Where does the Republican Party Go From Here?

know1

blackredyellow wrote:

Values (other than abortion) is where the change in the republican party seems to get tripped up. I saw some republican talking head on TV this morning talking about fixing the republican party, and he talked about all of the things that we all agree on (small gov't, personal liberties, cutting spending, etc.), but then went on to talk about upholding our "values" in regards to abortion, family values, marriage, 2nd amendment etc...

When you talk about upholding values, I just don't see how you can have it both ways. At least to me, protecting personal liberties doesn't seem to jive with doing things to uphold family values.

That is definitely where it gets tricky and where the black and white breaks down into grey. I favor small government, but it's hard to legislate values and still have a small government.

cincybearcat

blackredyellow wrote:

Values (other than abortion) is where the change in the republican party seems to get tripped up. I saw some republican talking head on TV this morning talking about fixing the republican party, and he talked about all of the things that we all agree on (small gov't, personal liberties, cutting spending, etc.), but then went on to talk about upholding our "values" in regards to abortion, family values, marriage, 2nd amendment etc...

When you talk about upholding values, I just don't see how you can have it both ways. At least to me, protecting personal liberties doesn't seem to jive with doing things to uphold family values.

Yeah I can see how it seems contradictory...but I see the values being for freedom, less government, government getting out of the way, protecting the freedom of people...so the anti-abortion angle stays (because it's protecting the life/freedom of the baby), but those other things go. Tough for me to put into words I guess.

Enkidu

I agree with a lot of the posters on here about the Christian Right. I'm a Democrat and my husband is a Republican, but he hasn't voted for a Republican ticket since (as he calls them) the crazy Christians have hijacked the party. I say let 'em have their own crazy Christian let's-all-speak-in-tongues party. They can be centered in Alaska. Yeah, they've got money, but I think they're too polarizing to more moderate, fiscally and intellectual-leaning Republicans.

My husband would agree with all of Cincybearcat's ideas, except for abortion - the values thing makes him crazy.

Porchsitter

As long as the Dems don't do anything to bring the Republicans together too quickly, they'll spend the next four years trying to figure out how to drive the voters once again. Remember, however, in 1992 the Republicans were without a real strong leader to bring them through, but when the Dems took office and jacked up the taxes, Gingrich came out of the fold and brought them together and they won the power in 1994.

pjalive21

one name

BOBBY JINDAHL!

hands down this man could and should win in 2012, but its too early for all that we just elected a bum as president

mammasan

pjalive21 wrote:

one name

BOBBY JINDAHL!

hands down this man could and should win in 2012, but its too early for all that we just elected a bum as president

Really a bum?

VINNY GOOMBA

mammasan wrote:

Well that is what I'm hoping for, that the party starts leaning more libertarian. Unfortunately the Christian right still wields a lot of power and a lot of money.

I think that the solution might actually be teaching the Christian Right understanding what they're supposed to believe. Since when is blowing up ANYONE a teaching of the New Testament? Whatever happened to principle of just war?

I vote very close to my religious beliefs, which are Catholic. I thought Ron Paul's ideas were completely in-line with how I understand the catechism. Ron didn't run, so I voted for Baldwin (who, I had to write-in in NY), who was pretty much Ron Paul jr. He mentioned God a lot more than Paul ever did in his speeches, but never strayed from the ideas of peace, personal responsibility, and prosperity.

I almost want to start speaking at churches myself, telling these people:

WAKE UP. Stop promoting killing with unnecessary war. Guess what? You're not PRO-LIFE if you are for war, which ALWAYS puts innocent life in danger. If you believe a fetus is a life, than you have to believe that all human life is equal, be it an American or an Iraqi. You people wonder why your guy isn't getting elected... Guess what? He's not really YOUR GUY. You have 2 years to re-reevaluate your beliefs, and then consider who you really want in your Congress. Study hard.

I was admitedly one of these people with my head so far up my ass a few years ago. I think 9/11, and the fear parade that followed it did it to a lot of people. In the end, it's your own awareness that is at fault. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

EP1973

Hopefully the GOP either goes under or to hell...either one will do.

Thecure

EP1973 wrote:

Hopefully the GOP either goes under or to hell...either one will do.

i understand your hatred but i have to say that if teh GOP went back to what they were. i.e. people know what they are doing and teh government should get out of teh way and not bother them i woudl support that party. teh problem is that the GOP is run by people who want to control others and that is teh problem.

Wobbie

know1 wrote:

How do they cater to the religious right? I mean specifically what policies?

Seriously? Gays, abortion, creationism, Dr. Dobson...

I've got no problem with being "conservative." The Republicans need to kick the ultra conservatives to the curb. IMHO, these are not issues on which to run a campaign. Fuck the FAR right. If they can't live with a 21st century, all-denominational worldview, let 'em start their own party!

I actually think last night's ass-kicking will be a good thing for the Republican party .

g under p

Why do I get a strange feeling GWBush will bend over backwards to help Obama in his transition. Even though that's what he's suppose to do.

I hope this will be true

Peace

jeffbr

g under p wrote:

Why do I get a strange feeling GWBush will bend over backwards to help Obama in his transition. Even though that's what he's suppose to do.

I hope this will be true

Peace

I'm sure you're right. He never looked comfortable as "the decider", and probably hated all of that responsibility (although loved the power). He is a slacker by nature, and I'm sure is very relieved to be heading back to the ranch. I'm thinking he'll be happy to turn the keys and the problems over to Obama, and get the hell out of town as quickly as possible.

pjalive21

jeffbr wrote:

I'm sure you're right. He never looked comfortable as "the decider", and probably hated all of that responsibility (although loved the power). He is a slacker by nature, and I'm sure is very relieved to be heading back to the ranch. I'm thinking he'll be happy to turn the keys and the problems over to Obama, and get the hell out of town as quickly as possible.

wouldnt blame him either, i would dislike being president over America...ungrateful citizens

i wonder if Obama realizes instead of acting like a president he actually has to do something other than being a rockstar?

know1

imalive wrote:

Seriously? Gays, abortion, creationism, Dr. Dobson...

I've got no problem with being "conservative." The Republicans need to kick the ultra conservatives to the curb. IMHO, these are not issues on which to run a campaign. Fuck the FAR right. If they can't live with a 21st century, all-denominational worldview, let 'em start their own party!

I actually think last night's ass-kicking will be a good thing for the Republican party .

Again - what policies cater specifically to the religious right?

The gay marriage amendment was shot down in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. by a popular vote. What did the republicans have to do with that?

jeffbr

know1 wrote:

Again - what policies cater specifically to the religious right?

The gay marriage amendment was shot down in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. by a popular vote. What did the republicans have to do with that?

Look, I don't think you're going to be happy with any observations, or acknowledge their validity, but I'll add a little something to my rant.

A little over 2 decades ago I was a Republican and pretty active in the party. Then the Robertson assholes did a great job organizing at the grassroots level, and took over the party. You couldn't get traditional republicans to be delegates to the district/county/state/national conventions. They would bring in their slate of delegates, and would bring numbers. The delegates would stand, talk about being born again, talk about their pro-life stance, talk about loving Jesus, and they'd get elected. Some of us would talk about our desire for small gov't, limited spending, increasing personal liberties and would not be elected as delegates. The delegates then go on to the conventions to draft platforms and select candidates.

I said fuck that noise, and became a libertarian. I have spend the last 2 decades watching the party of my grandparents and parents implode. Republicans would put up unelectable (but pro-life!!!!) candidates and get hammered by Democrats. I voted for my first Democrat in a governor's race because the Republicans put up an inept born-again loony who got completely smoked in the election.

This year, McCain ran a pretty shitty campaign, and probably wouldn't have won anyway, but in order to try to capture the whack-a-mole religionists of the party, they selected Palin to be his running mate. She was completely unelectable, virtually unvetted, and ended up being a huge anchor being drug along the campaign trail.

So it isn't just policy that we're talking about. It is candidates, and party decisions. Again, you may not like to hear it, but that's what I lived through. Ultimately I'm glad I left a couple of decades ago, because I'd hate to have been even remotely associated with W's horrid 8 years, but I miss the old Republican party.

nothinghead

Watching Fox News today...partially to see the despair, partially to avoid the 24 hour stream of black people crying on national television (I mean, seriously, when does this start to become a little exploitative? It's almost kind of condescending, but that's a discussion for another time), but mostly to hear some answers to this question.

What I've heard so far is a lot of the talking heads saying things along the lines of stopping with earmarks they would have strangled Clinton over, responsible spending, return to small government--in short, the Republican party needs to start acting like the Republican Party. While I'm glad Obama was elected over McCain, one of the reasons is that it forces the conservative right to re-access the last 8 years in a more objective and honest context while realizing how far from their roots they have grown.

The party seems very divided today right now. There's the religious, lunatic, legislate-my-moral-view points, and then there's the more rational pre-Robertson party that has been discussed. One will be the party Sarah Palin-type party, and the other will likely move away from that.

It should be interesting. Just as I think the Democratic party has moved its focus more toward the middle to succeed, I think the Republican party will do the same.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

the republicans have to convince me they will cut spending, and it will be pretty hard to do that, considering they had years to do it and refused.

Brain of J.Lo

How about "away"?



At least, I hope they go away from the extreme right/culture war garbage. That is tearing our country apart.

g under p

Nice interview on where do the Republicans go from here.

Where Do Republicans Go from Here? Michael Tomasky on the Future of the GOP

MICHAEL TOMASKY: Well, my first thought on the election is that obviously it was an amazing night and a really, really thrilling thing to see.


As for the Republicans, I’m really glad this isn’t my problem, because they’ve got a big one, and—excuse me. They’re going to have some very serious internal arguments about why everything went so wrong here. They first argument they’re going to have is, can we get away with just saying, well, this was a bad candidate and a badly run campaign, and if we’d had a better candidate who had run a better campaign, everything would have been fine; or do they have to look a little harder in the mirror and say there are more serious and deeper structural problems here with the way we’re presenting ourselves to the American people that we have to grapple with? And some people will try to say the former. I was a participant or a front-row seat audience member for some of these similar conversations in 2004, 2005, after John Kerry lost. So I have an idea of how they go. So some people will try to say it was just tactical errors that were made in the campaign.


But I think there is a pretty big consensus, something close to a consensus, among a lot of conservatives, that their movement is out of steam intellectually, a little bit out of touch, maybe a more than a little bit out of touch, and that they have some serious questions to ask themselves, particularly with regard to two very dominant and powerful constituencies inside that party: one, the neoconservatives, who control Republican foreign policy—and, you know, I think it’s pretty clear that this election was a rejection of George Bush’s foreign policy—and the second, the hard-right social conservatives, who are the shock troops of the party and have a whole lot of power and influence in that party and who obviously aren’t translating very well to voters in the middle. So they’ve got a lot of questions to deal with over there.

Peace

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i was listening to the rightwing radio cancers on my long drive home, and they were saying that McCain and Bush werent real republicans anyway, and that they should be even more socially conservative than ever before to win next time. i thought, "have fun in irrelevent-extremist-land, assholes".