Senate The Future of the Republican Party

That's a bunch of rubbish. The stripped down, tl;dr version of that entire post is that you know you can't answer the question because it would completely demolish your original point. I suppose that's fine, but don't dodge the topic and then say "now we can go forward" unless that is suppose to be some sort of concession.

Those aren't bizarre hypotheticals. Look at who Obama just announced for different positions. Right in the middle of the benghazi scandal, Obama knew Susan Rice wouldn't be confirmed as SecState, so her name was withdrawn from that, and now Rice is going to be National Security Adviser, which doesn't require confirmation. Except that move is only slightly less controversial than if Charles Manson was nominated to be potential director of the Federal parole board. Even more controversial is Samantha Power being nominated as UN ambassador, to which I think even the previously mentioned Manson would have to scratch his head and say "stop with the controversy!" The problem is that Obama doesn't seem very concerned with filling positions with people who are the most qualified, he seems more interested in intentionally stoking the fires. Maybe it is part of a grand scheme to trap his opposition. If Obama keeps nominating more and more controversial figures, the GOP will have to continue to filibuster and/or object to them. I guess that would prove something about something, but it's just as dirty politics as anything the other side as done, and it's diminishing the effectiveness of government.

And regarding Hagel, you're still missing the point. First off, trying to say that the speeches "weren't about Israel" and only about Israeli interests is a meaningless distinction, because the diplomatic complications don't change. Again, the point was that there were comments out there that could complicate US-Israeli relations-which is the most important military partnership in the Middle East- right at the time when situation with Iran and Israel was heating up. Hagel's viewpoint had to be examined and clarified. You're acting like there was some sort of foregone conclusion, which isn't true. There were speeches out there, rhetoric flew back and forth regarding those speeches, and so Congress said, "hey, before you are confirmed, come back and explain what you meant." He was then confirmed after additional scrutiny and after those questions were answered. That's called "due diligence," and it should apply to either party.

 

Mr44 you've got President Obama pegged, imo. That said, I think the timing of his announcement is well placed given the recent attention on several of the scandals his administration has been knee-deep in. This is actually a nice distraction that serves him--he's hoping people/media focus more on Powers and Rice.

 

Sigh. Very well, if you insist. I have previously outlined three criteria for filibusters: questions of professional fitness, personal integrity, or a total body of views that is radically outside the mainstream. Of the list you offered, Liddy and North would be reasonably filibustered on the basis of personal integrity, given their convictions for crimes while in federal government. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh probably wouldn't qualify in terms of professional fitness, and so could be filibustered as well. Though they could conceivably be Press Secretaries based on their prior career experience, you don't need Congressional approval for the post. I could see no reason to filibuster Gephardt, and Cain has the qualifications to do some commerce or trade related positions. While I expect that Senators are never oblivious to the political consequences of a filibuster, these are not a legitimate criteria for engaging one. I would expect that Democrats would deploy filibusters in roughly this fashion, and I'd be perfectly comfortable supporting them.

What does this hypothetical prove, since unlike those examples, the Obama nominees were not convicted of serious federal crimes while serving in office, aren't professionally incompetent, and don't have a cumulative body of views that is radically outside the mainstream political discourse.

But what is this "controversy" based on? That she went on several talk shows and says things that were ultimately incorrect, but were nonetheless found in the original draft of CIA talking points about the Benghazi incident, and persisted in every subsequent version. That says absolutely nothing about her or her ability to do any job at all. At best, it will prove that she doesn't make up her own talking points that exceed what the intelligence community actually thinks. Are you really suggesting that mere displeasure with someone is sufficient criteria for a filibuster? Do you realize how radical and bizarre that is?

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you never bothered to look into the actual speeches. Perhaps you should do so.

That's it. That's the entirety of the mentions in a six page speech. Could you explain the "diplomatic complication" of saying that a successful two state solution would improve regional diplomacy, or that it works better to have a well thought-out strategy instead of just lurching thoughtlessly from one comment to another?

I can't find a transcript of the ADC speech, but the entire video is available here. I found even less mention of Israel here than in the NCUSAR speech. The substance, such as it was, was basically the same. He repeats that it's better to have strategy than to jump all over the place, and expresses his hope to bring the two state solution onto "some high ground." Again, both of these were available before Republicans voted to filibuster Hagel. Explain to me where the "diplomatic complications" in either of these remarks were. What needed to be explained? If you're going to defend their use of the filibuster, actually defend it. Stop just saying the Hagel (and all the other nominees, for that matter) were non-specifically "controversial." What in particular was so egregious so as to deserve a filibuster?

 

How are either not amongst the most qualified for their new positions?

Susan Rice is amongst the most qualified people in the country for her new post. And she's not really that controversial; just the right who are still made she repeated CIA given talking points that later turned out incorrect on some Sunday talk shows. She was approved unanimously in 2009 for U.N. Ambassador.

Take out the faux outrage of her Sunday talk show appearances and what's left to be that mad about? To claim Obama nominated her to 'stroke the fires' is a ludicrous idea; he wanted someone of the upmost qualifications that he can trust and shares his foreign policy views. He originally wanted her as SecState, to say he came back to her to simply poke the right in the eye is a childish and baseless claim. While he may find some satisfaction in circumventing those who sabotaged her in the Fall, the fact is she has always been on the short-list for such a position.

Also, what is so controversial about Samantha Power? Even Lindsey Graham has praised her. Many on the far-right and Ted Cruz are attacking her, but that's just a blip in continuous cacophony at this point.

The only reason they are "controversial" is because the Tea Party wants them to be.

 

So...future of the Republican Party?

The Tea Party, given time and distance from Obama, could coalesce with other Libertarian movements to split the GOP.

People could realize Jon Huntsman's way is the pragmatic, winning ideological choice. I'd like to see Huntsman Republicans take over the party.

The conservative, religious right could finally peeve off those of us who are fiscally conservative, but not socially, and fracture the party irrevocably.

Nothing changes, because Americans cannot fathom the idea of a third national party. In another hundred years, the two parties have flipped ideologies again. Rinse, repeat.


When Obama isn't on the ticket, and if Hillary stays out of the game, the GOP has a chance to define themselves on the issues, not their opposition to the candidates. The Dems certainly aren't lighting any ideological fires, just re-running LBJ thru Dukakis.

 

* the Tea Party can no longer claim to be libertarian, or anything other than the GOP's base unleashed

* it's too bad but there really aren't any "Huntsman Republicans" that exist, to take over the party in the first place

* yeah, there's a greater chance of Santorum being the 2016 nominee than Huntsman.

* yeah, the GOP being such a terrible, anti-intellectual opponent has really let the Democrats get intellectually lazy

 

Not exactly what I meant. The GOP has set aside searching for new ideas, tossing out old ones - basically revising the ideology - because it's hard. What isn't hard is yelling at someone. If the big characters of the Dems aren't present in 2016 (such as Hillary), and you have an election more like, say, 1976 (nobody v. humdrum), it gives us the chance for meaningful debate. The chance, I say, not the certainty.

The Democrats, across the aisle, haven't used 2006 -> present to give us anything new, daring, innovative. They have rested on victories, without following through by drafting serious, forward-thinking legislation.

 

I know that's what you meant... and what you just said is exactly what I said.

The GOP has been anti-intellectual, and essentially the party of no. This has let the Democrats become intellectually lazy, being unchallenged on those grounds, instead of being daring and innovative.

 

Sigh. I hate backhanded agreements. ;-) We are thinking the same thing.

The party if "no" us doomed to minority status and failure after another Presidential rout. The GOP needs ideas, bold visions of the future, not spectres of the past! That's why I like Huntsman so much, and why a candidate like him will only be recognized as a missed opportunity, a Cassandra of the party that no one will heed until it's too late.

 

The Republican party...and just anyone really, needs new ways of convincing people that 1930's Progressivism with it's over-reliance on Keynesian economic doctrine and eagerness to control the results of production rather than the means, is a backwards position that hurts individual liberty and is economically naive.

How a more free capitalistic market system combined with a more restricted federal government can help everyone to have better lives needs to be more simply defined for people to understand.

That said, I guess I don't care what party starts to head down that road....as long as someone does.

 

Well, for starters: can you back any of that nonsense up or are you just reading the script? Because, to me, what you've just said sounds like talking points as opposed to valid criticsms.

/yay, split the infinitive.

 

RNC chairman: "tolerance" is overblown... don't worry about the GOP becoming more tolerant... I don't care for the word "tolerance," it makes it sound like we actually might have to change direction as a party... and don't even think we'll ever not be the Christian fundamentalist party

Words cannot describe.

 

I don't know how the GOP can think it will have a national future with these moves.

How could they have gotten this lesson from the 2012 elections? How can this be the message they're getting? Ugh.

 

You forgot about http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/23/2340941/nc-voter-suppression/]this[/url] one.

This all strikes me as the last gasps of a dying party trying to cling to as much power as possible. So screw them and their agenda. Bunch of backwards hicks.

 

It's the circling of the wagons.

As it has been for the past four years and change, my immediate mental response when seeing this thread is, "there isn't one."

 

Well, voter ID laws aren't helping. Same goes for all the social-issue legislation.

Both issues generate a lot of national press, and if continue, will likely blunt any GOP-rise in next year's midterms and potentially the 2016 presidential election.

It's not until they suffer a resounding defeat akin to the dems' in 1984 that they will wake up.

Peace,

V-03

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/virginia-governor-gop-candidate-ken-cuccinelli-launches-website-pushes-reinstatement-state-anti-sodomy-law-article-1.1402340]Virginia[/url] Is For Lovers, unless you happen to love your partner in a way not deemed appropriate by the state.

I really do feel sorry for the saner parts of Virginia for having to put up with these chuckleheads who are running for governor. One wants to outlaw gay people by claiming it's to fight pedophilia and the other is a religious nutcase that says any criticism of him is tantamount to persecution. Must be something in the water.

 

anakinfansince1983


Sure, but ultimately the game the Republicans have been trying to play-embedding themselves deeply at the House Of Representatives-is a losing game. Any social legislature they pass can obviously be challenged legally at a Federal level, and that hasn't been working out terribly well for them lately; additionally, I think the Democrats are better positioned at the national level, with how they haven't tied themselves to white people above everyone else; minority populations in this country are on the rise and they vote for Democrats nationally. I don't think the House will really be changing much for at least a decade, but when the Republicans lose control of being able to shape districts (2022, iirc) it's going to be ugly for them.

 

Well, if the GOP are trying to rebrand after the 2012 loss then it sure is going well. Their most high-profile candidate this year (albeit an off year) is opposed to oral sex (and his Lt Gov is bat**** crazy).

Their motto really should be "jobs, jobs, jobs, and by jobs I mean gays and abortion."

 

I thought they all said that. "We have a plan to fix the economy, right after we spend $1000's of your dollars to ban abortions and SSM and getting people screaming at each other over them so they forget we really have no $^^##^*%##^ plan."

 

I'm not sure, but I think it could way sooner than 2022. The GOP seems totally dysfunctional right now. Whats happening this year is basically what I expected to happen in 2009, after Obama's first victory. The 'total resistance' strategy seemed to hold the party together for a while, but now it just feels like the wheels are off the bus.

 

it's more to do with how the congressional districts are set up than actual public opinion or anything The GOP is fairly embedded with districts full of people who vote for them, and not people who don't. That's not changing for a while.