Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 6, 2008.

  1. darth-calvin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2002
    star 1
    So, now that this whole debacle is over, I'm wondering about people's thoughts on the next level of sequestration which is coming up soon. I don't really know enough about the conditions tied to the next level, but we're already looking at scenarios where I work. Here are my thoughts:

    After losing so miserably, the Republicans need a big win going into the next election cycle. So far, the only achievement they can really claim is the lowering of government spending (which I believe came mostly through the first sequestration round). I would guess that it is to their benefit to make sure the next sequestration happens so they can tout how much money they have saved the US. At the very least, Tea Party candidates would seem to gain a lot from this tactic and they obviously have the ability to stall congressional procedure.

    I would love to have someone tell me how I'm wrong about this because I'm certainly not wanting more cuts. (Perhaps this should be in the sequestration thread instead, but I chose here since its tied specifically to future republican strategy.)
  2. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I can already see the looming battle in Jan. The president has already stated he'll make a push for immigration reform sooner rather than later. And the dems will likely push to remove the sequester caps entirely.

    You know what the tea partiers will say about immigration reform. So, Obama will again have another issue to use against the tea partiers. We might see another shutdown in Jan.

    To your first point, they can't send the tea party packing now though. Short-term, that's still a large portion of their base. They're joined at the hip. Even the New Republic had an op-ed that countered what David Frume had recently argued to send the tea party packing by saying if you send them packing David the GOP will become irrelevant for years.

    I agree. For better or worse, the tea partiers and the democrat base control voter intensity right now, not the GOP establishment.

    In the long-term however, I think you might be right. There is a way the GOP could become the new center party if a teapartist third party broke off and then you had the dems to the relative left( I say that because theyre not really a true left-wing party in global context).

    But the U.S. can't sustain third parties long-term IMHO. Not nationally viable ones(the libertarians have been around since the mid-70's along with more recently the greens, but they're minor third parties more local in scope).
    Vaderize03 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  3. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    For all of the talk of an actual Tea Party separate from the GOP, it's not really feasible or beneficial to either party. In all but the absolute most conservative districts, a three-way race between a Democrat, Tea Partier, and Republican would allow the Democrat to win. There's nothing either side can gain from it (except for the GOP reestablishing their long-term brand) - they need each other, despite that they're starting to despise each other.

    Unless the Democratic Party fractures (i.e., a significant number of moderate to conservative Democrats deflect to the GOP), a split would only hurt both. And the Democrats have continued to show increasing signs of unity, not less. Reid and Pelosi have shown an awe-inspiring control over their caucuses this past year so we're not likely to see any deflections from them - not even the vulnerable, red-state Democrats up for reelection next year wavered.
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, Oct 17, 2013
  4. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 6
    Nah, DC surely? EDIT: Damn, Arawn beat me to it.
    Last edited by Jedi Ben, Oct 17, 2013
    Arawn_Fenn likes this.
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Glad you all got the reference :).

    In other news, the Chairman of S and P said they were literally minutes away from cutting America's credit rating to SD, or "Selective Default", the lowest of their 20 ratings. That would have put the US on par with Grenada, the only country in the world with that distinction.

    Definitely *not* something that would have been easily recoverable, nor reversed by a deal. Hopefully, potential shutdown again or no, this ends the games with the debt ceiling.

    Even Mitch McConnell said he won't back another shutdown. Maybe the committee will actually accomplish something?

    Pretty please?

    Peace,

    V-03
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  6. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    That would be in this article.

    The context in the article for S&P's threat is interesting.

    In passing, I suspect there's a certain level of overcompensating by S&P on this, a strong dose of the Inspector Louis if you will. Along with Moodys and Fitch, S&P still has a well-deserved reputation for corruption from its behaviour in the leadup to the subprime crisis. All three of the ratings agencies were still rating subprime garbage as AAA right up to the point where the market crashed, and it had little to do with being deceived on the numbers; they were paid to issue AAA credit ratings to the bond issuers and were fired if they did not comply. (Part of that was the idiocy of the Federal government basically making two of them gatekeepers of creditworthiness in these and many other instances, but we'll leave that aside). In any event, nobody from the ratings agencies seems to have gone to jail or been prosecuted over those issues, or even questioned over them, and if anyone should have, it was them.

    I believe in respect of the credit ratings on the US currency there is still pressure on the ratings agencies to inflate the creditworthiness of the dollar. Note the accusations in the article that were thrown at S&P when it last downgraded America's credit rating in 2011 - accusations of being unpatriotic or anti-American. What's key is that they were made from both sides of the House, Democrat and Republican, and also from the US Treasury. Obama's own administration criticised the decision literally minutes after it was made. Swann's response was simple, often repeated, and it's in the article:

    The simple truth is, the U.S. was running one of the highest deficits the world has seen since World War II as a share of the [national] economy,”

    Not the highest deficits in US history. One of the highest deficits in world history since World War 2. As in, presumably, a deficit that you normally only see in tinpot economies like Argentina. And note that call was made two years after the US had hit its absolute all-time record deficit of 1.5 trillion in 2009 and had reduced its deficit, and was made four days after the US had raised its debt ceiling.

    I have no doubt in my mind that if S&P had done that in this case, it would have been accused of being unpatriotic all over again. The government and Congress alike -- both sides -- would be exerting as much pressure as they possibly could to make the US look less screwed than it really was. For me, the most interesting part of the article was this bit:

    "It’s hard not to look at it and say the U.S. hasn’t been getting preferential treatment,” says one London hedge fund trader. “If this wasn’t the world’s superpower, there would not be a measured response. These ratings agencies would be going nuts right now.”

    Smart trader that he doesn't want to put his name to that opinion, because it's basically an opinion that if anything, the ratings agencies are dishonest and not to be entirely trusted as fully objective or a measure of the US's true creditworthiness. The US's creditworthiness rating is inflated, due to the lack of other available options for the world's reserve currency at this point. It's a shaky foundation on which both sides are content to play stupid games of chicken.
    VanishingReality and Vaderize03 like this.
  7. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Thanks for the info; you basically wrote what I was thinking, but was pressed for time last night and couldn't go into the same level of analysis.

    I'm not sure if the agencies have all that much credibility anymore, regardless.

    Peace,

    V-03
    Saintheart likes this.
  8. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    I was just listening to a radio newscast where the story was that a lot of business donors to the GOP were "reevaluating" their choices to whom they make donations in light of the recent instability. The talk was that they would consider backing more "moderate" candidates, or even (gasp!) Democrats.

    I think this is a most welcome development. Failing the unravelling of the gerrymander system -which very much needs to happen, regardless of party affiliation- the next best thing is the threat of getting primaried from the center.
    DarthBoba and Vaderize03 like this.
  9. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Gerrymandering. Getting primaried. You're losing me here!
  10. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Some of the barmies in Congress right now feel immune to being challenged from "the other party" (whichever that may be) because gerrymandering is such that demographics in their districts consist entirely of people who are predisposed to vote for whoever says they're from the same poltical party. So rather than fear losing their reelection bids to the other party, their only concerns have been primary elections from within their own party, but financially backed by adherents to their own extreme wing.

    Now, the extremists stand to lose their financial backing in favor of moderates. I think that's a good thing.
  11. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Politico had an article about it today. It seems that some of the more moderate donors, especially in the NYC area, are fed up with the antics.

    Not sure if it'll change the Cruz's of the party, but lead more to a civil war. The Cruz's still have a huge, profitable grassroots donor system that can fund them. And there are still a lot of money left in to support the crazies.
    Vaderize03 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  12. Donaldson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2000
    star 4
    This is a fairly good explanation of gerrymandering Watto. I had no idea what it meant before.

  13. Donaldson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2000
    star 4
    oops. Didnt mean to embed, then compounded mistake by repeat posting.
    Last edited by Donaldson, Oct 18, 2013
  14. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    Thanks! And the embedding saves me a click, so it's all good.
    That gerrymandering business is not even possible where I live.
    Vaderize03 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  15. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Yeah, Wall Street seems kinda nervous at the prospect of financial apocalypse. Who'da thunk it?
    Last edited by Arawn_Fenn, Oct 19, 2013
  16. Placeholder Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2013
    star 4
    The message from Wall St to the GOP is loud and clear, and it says "Get your house in order".
  17. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 6
    The GOP will only believe that message when the donations stop coming from Wall St, until then it'll just be deemed empty talk.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  18. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    The Chamber of Commerce has already started picking which Republicans it'll be backing, actually. Hint: Tea Partiers aren't on the list.

    Just the fact that businesses are saying things like this at all is (as far as I'm aware) unprecedented. When have the Republican Party and large businesses ever not been on the same page? Teddy Roosevelt or so?
    Vaderize03 and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  19. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    It would be good for America I think at this point if the Republican Party split in two.
  20. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I'm sort of on the fence about that. On the one hand it'd be the easiest way to get the crazy out of the Republican Party. OTOH I'm not sure that an artificially created and sustained political party that owes its existence at all to gerrymandering and the deep pockets of Ayn Rand fans is something I'd want to continue to exist.
    Arawn_Fenn and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  21. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 6
    So a century back or there-abouts. Interesting and encouraging development, the money actually might be following the mouth!
  22. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Better they exist as an independent fringe political movement than one of the two main political parties in the US.

    The risk fades under this scenario. The bigger problem would be if a renewed, more centrist Republican Party won the White House, then started appointing Tea Partiers to positions of authority, or putting them on the courts.

    Or, worst case, picking one as Vice President, then having them end up in the White House.

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Oct 20, 2013
  23. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I get that point of view, but that'd change them from "artificially sustained rudder of the Republican party" to "artificially sustained third party with its sights on moderate Republicans"; I don't really think that's a net improvement. It's better to (hopefully) let the moderate Republicans (and the Chamber of Commerce now) steamroll them in the next general election.

    To be clear-I do think a third and even fourth (if what's left of the fringe left want to form a party) party would be a healthy thing for the country; I don't think that one that is sustained solely on gerrymmandered districts and benefactors with serious cash and puppet media organizations is healthy at all.
    Vaderize03 and LostOnHoth like this.
  24. Jedi Ben Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 19, 1999
    star 6
    I'm inclined to suggest the problem isn't so much the two parties as that they've both gone in the same direction for so long that the centre ground is practically forgotten!

    When you've a party that's so far to the right that it'd regard the likes of Nixon or Reagan as left-wing the obvious conclusion is they've gone way too far!
  25. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    That's not really true. When you consider Democrats passed what was basically the 1990s Republican alternative to "Hillarycare", a Democratic President has massively expanded a secret war against terrorists, and that Democrats don't even try to get gun control legislation passed anymore, they're effectively center. So is (most) of the Republican party, but it has a hotbed of crazies that marginalize and headhunt their own kind in favor of psychotic idealism.
    Vaderize03 and Jedi Merkurian like this.