counseled tea bag candidates running again Republican incumbents: "Contrary to some perceptions, it is clear that Republican members of Congress who support comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship, do not run afoul of the majority opinion of their primary voters."​

Agreed.

 

I don't see how any of those people cited in that poll that are against any immigration reform beyond "throw them out!" or "deport them!" cannot see how the status quo is hampering both business and our society. It has a huge added cost to our infrastructure, hospitals, everything normal, you know, citizens who pay taxes in the open and in the sunlight. The best solution is to make these people normal, contributing members of society.The solution is not the status quo.

How many of these people who want the status quo and just spout non-starters like "deport them!" are really biz owners who want to continue to pay these people under the table, not be responsible for their payroll taxes, and generally are benefiting from keeping things as they are now, broken?

And can we please raise the limit of H1B visas in this country? The number is going up, but they have this meaningless cap. Just lift the cap. Talk about an overreaction a decade ago. Are we committing intellectual suicide right before our eyes?

 

So Republicans are now threatening to shut down the government if Obama won't defund Obamacare - because their 40 attempts at legislative repeal were ineffective. Which, as Ezra Klein explains, still won't defund it. Have they learned nothing from Newt Gingrich's shutdown?

 

Apparently not.

 

Several Republican senators have already said that's insane, so it won't happen.

The House GOP really needs to wake up. They lost.

 

Unfortunately Bohner can't run the asylum that is the House GOP. Nobody can.

 

not even Saint Ronald Reagan would be nominated by the language insane modern Republican party.

 

Haven't you heard their latest spin?

They're not actually trying to defund it because it hasn't been funded yet. It's Obama who's defunding it because... ah, I got nothing.

This is like putting a gun to someone's head and going, "I'm not doing this. You're doing this."

Gotta love those moral values! ( Wink, wink. )

 

Except AF, It's still kind of puzzling how such non-discussion gets thrown about and pretends to be actual, you know, discussion:

So Republicans are now threatening to shut down the government if Obama won't defund Obamacare...

This is your "go to" statement? Which republicans? Is it all of them? One of them? Who? Defund what? Everything? The problem with Shinjo's 2 week old opinion now is that it's kind of a conspiracy-based exaggeration, it's not factual analysis. See, even with his blog-link which says right there in the text "Congressional Republicans are debating whether to pass budget legislation that would cut off Obamacare funding..." That hardly equates to "threatening to shut down all of government." But what do actual facts matter?

The issue is that the republicans may very well be correct on Obamacare. Considering that businesses were just granted a delay because the rules are so unwieldy due to the fact that no one vetted them in the rush to originally get it passed:

Problem 1: http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/03/smallbusiness/obamacare-employer-mandate/index.html]HERE[/url]

But the most telling issue is that Congress and Congressional employees just voted themselves a waiver to the law because no one in Congress wants Obamacare either.

Problem 2: http://www.naturalnews.com/041574_Obamacare_Congress_government_funding.html]HERE[/url]

Talk about an extreme case of "do as we say, not as we do...." syndrome. So what's the answer in your opinion? That's why your analogy is all wrong. It's not like someone putting a gun to another's head at all. It's more like someone putting a gun to their own head, and the other person wanting to keep all the bullets so the first person doesn't fatally shoot themselves. It's not that the idea of universal health care is bad on its own. It's that Obamacare itself is a flawed law, and will most likely do more harm than good.