The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

I think any interviewer with an agenda can make an opponent look less then stellar, but it takes effort on both sides for such a collossal failure. Palin may not have been the right choice, but I got the impression that Couric may have shown a bias against the Republican candidate.

 

Gnarff, Palin embarrassed herself in that interview. Feel free to watch it for yourself.

 

Bias? How? All she did was ask questions, and perfectly reasonable ones at that. That said, she may have become biased against Palin as the interview went on. Discrimination on the basis of ability and intelligence is a form of discrimination I can live with.

 

I think most of the questions were sensible, and btw from what I've seen from that FN interview people on Palin's team expected them and didn't think them too bad. Perhaps CBS might have aired some of the more glaring segments - I have not watched the entire uncut interview - but Palin dug her own grave there. For some Republicans to blame Couric for how bad Palin looked would be to shift responsibility.

 

Really, the interview questions asked of Palin were so pedestrian that almost anyone could have answered them. I didn't think the questions were all that hard. I think Mac had it the worst, except for a few that were tossed at Biden. The old "establishement" guys had the worst end of the countless interviews, at least that I saw. They have the longer records in the Senate and were held accountable for almost everything they had said and done since 1971, which really was not very fair. I still remember Mac commenting at the end of one interview that he "hadn't had so much fun since he was tortured in Vietnam."

 

I would hardly call those questions pedestrian. And if I'm not mistaken, the economy went to hell during the campaign, so the modifications to the economic plans would not be finalized. Considering the schedules the two had to keep, I think she did the best she could under those circumstances. Could Joe Biden do any better?

So she wasn't as smooth with words as most politicians. Big deal...

What happened is that the Democrats found a way to effectively reach out to those in the middle of the political spectrum. They did that better than the Republicans, unlike 2000 or 2004.

At least the Republicans are pointing fingers in their own camp instead of accusing the Democrats of cheating...

 

Yes. Yes he could. Judging by the quality of the discussions, so could most of the people posting on these forums. And I don't think any of us would think ourselves qualified to run a country.

 

Yes. And he did. Hence the reason HE is the VP.

 

I know this is a little bit of sour grapes, but I thought it was a funny e-mail

 

That was a laught riot! I especially liked this bit:

You mean, if American soldiers (among others) are still getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in 10 years time, those crazy democrats will still try and pin it on the guy who started those wars? That's freaking hillarious!

 

Considering the message sent last week, I doubt that Palin would be the right candidate. Palin seems to reflect the further right wing of the party, and Obama, despite being a Liberal Democrat seemed to appeal to more of the centre of the political spectrum. If they hope to challenge Obama, they need a candidate that will appeal to that segment of the population too.

 

Ironically, this was one of McCain's strengths before he picked Palin...

In the beginning of his campaign, Obama was well-liked on both sides of the aisle imo (at least by the moderates there). The long battle against McCain likely reduced his appeal to the right; if he can somehow keep an aura of bipartisanship he would definitely benefit from it.

 

Busy building my comp, and now busy playing, saving and rebooting my way through MassEffect (which in principle is an excellent game) I have sorely neglected the Alley. Now that can't be A thing I liked to write about for a while, but didn't find the time for, is the fate of the Republican party, and there have been a few things that struck me when I read conservatives trying to figure out what was wrong and why they lost.

Personally I think the R's ran out of steam already, before Bush took office and Rove perfected the GOPs 'southern strategy' (from thesis ...) from electoral success to utter failure (... to antithesis...) and before Tom DeLay ran amok on K street.

The current conservative talk blames RINOs, 'Republicans in name only'. That's telling, and it suggeests the question: What does characterise a RINO? Treason to the principles of the party? What exactly are those principles? According to the Palinites it would be like this: Being white, evangelical Christian and pro Armageddon and against intellectuals, liberals, abortion and gay marriage? Oh, and against Communists of course! Being against everyone who isn't them? From the small towns in the 'heartland'? What about those single (wedge) issue "litmus tests" for candidates? According to Tom Davis of Virginia the GOP has become "a white, rural, regional party".

That leaves no place for moderates, centrists - those RINO types. It also indicates an utter lack of reflection on part of the 'true Republicans' about what went wrong. Which fits the picture - true believers don't doubt in themselves. They are disinclined towards reflection and critical thinking. After all we are talking about people who are credulous enough to believe that they can get raptured up to heaven from the comfort of their living rooms without that messy problem of mortality, but I digress. In any event, it leads to the subjectively logical response that in order to win the next time the GOP has to move further to the right, to become purer, and rid themselves of the dastardly unprincipled RINOs. There is no place for centrists like Colin Powell. To them folks like him are the inner enemy.

If the Palinites think they and they alone define the GOP, and prevail, the party is doomed. While I applaud those nutters potentially sentencing themselves to irrelevance, I like to point out that for the Conservatives that is strategically dead wrong. The tribalist, fundamentalist Palinite view does not attract enough voters to win an election. Worse, it drives away moderates, centrists.

The GOP has always been more than the Christian Right, no matter how vocal that particular segment was. And in the last decade the GOP undeniably has drifted to the right further and has failed to address centre-right positions on issues that have a country-wide appeal. There was a clear emphasis on orthodoxy and a remarkable absence of original thinking within the GOP during the last decade. Think of Tom DeLay whipping the GOP into rubber stamping unread everything the administration wanted. Think of the Patriot Act. Libertarians are still aghast at the GOP eagerly embracing the creep towards a police state. Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, formerly a staunch Republican, has been cooperating with the lefties of the ACLU against the Patriot Act. Or think of the GOP on the economy: Economy down? Cut taxes! Economy up? Cut taxes!

The D's eventually, in the campaign that is, did address those centrists concerns much better, and to a much larger extent. This is one of the key reason for the landslide victory of the D's in this election.

The asinine babbling about RINOs tells a thing about the proponents of that idea in the GOP. The Palinites overlook that even under St. Ronald Reagan, in order to win elections, the GOP had to make compromises, forge coalitions. The GOP is obviously not monolithic, but a coalition itself (I wasn't all that aware of that before, so I beg forgiveness for stating something obvious). The old GOP included, among others, those 'leave me alone' Libertarians, Cold Warriors, Conservative Christians, and Centrists. That was the Reagan coalition. That was a much bigger tent than the Palinites are seeing in the GOP when they decry those RINOs. They are too ideological to see it any other way. The fact is that this old Reagan coalition is broken. The attempt to re-forge it using the Global War on Terror, or, say, the internal struggle against Terrorist Obama, or Democratic Socialism has obviously failed; it certainly failed to produce a majority.

As I see it, many people were simply disgusted with what the Bush Administration, the "K Street Project" and the Jacobins had done to them, and In retaliation they voted for the D's in great numbers. Libertarians have either supported Ron Paul or voted for Bob Barr. Insofar the D's shouldn't be overconfident. They won on 'borrowed votes'. I think Obama knows that and will probably be a relatively centrist president, but we will see.

Wherever the GOP goes, their highly professional message and marketing infrastructure is still in place. All they need is a new product to feed into the machine. They will spend the next couple of years rebuilding their "brand" (... to synthesis). Point is what that will look like - and whether they'll settle for 'improvements' for broader appeal, or whether they'll go for 'purification' and exorcise everything RINO.

 

The current Republican problem is the same as the religious one for Christians: The evangelical infestation. The evangelicals are doing the same thing to the Republican Party that they have been doing to Christianity for years. They marginalize, and then isolate moderates, even those who agree with them on major issues - Catholics, moderate Protestants, and of course, liberal and more tolerant Christian Churches (the true enemies). The same thing in politics, in that moderates are not true believers in "the Cause."


But Palin is already out and front pandering to them: she will run for president if "God wills it." So if she wins the nomination of the Republican Party, she of course has the validation of God. What more does she need? Votes. But why be troubled by the meager details?

 

'Deus vult!' - 'God wills it' was the battle cry during the crusades. For the religious zealot the line 'if God wills it' conveniently abrogates personal responsibility. It's not my failure, it's just that God didn't want it, yet. What others see as failure is just a test of faith. That is neither hypocritical nor ridiculous when spoken with true fervour. It's just plain scary.

 

David Brooks has some interesting comments on the Republican struggle:

For them, traitors like Colin Powell and other moderates from Bush I, were the problem with the Republican Party. But now that they are gone the party will rise again (or so they believe).

It is scary - if you are a conservative Republican. Of course, those of us on the other side are just bewildered observers, wondering if these guys are for real.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

Chandos: I'd be very shocked if Palin gets much support in a bid for the White House. Unless party Strategists believe that they need another 4 years to lick their wounds. Then they throw Palin to the wolves.

With the recent sympathy that the Evangelicals and Catholics have extended to the Mormons after the disgraceful behaviour in California, look for Mitt Romney to be touted for either 2012 or 2016. My sources tell me that he may be reluctant to try it again, but if he can apeal to the centre of the ploitical spectrum.

Ragusa: You talked abotu RINO, or basically default republicans that aren't hardcore Republicans. Could there be DINO as well? Such as Democrats that aren't extreme Democrats? That is where elections will be won and lost. The sooner the Republicans learn that, the sooner they will recover.

 

Gnarff, the democrats have always been a party of inclusion. As such, a much greater degree of dissent is tolerated within the party. As long as I can remember, this has been both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the democratic party. While there are quite a few LINO's out there, I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who qualifies as a DINO.

 

I think Ragusa does a good job of describing the choice before the Republicans. What they are currently doing isn't working, so they will change. The only point of disagreement is that Ragusa seems to think that the decision has already been made to move even further to the right. The other option is to move towards the center. The problem with moving more to the center is that they don't have a party leader to go in that direction at the moment.

Look at the frontrunners for 2012: Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee - all of those are from the "Move to the Right, I'm with Jesus" camp. (As an aside, I still say that if you are going with someone like this, you need the most charismatic candidate to have any chance of appealing to moderates, and Mike Huckabee is easily the best choice there. Sarah Palin I'd rank second and Romney third. I think being a Mormon would be a big negative for Romney among, most ironically, the hardcore Christians - they aren't the most informed voters, you know.)

So the question is who will lead the movement to the center? Everyone thought that person was John McCain, but he went far to the right after winning the nomination. Besides, he'll be 76 in 2012 - he does not have another presidential run in him. Guiliani? I'm not convinced that would work either. He wouldn't have much appeal at all to the Christian conservatives, being -gasp!- pro-choice. The fact that he dresses in drag and has had numerous mistresses throughout the years isn't going to help with the faithful either. So who then? My best guess is you have to go with new blood. And it doesn't get much newer than Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. If he became the nominee, he would represent the first member of Generation X to secure a presidential nomination (he was born in 1971). Potential problems? Well, "Bobby" is a nickname. His real first name is Piyush - which sounds, you know, kind of foreign. And when you see his picture, along with his real name, it is clear that he is of Indian (as in the Asian country, not the native people of the Americas) decent. And he's Roman Catholic to boot.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? If you are moving away from the hard right, you don't worry as much about the people on the far right (including the Christian Conservatives), do you? The liberal and moderates of the U.S. have already proven, based on the current president-elect, that they are willing to nominate and elect a person of color. The Christian Conservatives may or may not be willing to embrace someone like Jindal. The other problem he would face with the Christian Conservatives is that as a Catholic, he is by definition, not an Evangelical Christian.

This move to the center, is IMO, the eventual move of the Republican party. They just have to decide if they are going to start that movement in 2010 to position themselves for the 2012 presidential election, or continue to wander in the woods. To me the question is not if, but when. I also agree with Gnarff in that the only way Palin gets to run in 2012 is if they still don't think they have their act together, and they throw Palin to the wolves. That would accomplish two objectives - it would allow them more time to complete the move the center, and it would get one of the remaining hard right people out of the way. (You usually don't get two chances to run for president anymore. The last time we had a president lose a presidential election, and then run again in the next cycle and win was Richard Nixon, who lost in 1964 to LBJ, and then became president in 1968. The last time someone lost a nomination race and then went on to become president was Ronald Reagan, who failed to secure the Republican nomination in 1976, but then won the nomination and the presidency in 1980.)