Video just for a jumping off point in the discussion.
My question, is the Republican party going to have a major schism soon? I mean, it does seem to be tearing itself apart, blaming and generally looking bad. Any insight on this? Is it fiscal conservatives versus religious fundamentalists? Is it far right versus center right? Rich versus working class? Free marketeers versus value voters? McCain did seem like a last best hope for a united Republican front, but in my estimation, he has even pandered to the fundies, big time - Hagee/Palin. Question on the floor: What is going to become of the Republican party?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, it's a question on the minds of lots of Conservatives. Don't get me wrong, there is little I would like to see more than the Republican party cannibalize itself. And as an aside I agree wholeheartedly with the quote made in this clip that working class Conservatives should be pissed that every election season the GOP plays itself as their voice and their defender and then kicks them in the teeth once the election is over. (It does say something about that group of people, though. Learn motherfuckers! Most of the Republican party doesn't care about poor(ish) people.)
Anyway, as much as I would like it, I don't see the party crumbling. There was talk about this in 2000 and more in 2004 about the dems. I was ready to see them fracture into centrist and socialists, but that didn't happen. I think the party moved marginally to the left, recaptured some of the base, but found a way to position itself just left-center enough to still grab most of the middle. The fact that Bush is the worst pres. since Andrew Jackson largely explains the 7-point popular vote victory by Obama, but even ff he didn't have toilet-level opinion ratings it would have been a dem victory I think...but by a real slim margin.
The GOP will spend some time soul searching, and they will throw one another under the bus for a few weeks. But in the end, they will reposition slightly and move on. My guess, for what it's worth, is that they suppress the religious right but only a little. They will still push for limits on abortion, fight the expansion of gay rights, and push for Christian values. But they don't make it the fore of the party platform. They will also return to a firm fiscal conservative line and champion small government, low taxes, fiscal restraint, and non-interventionism. In short, I think they boot the Neo-con platform and bury W. in history as an anomaly that did not represent the party. Palin will make a comeback, maybe even real soon if Stevens is barred from taking his senate seat and a special election is held. But in the end I bet the party moves toward something like what McCain used to be...up until a year ago. I mean, shit. If they can't win Beck something is really wrong.
Well, something *is* really wrong with the Republican party. :P
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what to expect from the GOP at this point. But I think Reed has it right. We heard the same things about the dems in 2000, 2004, and the Republicans in '96 and '92. It happens every single election season. Every works themselves into a hysterical fit of enthusiasm, and then when they lose, the end of the world is nigh. The Republicans will eventually lick their wounds, regroup, and reformulate their message. I just don't foresee any calamitous collapses in their foreseeable future.
However, I am hoping that we'll see a fundamental shift in what I call the "self pity" paradigm. Much of this started when Bill Clinton won office back in 92. Republicans were full of bile and disgust. Bush's approval rating were in the toilet because he compromised with Democrats, and approved new taxes to help fight the growing budget deficit... Then the democrats used it as ammunition in the election against him! THEN Ross Perot enters the scene, and we have a race in which Bush loses the White house to a guy who didn't win a majority of the vote. Republicans are bitter, believing they were robbed. Losing in 96 didn't help much, either. Even though his win was pretty decisive, Republicans can't seem to get over their loathing of Clinton, especially since he was elected after the whole oval office BJ incident. "How could he have won?! My god! wtf is wrong with people?!"
When Bush becomes president in 2000, Dems are full of indignation and disgust, believing Bush "appointed" by the supreme court. They feel cheated out of the presidency, and Bush is reviled ever since. 9/11 comes, and there is solidarity for a little while... Then Iraq pretty much wrecks any consensus or forgiveness there might have been. Then, when Bush wins fair and square in 2004, dems are indignant... "How could have won?!? My god! wtf is wrong with people?!?"
Now, here we are in 2008. Obama has won cleanly, fairly, and squarely without any controversy, and a rather clear mandate to bring change to the culture of Washington DC. The losing party has no one to blame for their loss but themselves; And the bitter rancor and teeth gnashing is refreshingly absent for the first time in 16 years. The climate and temperament is decidedly different in the aftermath of this election, and I'm glad to see it.
I'm hoping that we're moving into a period where the ultra-venomous, irrational polarization that the three of us have grown up with almost our entire voting lives simmers down a bit, and we see some open, honest dialog between the two parties.
And while I'm at it, I would like a pony for Christmas. And a race car.
Well, yeah. All that is mostly true. The correction I would make is that in 2004 Dems pretty much just asked WTF is wrong with Ohio? The Reps have to ask WTF is wrong with 8 states we won in 2004? And how die hard Rep states shifted. When you have to ask WTF is wrong with VA, NC, and IN, you might be right in asking WTF is wrong with the party?
Well, I would counter with the assertion that, by all rights, in 2004, it shouldn't have come down to *just* Ohio. It was Kerry's race to lose... and he did. And that caused a LOT of bewilderment and blank faces amongst the democrats and exit pollers.
And then shortly there after, they threw Kerry under the bus. ;)
This time around, the Dem's had a better game plan, and an inspiring, charismatic candidate with a message beyond just "the other guy sucks so bad! vote for me!"
Combine these ingredients with a Republican party struggling with a poor economy and an extremely unpopular president, and you have a rather convincing win.
So I guess what I am saying is, yes, the Republicans lost a lot of states this time around, but... they really should have lost them in 2004, too. The Democrats just didn't have a game plan to pull it off, and lost as a result.
And just between you and me, had Obama not come along when he did, I think we might have seen a repeat of 2004.
- Record turnouts on both sides
- But, as a divisive figure, Hillary would have driven away a percentage of moderate and independent voters, and stoked the republican base.
- With a closer race, McCain would have more than likely nominated a safer VP pick, probably Romney. And with a shitty economy as an albatross around their neck, Romney's strong business credentials would have girdered the ticket.
I dunno, we could analyze the election all day long. But in my mind, this year, the Dems had a lightning in the bottle scenario with a good candidate, a good campaign, and a terrible environment for "the other company"; Much like the Republicans did in 1980. There are a LOT of a parallels that can be drawn between those two elections.
Post a Comment