main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate The Future of the Republican Party

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

  1. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    JFK would be forgotten too if it wasn't for the Missile Crisis and his assassination, though.

    It's not so much that Eisenhower is forgotten and JFK remembered... it's that peace and prosperity is ALWAYS forgotten. Those times aren't interesting (and thus the ancient Chinese curse).

    You don't want to know how many more people I'm willing to bet know a lot more about 1939-1945 than know anything about 1923-1929. It just wasn't nearly as romantic, essentially.
     
  2. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008
    ,,It's not so much that Eisenhower is forgotten and JFK remembered... it's that peace and prosperity is ALWAYS forgotten. Those times aren't interesting (and thus the ancient Chinese curse).,,

    Kennedy was a young man with a confronative style no wonder they remember him more.
    And he was killed.
     
  3. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Could be worse. You could have a thousand years of relative prosperity and guaranteed peace thanks to the efforts of a bunch of lasersword-wielding dudes with supernatural powers and....hey wait a minute.
     
  4. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    I must confess unfamiliarity with President Coolidge. My only knowledge with him pertains to his frosty relationship with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr.




    [b]Ghost[/b]: The Eisenhower administration was interesting, because the GOP congressional members were dominated by the paleocons led by Robert Taft. They were the Hoover acolytes who paraded the banner of isolationism and complete fiscal conservativism.

    The GOP was an amorphou body then, and the midwestern paleoconservatism was not representative of the entire party, as [b]Gonk[/b] suggests. The Yankee wing of the party was still ascendant, and largely responsible for the draft Eisenhower movement. The ideas of those like Lodge Jr. and Dewey largely influenced the Eisenhower administration, and Lodge was like Eisenhower's shadow prime minister and exercised an enormous influence on Eisenhower, especially with regard to foreign policy (although he had the occasional spat with SecState Dulles).

    Regardless, I do think Lodge Jr.'s article "The Modernization of the GOP" could apply to this very day, despite being written in 1952. It's a shame that we still have the same issues with healthcare and that sort of thing as we had 56 years ago, but his solution for the problem is ingenuous. He's a public-spirited person, and does not see public sector spending as incompatible with fiscal conservatism when it is used to nurture and encourage growth in the private sector. He did not see laissez-faire market economics and tight-fisted fiscal controls as the Republican mantra, but rather, argued that they were the direct descendants of the Hamiltonian Federalist policy (presumably tracing this through the Whig party, largely composed of ex-Federalists).

    An idea he might have suggested--and something I found in Thursday's Wall Street Journal--would have been to charter public banks with the goal of creating an immediate lending capacity. The author acknowledged this may undercut the banks and reduce confidence in them, but since banks are already distrusted, it wouldn't much matter. The government stake would be accompanied by incentives for private investment, including dollar for dollar matching or other guarentees to help people sponsor the bank(s). I find the idea of a public institution working in parallel with private ones to be compelling, and it could work if ably managed.

    The biggest thing for the GOP is to find an issue that will catch the Democrats off guard and allow them to shake things up. They need to break out of this Southern cage they're traped in and force a realignment that makes people look at them with more interest. Right now, they can't broaden their appeal without losing their base--so they need a way to do that and net immediate results that will offset the Southern anger.
     
  5. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008
    What about Bush?
    what is he going to do in the future?
     
  6. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008
    http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/joe-plumberer-war-correspondent-says-

    Joe the Plumber as war correspondant,maybe even he could have a future in the republican party if Palin was VP.
     
  7. Blithe

    Blithe Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 24, 2003

    Coolidge was a strict, fiscal conservative -- the real deal, not this modern bastardization of the term. He signed-off on massive tax cuts across the board (Corporate, Income, Excise, Estate, etc.), for all brackets, reduced wasteful government spending, and actually paid down a signifcant portion of the Federal Debt accumulated during WWI. He was true Supply-side President, in retrospect, since his massive tax cuts brought in a significantly higher amount of Federal revenue, adjusted for inflation.

    And he didn't like Herbert Hoover. :p
     
  8. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28695087

    This article is long, but it does a nice job describing what Obama and the Democrats did right, and what McCain and the Republicans did wrong, in 2008. It has a summary of the campaign, then it goes into demographics, then by the issues.

    It was nice reading through the campaign and seeing how far we've come, and that McCain will probably be remebered by the Paris Hilton ad and Sarah Palin the most!

    It's funny that the Iraq War issue defined McCain and Obama, but later faded altogether from the campaign. The other forgotten issue of the campaign, immigration, was also what nearly killed McCain and destroyed the inevitablity of Hillary Clinton.

    The GOP needs to show it has a heart, and start broadening its base beyond the rural, southern, socially-conservative, no-college-education, mostly white demographic that seems to be defining them the most right now. It needs to find a way to bring over Hispanic voters if it is to survive.
     
  9. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008

    ,,It's funny that the Iraq War issue defined McCain and Obama, but later faded altogether from the campaign. ,,

    If i remeber corectly not just that but the whole War on Terror thing faded a lot.
     
  10. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I think it would be awesome if the Republicans would take a clearer stand on no illegal immigration, but making things easier for legal immigration at the same time.
     
  11. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
  12. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Ok. Say that somehow all the Republicans go to the far right in their elections in 2010 and 2012, which include Sarah Palin running for President as the GOP nominee. They all lose terribly in both elections. Would the Republican Party go the ways of the Whigs and collapse? What could cause the Republican Party to just completely collapse and disband. I think some time around the 1820's, one of the major parties collapsed, and there was one party rule for a decade or two. Could it happen again?
     
  13. xboxmasta

    xboxmasta Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Nov 25, 2002
    The Democratic-Republican party collapsed in the 1820s. The Whigs collapsed much later.
     
  14. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    But still, could the GOP collapse? And how could it collapse (maybe diasterous results in 2010 and 2012?)?
     
  15. Zaz

    Zaz Jedi Knight star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 11, 1998
    All things pass in time.
     
  16. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    The Whigs collapsed somewhere around 1850. The GOP was built from its ashes.
     
  17. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008
    ,,one of the major parties collapsed, and there was one party rule for a decade or two. Could it happen again?,,


    I surely hope not,or a third party rising up would be even nicer.






     
  18. Zaz

    Zaz Jedi Knight star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 11, 1998
    The Republicans were out of power for twenty consecutive years--1932 to 1952--and didn't collapse.
     
  19. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    I'm not talking just about having one of their own as President, they still had people in Congress during that time period. I'm talking about the GOP just disbanding nationally.
     
  20. Zaz

    Zaz Jedi Knight star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 11, 1998
    One thing you learn about history...regimes are limited, and eventually there will be a change. Collective memories are short.

    So...Obama can't possibly meet the expectations for him, and therefore, there's going to be serious disillusionment before long. The GOP probably won't win the next Presidential election, but they will do better generally in four years.
     
  21. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Not necessarily.

    I think Obama is very skilled at something akin to triangulation; he will get some things done, and not others, but he has the advantage of the bully pulpit, which I think he'll use much more wisely than either W or Bubba did.

    Of course, it's also going to come down to how many mistakes he ends up making.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  22. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    A lot also depends on the actions of Congressional leaders, and how much control they can exert.

    Take the current stimulus proposal as an example. Obama has called for a bipartisan approach to the proposal, and a lot has been made this week over him meeting with Republican leaders about it. However, you also have very little in the current proposal that the Republicans actually support or proposed, and you have people like Nancy Pelosi saying "We won the election. Of course we wrote the bill", effectively saying that they refuse to work with the Republicans on it.

    In the end, if a partisan stimulus bill passes both the House and the Senate almost completely along party lines, does anyone here really doubt that Obama will sign it? In such a case, the question really needs to be asked, "Who is really setting the policy here?"

    If Obama really does want to try any form of triangulation, then he is going to need to stand up to Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid. Otherwise, he will only create the impression that he is a puppet for their policy decisions.

    That doesn't mean that he needs to stand up to them every time, but on certain critical issues, he needs to force them to back down and drop a lot of their partisan rhetoric.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  23. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    That analysis is absurd, KK.

    The fact of the matter is he republicans are refusing to vote for any stimulus bill other than massive tax cuts. As House Minority leader Rep Boehner says, "Government can't solve this problem." He has no interest in compromising. Obama has been far more willing than his predecessor to discuss compromises, but that hardly means passing the Republican version. And there is no basis in the assertion that Pelosi and Reid are doing anything other what Obama wants them to do.
     
  24. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Are you therefore saying that the Republicans don't have a valid point about the amount of pork in the "stimulus" bill?

    Insisting that the other side agree with you isn't bipartisanship. It's demanding capitulation. The Democrats are using the "stimulus" bill as an excuse for a long shopping list of items. What have they agreed to strip out of the bill in response to the Republican objections over pork? Bipartisanship requires some give and take.

    The CBO just reported that the actual cost of the stimulus could be closer to $1.1 trillion. As I recall, you used to complain quite a bit about the Republicans' lack of fiscal responsibility. Now that they are actually showing some, you criticize them for not going along with the Democrats?

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  25. Darth Geist

    Darth Geist Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 1999
    Several concessions were made today, actually. The funding for birth control was cut, and more tax cuts were added, all at the Republicans' request.

    The Republicans voted in lockstep against it anyway, though, and that's bad for their long-term strategy. Next time, the Democrats may not be so willing to bother making any concessions, if they're not getting anything back for it.