Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
portia
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 5394
Location: Lost in the forest
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 11:55 am |
     |
|
Not a good idea, GM. The party in power needs an opposition, or it gets carried away and does a lot of things it, and we, later regret.
Rush Limbaugh is drooling, again. He said, among other things, that Obama is "overwhelmed." Rush: you are looking in a mirror. It is not Obama who is overwhelmed.
I feel sorry for people who actually bought the nonsense about a "permanent Republican majority" and are now reeling, trying to figure out what happened. There never has been and never will be such a thing as a Permanent majority of any pary or ideological group in this country. The pendulm always swings. The specific causes, each time, will vary, but you can count on the swing, absolutely. |
|
|
|
|
|
Windfola
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Rohan
Last Visited: 09 Nov 2009
Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3253
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 12:43 pm |
     |
|
Quote:
Not a good idea, GM. The party in power needs an opposition, or it gets carried away and does a lot of things it, and we, later regret.
I agree Portia. I'm a liberal Democrat and even I SO want the Republican Party that I remember from days gone by to come back from the dead. I usually disagree with Republican positions, of course , but I think it's so important to have a healthy opposition to push back with alternative ideas and to keep in check the potential excesses of the party in power.
I really mourn the loss of Republican moderates, who have an important perspective to lend to governance, in my view. And if I were a moderate, I think I would feel totally abandoned by my party - a party that has become almost unrecognizable as it panders to its most extreme elements. |
|
|
|
|
|
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Dec 2000
Posts: 12025
Location: lovely Western NY
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 1:42 pm |
     |
|
Gandalf'sMother said:
I, for one, hope the Republican Party implodes, as Gingrich warned during the Scozzafava debacle.
This is the one thing you've written that I agree with, and all I can say is "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."
An imploded Republican Party would be replaced with another party. It would be replaced with an
actual
opposition party. It would not guarantee anything for Obama or the Democrats. Currently if the Democrats are replaced by the Republicans, we are guaranteed there won't be a round of repeals, there won't be major policy changes.
A real opposition party would show us how an opposition party actually behaves. A real alternative is the last thing wanted in Washington. A real alternative is the last thing the leaders of your very own precious Democratic Party would ever want.
That's why, unlike the rank and file, the leaders of your party do not want the Republicans to implode the way you want it to. There is no guarantee the replacement party will play the game. If it came down to imminent implosion, the leaders of your party will try to save the other party. They have too much invested in each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Dec 2000
Posts: 12025
Location: lovely Western NY
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 2:19 pm |
     |
|
Windfola said:
Quote:
Not a good idea, GM. The party in power needs an opposition, or it gets carried away and does a lot of things it, and we, later regret.
I agree Portia. I'm a liberal Democrat and even I SO want the Republican Party that I remember from days gone by to come back from the dead. I usually disagree with Republican positions, of course  , but I think it's so important to have a healthy opposition to push back with alternative ideas and to keep in check the potential excesses of the party in power.
I really mourn the loss of Republican moderates, who have an important perspective to lend to governance, in my view. And if I were a moderate, I think I would feel totally abandoned by my party - a party that has become almost unrecognizable as it panders to its most extreme elements.
I said I want the Republican party to implode so that the Democrats will remain in the majority. I said nothing about wishing that minority opposition to disappear entirely. But if that opposition is so determined to be non-constructive - the smaller and less influential they are, the better.
And its only "not a good idea" if you feel the "center" in this country is truly centrist. From my perspective, the center is so far to the right that it is imperative we move the center leftwards (and demographic trends suggest this is happening). The right in this country is so amazingly far to the right that I will only be too happy to see it marginalized.
-GM |
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 4:28 pm |
     |
|
Some
Americans are pretty far right compared to most Canadians. But the thing is, if you talk to people, and if you ask the right questions, you get a distinct impression that Americans are not so far "right" as they are "conservative" in the sense of wanting something BACK that they think is gone.
This nostalgia, like most nostalgia, is for a dream, not a memory. They want the "old America" back when everyone had a job and things were looking up and getting better all the time and people loved America and they could be proud of everything America did.
Every empire goes through the cycle from beginning to end. Since the American Empire has been seen - by Americans - as a benefit to the world, the inevitable decline is hard to bear. |
|
|
|
|
|
vison
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elrond
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 8317
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 4:28 pm |
     |
|
gremlins made me double post.
So I'll use this one to say: you know, Mrs. Palin is okay looking? She's got nice legs, much nicer than poor Mrs. Clinton has. She is prettier than Ms. Albright. She's not as chic as Ms. Rice, but she is more approachable-looking.
However. It's all relative, isn't it? Compared to some women in public life she's good-looking, but next to real class and real beauty, she's pretty ordinary.
It must be that rear end in the tight skirts.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Lord_Morningstar
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 7116
Location: Queensland, Australia
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 5:39 pm |
     |
|
This talk of the Republican Party ceasing to exist is pretty premature anyway. It didn't implode in the 30s and 40s when it held something like 25% of Congress and lost five Presidential elections in a row. Neither did the Democrats in the 1860s and 1870s, and their position was even worse. The major U.S. political parties ae quite hardy. |
|
|
|
|
|
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Dec 2000
Posts: 12025
Location: lovely Western NY
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 5:44 pm |
     |
|
Hoffman has made clear that he will be the Congressman from
Glenn Beck
Quote:
Conservative blogger Charles Johnson of the site Little Green Footballs reported yesterday that Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 special election, signed a pledge to uphold Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project principles in Congress. The signed pledge is available online, and Hoffman touts his endorsement from the 9/12 organization on his website. Like the lobbyist-planned tea parties, the 9/12 Project is a creation of Beck, used to go after Beck’s liberal enemies and to organize hateful anti-Obama rallies.
Although there is a groundswell of far right tea party and Beck-inspired candidates running for office in 2010, very few Republicans running for Congress or Governor have signed the 9/12 pledge. Noting that he signed a document pledging his “sacred honor” to uphold Beck’s list of values and principles, Johnson aptly deems Hoffman “The Glenn Beck candidate.”
L_M said:
Quote:
The major U.S. political parties are quite hardy.
This is true, but they are not invincible. Of course the whigs were a major party that the GOP at one point replaced. I don't actually think that will be what happens here, but in the examples you gave, the parties out of power were in a really bad way for a long time, and that's what I think could happen here if the GOP continues the Hoffman-style purge. |
|
Last edited by ILvEowyn on Mon Nov 2, 2009 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2, 2009 6:47 pm |
     |
|
When the Whigs fell apart, there was already a successor party standing to fill in the void, so that it basically took one election cycle for the Whigs to become Republicans, with barely a noticeable change. But back then the parties actually opposed each other as well.
The version of a party falling probably closer to what GM would want, but doesn't want it for obvious reasons, is when the Federalist Party fell. It took several elections for things to restructure, but in the meantime the disenfranchised Federalists all joined the Democratic-Republican party and people from opposing parties ran against each other under the same party label. To translate that into modern terms that means Sarah Palin seeking the Democratic Party nomination supported by Democrat Glenn Beck.
That's why GM was wise enough to wish for "permanent second place". But that ain't gonna happen. The current setup doesn't allow for that, and it will become either it regains strength or it collapses.
So, GM, which third party do you want to replace the Republicans? And don't say "The Green Party". |
|
|
|
|
|
Thenidmin
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Servant to Luthien
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1275
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 7:01 am |
     |
|
There's no need to replace the Republicans. That name represents a valid approach that appeals to many Americans, maybe even a majority. I think the affiliation with religion has poisoned the well. It seems now that sane people don't call themselves Republicans anymore but I think they would come back if the Palins and Limbaughs and their followers would leave. I think this 'Conservative' Party would be a good place for them, and then they could sink their own ship and the rest of the Republicans would become buoyant again after some period of cleansing. Unfortunately I don't see the whackos agreeing to remove their tentacles which is bad for the whole world. |
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 7:06 am |
     |
|
vison said:
Some
Americans are pretty far right compared to most Canadians. But the thing is, if you talk to people, and if you ask the right questions, you get a distinct impression that Americans are not so far "right" as they are "conservative" in the sense of wanting something BACK that they think is gone.
This nostalgia, like most nostalgia, is for a dream, not a memory. They want the "old America" back when everyone had a job and things were looking up and getting better all the time and people loved America and they could be proud of everything America did.
Every empire goes through the cycle from beginning to end. Since the American Empire has been seen - by Americans - as a benefit to the world, the inevitable decline is hard to bear.
Brilliant post.
This is, in fact, what study after study shows. On some of the core issues, Americans are not very conservative
at all
. But when you place the issues in the context of some mythologized story, they seem to be very conservative (but it really that nostalgic attitude you describe). There is a strong body of research which confirms this, summed up brilliantly in Steven Kull's "Misreading the Public: The Myth of a New isolationism," which you can find at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Public-Myth-New-Isolationism/dp/0815717660
It shows quite clearly that small 'c' conservatism is the domain of a very small percentage of the American public. Its just that policy-makers "think" it is larger than it is because of certain megaphone special interests, from powerful institutes (Heritage and others) to other major astro-turf financiers, who do quick mobilizations that tap into common myths held about American conservative values, and are therefore able to seriously spook policy-makers. Some and mirrors, through and through.
And GOP leaders like Gingrich know this. Hence, they are trembling.
-GM |
|
Last edited by Gandalf'sMother on Tue Nov 3, 2009 8:30 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 7:17 am |
     |
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur said:
When the Whigs fell apart, there was already a successor party standing to fill in the void, so that it basically took one election cycle for the Whigs to become Republicans, with barely a noticeable change. But back then the parties actually opposed each other as well.
The version of a party falling probably closer to what GM would want, but doesn't want it for obvious reasons, is when the Federalist Party fell. It took several elections for things to restructure, but in the meantime the disenfranchised Federalists all joined the Democratic-Republican party and people from opposing parties ran against each other under the same party label. To translate that into modern terms that means Sarah Palin seeking the Democratic Party nomination supported by Democrat Glenn Beck.
That's why GM was wise enough to wish for "permanent second place". But that ain't gonna happen. The current setup doesn't allow for that, and it will become either it regains strength or it collapses.
So, GM, which third party do you want to replace the Republicans? And don't say "The Green Party".
My desire:
The Republican Party splits into a number of different parties. Eisenhower Republicans (Richard Lugar et al), Neocons, Conservative Party, Libertarian, etc. The Democratic Party does the same, into Old School Progressives, Moderates, Liberal Internationalists, Green Party, etc, etc. I'm sick of big tents, and I would like to see a multi-party system with broad coalitions being formed
when necessary
.
What is realistic:
This recent fight results either in the election of a number of independents/third parties to the right of the GOP, or in the defection of moderate Republicans to either the Democratic Party or to Independent status. Both scenarios, I think, are quite possible. The Dede Scozzafava incident heralds the first scenario. And as for moderate defections from the GOP, I already hear rumblings from thoughtful Republicans like Lindsay Graham and Richard Lugar about getting out of what has increasingly become a big tent lorded over by hate-filled demagogues.
-GM |
|
Last edited by Gandalf'sMother on Tue Nov 3, 2009 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 8:01 am |
     |
|
You repeated your earlier assertion, permanent second party status for the Republicans.
Which means either the Whig model or the Federalist model, since the Republican Party must either regrow or die. The current state of electoral politics forbids a static second place.
Repeating over and over "permanent second party" won't make it happen. Calling it "realistic" doesn't make it realistic.
So either you see the Whig model or the Federalist model.
The Whig model: when the Whig party fell they were immediately replaced with the Republican Party. Which third party do you see filling that role?
The Federalist model: when the Federalist party fell old opponents joined the Democratic Republican Party. That means you will see Sarah Palin seeking the Democratic nomination for president without changing any of her beliefs, and about half the Democratic Party (all former Republicans) supporting her. How will you attack these former Republicans with all the usual attacks (phony accusations of racism, sexism, etc) if they're in YOUR party wearing YOUR gang colors? How would you feel about hard conservatives carrying YOUR party banner?
Which of those two models (not "permanent second place") do you favor? And don't answer "permanent second place". |
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 8:11 am |
     |
|
I don't favor any of those models, nor do I see them as realistic. I think given the demographic trends in America, we will see the GOP either split or shrink.
So, permanent second place for the GOP, with a Conservative Party in permanent third place, OR caucuses of Conservative Independents and Moderate Independents filling permanent #3 and #4 slots.
That is unless the GOP is able to reassert its authority and maintain the big tent. That is why Gingrich and Boener are flipping out, and expressing concern about the conservative "uprising" if you will. They fear the above - and they are not so dim as to believe that the majority of Americans are as conservative as the tea partiers.
-GM |
|
|
|
|
|
shiftenter
Petitioner to the Council
Alliance: None
Last Visited: 03 Nov 2009
Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
portia
Mariner
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 18 Nov 2009
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 5394
Location: Lost in the forest
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 8:38 am |
     |
|
The way the electoral system of this country is structured, it is extremely difficult for any third Party to gain traction and replace an existing party. If Teddy Roosevelt could not do it with the Progressive Party, I doubt anyone could. For the same reasons, smaller parties cannot survive. Instead they will form coalitions and merge, in effect if not in name.
If all the moderate Republicans were to give up and become Democrats, there might be a party operating under another name, but there simply aren't enough people who would support such a party (I assume we are talking about a Libertarian-like party).
An opposition party that behaves
really
differently from a party in power that it defeats would be so disruptive to business, foreign policy, domestic programs and just about anyting you could name, that it would be a serious disaster, even if the new party's programs were significantly "better." We are much better off with some continuity, and a gradual change in tone.
Various political pundits seem to be overlooking a group of which I am a member. These are moderate Republicans, who vote for whomever seems to be the better/more realisitic candidate. My "default position" is to vote Republican, but I have voted for Democrats very often, for many years. It is hard to analyse what might happen, when there is a substantial group of people who refuse to change their registration, but frequently cross party lines to vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
GlassHouse
Mariner
Alliance: Durins Folk
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 05 Nov 2001
Posts: 5987
Location: NH
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
|
|
|
|
Faramond
Rider of the Mark
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 849
|
|
|
|
|
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Mariner
Alliance: Grey Havens
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 8540
Location: The Real World
|
|
|
|
|
Lord_Morningstar
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 7116
Location: Queensland, Australia
|
|
|
|
|
ILvEowyn
Ringbearer
Alliance: Servant to Galadriel
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 28 Dec 2000
Posts: 12025
Location: lovely Western NY
|
|
|
|
|
Gandalf'sMother
Mariner
Alliance: default
Last Visited: 20 Nov 2009
Joined: 19 Sep 2000
Posts: 7924
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 1:41 pm |
     |
|
Lord_Morningstar said:
Gandalf'sMother said:
Quote:
Not realistic given the electoral structure of the United States.
If we are to accept that assumption (and I don't) then the GOP will reassert its authority, and put down the hyper-conservative rebellion.
A few big election defeats would see it burn itself out. Still, I think CG's point stands - the U.S has never accepted a really long period of one-party rule, and I can't see why that would change now. The electorate wants an alternative eventually, even if it takes twenty years.
If the historical trend persists, then we will see the GOP reassert its authority by re-asserting its claim to the political center (and reach even further left than it ever has, doing basically what Bill Clinton did, just in the opposite direction). This will mean that its leadership will become far more flexible and moderate on issues such as abortion and international engagement. What we are seeing now, in that case, is a blip of conservative activism, which may perpetuate Democratic Party rule for another Presidential term, and a couple of Congressional terms, but which will ultimately result in the GOP rejecting the hyper-conservative fringe. This will lead to a much more moderate GOP.
If this didn't happen (and I think it is likely that it WILL), then the GOP would be forced to splinter.
In other words, the scenario that I believe is impossible is what a lot of small 'c' conservatives think is possible. And that is a far more conservative GOP.
-GM |
|
|
|
|
|
Xhen
Mariner
Alliance: Saruman
Last Visited: 19 Nov 2009
Joined: 29 Oct 2000
Posts: 7620
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3, 2009 2:06 pm |
     |
|
I see the usual suspects here are either concern trolling over the fate of the Republican party or dividing up the spoils. A little premature wouldn't you say? Especially since the impending implosion of the GOP due to infighting is a perpetual theme of the liberal media. Here's a sample from the
NY Times
:
Quote:
A string of defections by prominent Republicans who endorsed Democratic candidates, the biggest in decades, has exposed an ideological rupture in the Republican Party and demonstrated how difficult it has become for the major parties to enforce discipline.
While it is not clear how much effect the endorsements will have on this year's state and Federal races, the fissure exposed by the desertions points to trouble ahead for Republicans. . . .
If the campaign events are any indication, even if the Republicans make major gains next Tuesday, the party may have a hard time smoothing over differences between its conservative and moderate wings. . . .
Not since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 sent many Republicans scurrying to rally around Lyndon B. Johnson have so many prominent party members bitterly turned on the party's candidates. And that was in a Presidential contest. Just as in 1964, they are shifting in one direction: away from conservative Republicans.
"They're frightened about the movement of their party to a more right-wing conservative agenda," said Fred Steeper, a Republican pollster in Detroit.
Although most experts agree that one person's endorsement does not usually sway voters in numbers large enough to turn around an election immediately, candidates can seize on such events to show that things are turning their way. That seems to be happening in the closing days of the campaign, with Democrats using the endorsements as a sign of movement for their candidates.
Sounds pretty bad, right? That was from 1994, just a week before the bitterly divided GOP swept to power in Congress in one of the biggest Democratic party defeats in history. The NY Times could just dust that off and reprint it today with very few changes.
There's nothing "far right" or "hyper-conservative" about the tea party movement whose primary philosophy is about limiting the size of government and cutting taxes. Those are conservative values and have been for a long time.
The true radicals are the inmates running the DC asylum who are running a $1.4 trillion deficit yet want another massive expansion of the government under the guise of health care "reform" which would cost an addition $1+ trillion while creating over 200 more government bureaucracies. It's insane. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Goto:
|
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next |
|
|
| The time now is Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 pm ... All times are GMT - 8 Hours
|
|
| |