| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Grow up, Republicans
Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 06/05/2009 - 21:28
Many of the most prominent voices in the Republican Party appear determined to behave like children.
At some point, Republicans have got to start demanding their leaders behave like adults instead of demagogues and buffoons. We need at least one grownup party.
(15 votes)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
The Problem with these People? They Sound like Kos Diarists...
Hannity especilally: none of the nuance I actually get from Rush-just bash the clowns in the Clown Party.
You're point is taken. Nobody will listen to us while we have the loons running around. I mean, I get Hannity, but Steele and Inhofe?
Kos diarists, Henke's defense
Your point would be more accurate if you compare that to Red State diarists or to Freepers than to generalize the Kos diarists, who are certainly partisan, but imo not as insane, at least of late, in comparison.
You, like Jon Henke, who couldn't help himself take a cheap shot at the dem party "We need at least one grownup party" while criticizing his own party, show the signs of a defensive mentality that the base whom you are supposed to criticze has successfully cornered you into.
The Inhofes, Steeles, Hannitys and Eric Ericksons may find it justified to act like "loons" as long as the dem party and leftosphere like daily kos is doing the same and much worse. Your criticism of your own remains weak as long as you are equivocating(either consciously or impulsively) and thereby diluting the significance.
Who don't fight back
Very courageous. But notice that you picked on three noise makers who do not fight back. Also notice that you didn't criticize them by name, only by link. I double dare you to write something explicitly negative about those who famously do fight back:
"Rush Limbaugh is an embarrassment to the conservative movement and a disgrace to the nation."
"Bill O'Reilly is a despicable lying hypocrite."
Lectures on hypocrisy are rich from Liberals
...who were outraged at Guantanamo, and then elected someone who decided to keep it open.
...who were outraged at the War in Iraq, and then elected someone who decided to stay in Iraq.
...who were outraged at waterboarding, and then elected someone who not only did not end waterboarding, but decided to retain that option in case he really, really needed it.
...who were outraged at the Bush deficits, and then elected someone who not only blew out the budget, but has placed our grandchildren into permanent debt to the Chinese People's Republic.
Speaking of the Chinese, they rightly met Treasury Secretary Geithner with gales of laughter when he asserted that Obama's budget and monetary policies would lead to fiscal discipline in the long run. Unlike the press in the United States, the Chinese aren't buying into the Obama Hustle.
It is fine to be disappointed in the performance of people like Hannity and Steele, but their performance pales in comparison to that of this charlatan in the White House who clearly lied, deliberately and with malice aforethought, to both his supporters and opponents, to obtain and keep power.
Not that liberals have a problem with being lied to by their own side, of course. One thing liberals always believe in above all things is situational ethics.
In Response
Liberal ToddLuvsLounging Says:
Of the four issues Section raised, Dems' response will be that these are the repairs required for the wreckage left behind by the Reps. The typical solution-free response from elected Republicans, blowhards from Fox, and right-wing blogs (this site excluded ..... most of the time) points out the larger problem of how hollow conservative ideology is at the moment.
It seems obvious the conservatives have chosen the path that requires the least self-examination. Conservatives are hoping 2010 will be 1994, but this going to be 1934. The electorate will realize the same actors are in charge of the Republicans and will vote for 'hope' and 'change' again.
Democratic Party solutions = throw money
I would be careful in talking about the lack of solutions. Every solution coming out of the Obama Adminstration is the equivalent of throwing money at the problem. I was amazed to hear the billions being promised during the Cairo speech
that's called soft power
classic diplomacy tactics.
Dollars'll buy you donuts that no one gets nearly as much money as we give Israel each year.
Viva Democracy!
Miss
Ive been quite critical of each of them over the years.
Our Fault As Well
There are two things to take from this short post. The first is a semi-agreement. Yes, these Republicans need to "grow up." Michael Steele looks particularly bad given that he is neither of A) An entertainer or B) An elected official. As Chairman, why he is speaking on any issue when there is an obvious fissure over that issue within the Republican party is beyond me. It seems that when Steele speaks he represents the worst of what I would call "knee jerk" conservatism. Hannity and sometimes Rush can represent this "knee jerk" conservatism as well, but lets remember that they are entertainers. Sen. Inhofe gets a microphone because there is no one else talking which leads me to my second point.
The main reason that we are left with these guys to speak as the standard bearers (Newt is one of these people too, despite his recent retraction) is because other Republicans who are able to articulate more serious challenges to Judge Sotomayor without the incendiary language aren't willing to speak up, or they don't currently exist. In the meantime, these "unserious" voices fill the vacuum left behind. As far as Rush, Hannity, and Inhofe go, they have an incentive to say what they say and to take the microphone because they have an interest in notoriety. Rush and Hannity for entertainment and money purposes, and Inhofe because the majority of his electorate will probably side with him. At the same time, these people are given the microphone becuse the liberals have an incentive to paint these guys with their unserious thought as the leaders of the Republican party going into 2010. So, as "serious" Republicans who think there are better ways to go about criticizing Judge Sotomayor, we are partially to blame as well.
Good Analysis
That is correct. They DO exist - they are the elected officials in Congress. ...It's not Rush's job to be anyone's "Grownup". He's his own man and his own voice.
Now if Senator Cornyn wants to, then he needs to 'man up' and go after Sotomayor and the Obama team. He needs to stop fretting about what Rush says
Wrong. their interest is not in 'notoriety' it is in informing and entertaining an audience. Rush does both by bringing up issues that the liberal MSM sweeps under the rug and spineless Repub Senators are afraid to mention for fear of offending the liberals who run the media. GOP leaders should be more forceful but they are too inside the DC beltway to know that the rest of America is not as impressed by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrat clown show (with the sideshow GOP) as they might think.
RUSH WAS THE ONLY VOICE ON THE RIGHT WHO GOT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFF-MESSAGE AND FORCED THEM TO RESPOND ON SOTOMAYOR. Rush did what the GOP Senators failed to do. No wonder the liberal ThinkProgress folks are going after the harmless little fuzzball Rush. They have run out of elected Republicans to worry about!
Correct inasmuch as that is the strategy - find a divisive figure and use that to paint the whole party - is the libs plan of attack, and the #1 way to defeat that is to have a strong consistent LEADERSHIP MESSAGE from the Congressional GOP that is DISTINCT from the talk-radio hosts' message.
But please folks, lets not play the libs game by criticizing talk radio show hosts, as if that is somehow a 'reqirement' to be a 'reasonable' Republican. Each and every one of us has a different unique perspective and that should be FINE for conservatives to know that there are different voices of conservatives, in thousands of blogs, many talk-radio shows, and in millions of homes. We all have different opinions. So a Republican is supposed to criticize right-wingers in order to be listened to. DONT PLAY THEIR GAME. ITS A PHONY DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER SCAM AS OLD AS THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
I dont agree with everything Rush or Hannity say, in act I dont know what most they say since I dont listen to either much, but when I do they hit more than miss. They are good and patriotic individuals who have some good insights, and are an asset overall to the public debate. To deny that is to disparage them unfairly.
Rush Hanitty
Those two are just plain hatemongers. They constantly either lie or stretch the truth. Their only job is too throw red meat to the base. Thats fine and dandy, but national elections can't be won with just the base. Those two drive away moderates and independents, the 2 groups the gop needs to win elections. As a Democrat I think Rush and Hanitty help our party, they give decent,rational conservatives a bad name. If conservatives think those 2 help, more power to them.
look at the man behind the curtain.
who benefits from rush, hannity and teaparties?
who organizes them?
... come to think of it, who killed Kennedy? (eh. HEH. these are connected, folks.)
You obviously don't listent to them...
...or you wouldn't make such an odd statement. Limbaugh is not so much the leader but is more our conservative "benchmark". If our elected rep's go anywhere to the left of him, they do so at their own peril. No, the problem w/the the GOP is the moderates. There is no enthusiasm among Middle American voters for moderates. Booooring! Like John McCain and his trash-mouthed daughter.
My problems w/Hannity and Limbaugh is that they don't spend enough time, IMHO, critiquing the conservative side. Its just non-stop Obama bashing. Certainly justified but it gets old!! Actually I consider Limbaugh and conservative talk radio (in general) to be moderates. They are moderating forces within the Conservative Movement. They just don't go far enough in lambasting the scoundrels in our own GOP. Those that have trashed the party and steered it off course. We need to get our own dysfunctional house in order so that we can win BIG in 2010. And that means driving the moderates out of any influential positions they may presently hold. Drive 'em out! DD
The United States Republican
The United States Republican Party is the second oldest currently existing political party in the United States.
macrolane breast
Media and the Republican Party
Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Boortz, Beck, Ingraham, Bruce, Levin, Malkin, the Washington Times, the NY Post, Drudge, RealClearPolitics, Politico, HotAir all get busy every day at broadcasting a coordinated, unified GOP message. I will get the same points from Van Susteren at 10pm on FOX that I got from Rush at noon on WABC radio.
You seem to think these are figures who for whatever reason are "behaving like children"?
No, this IS the GOP message. This is what the leadership and strategizing and Luntz focus-groups have settled on as the direction for the GOP from now on. Better get used to the Limbaughs, Inhofes, Bachmanns, Hannities, Cantors, DeMints, and Cornyns.
These are the leaders, and this is their message, that they are purposefully using the state-of-the-art GOP Media Machine to convey it. That IS "the Next Right".
After six months in office,
After six months in office, the Obama Administration has arrived at a defining moment: the battle over healthcare reform. The outcome will shape future White House initiatives, the 2010 mid-term elections and the future of the Republican Party.
Gucci Bags
Another failure
So now this site is accepting the left's narrative that the media is using. Wonderful.
At what point does this site actually offer people anything? Near as I can tell is that it's full of libertarians running around griping at the GOP. How does that help anyone?
The tea-parties have done more than all the self-appointed "right" saviors have ever done so far.
Stop the self-censorship Republicans, stop the NextGripe
I had the same eye-rolling reaction on this. We need to stop being worried about some lib fainting over whatever Rush Limbaugh says ... look folks, if you dont like what he says - turn the channel. And if you buy into the cr*ppy liberal narrative that Rush's golden words are the only offensive thing said by media personalities - get a life.
NextRight or ... NextGripe?
Maybe it helps the libertarians vent but it sure wont help the GOP in 2010 or now.
The real cure is this:
Stop the self-censorship, Republicans. Stop playing by Liberal rules.
Conservatives will say whatever they damn-well please. Love it, leave it, and say your peace. But dont play the liberal game of censoring the Right.
Please!
Don't ever stop. What's the definition of insanity again?
Michael Steele (who knows
Michael Steele (who knows something about real discrimination), may have said it better, but his point stands. Do you want your case to come before a judge who looks down on people like you just because of your gender or race? If you do, you really are in the minority.
disegni tatuaggi
Ain't it the truth!
You hit the nail on the head - another example of someone on the right cowering before the left and playing by their rules. Of course, it's pretty clear that it pleases all the left wing commenters that are beginning to overrun this site, which is looking less and less like it has anything to offer to the "next right."
It's one thing to listen to critics on the other side, but it's quite another to accept the narrative of your political opponents at face value, much less willingly accept the rules of debate they set for you (but of course, never follow themselves).
Sometimes being a grown-up means fighting back, and it also means telling people things that maybe the don't want to hear. In Sotomayor's case, that means pointing out her propensity to let race color her rulings from the bench, as well as her outlook on life. If you are too afraid to speak up about that and call a spade a spade, if you are all too willing to let the left set the terms of the debate and dictate to you what you can and cannot say, then perhaps you should look in the mirror next time you utter the words "grow up."
Show courage NOW
So you've been critical of them "in the past"? The point you seem to be making by your expressed concern is that the GOP should start acting like adults NOW. Get specific!! Do your duty and point out those in your party who you think are undermining it and WHY you think this to be true.. The problem is one of image. The perception is that Rush is calling the shots and those who might disagree are too afraid to challenge him on his over-the-top divisive comments (just about one every day). Why is it so hard for you to mention Limbaugh, Steele, Gingrich by name as those who are bringing scorn and derision to the GOP as a result of their fear mongering and race baiting?
You've brought up an extremely important point. Now show us how serious you really are by calling to task those who are turning your party into a national joke.
"Community organisers begin
"Community organisers begin by listening, debating, cajoling, inspiring and delegating. If you think of Obama even on a global stage, this is his mojo"
Lawyers directory
In an op-ed published in Time
In an op-ed published in Time last month, Republican political consultant Mike Murphy wrote, "[it] was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year.
Concert Tickets
Voices
Your links are useless. Why would I go there to read an endless series of rants written by lefitsts?
I don't like Sean Hannity, but he is not a "prominent voice in the Republican Party". He's not even a Republican.
Michael Steele is inarticulate beyond belief, and is also injudicious in what he says. Compared to him, Joe Biden is a paragon of the concept of "staying on message".
This column is a joke. Say what you mean, and name names. You couldn't do worse than you have been doing.
I'm increasingly coming to think that The Next Right is a waste of my time. I see better thought, and I have better conversations with, a poster on Flickr (Hamsa anon, who is a libertarian) , for God's sake.
This is a wasteland.
Its not a matter of "Growing Up", IMHO...
...it is a matter of the GOP getting its dysfunctional house in order. These instances that Henke points out show us that high profile GOP figures are "shooting in the dark" at any direction they think they hear a noise made by some boogie-man. In essence they've become rattled. They're leaderless, frightened and they've lost their way. They have people from all directions with differing opinions talking at them. Saying different things. They don't know who or what to believe so they don't listen to any. Yet they have no ideas of their own. The only motivation that remains for them is to protect their own little patch of turf. And that's what they're doing.
Its a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile the Obama Machine continues to chug happily down the road. The 2010 mid-terms are a very, very short 18 months away. Its not looking good for the GOP folks. DD
Discouraging
This comment section illustrates the problem quite well. It's as if everybody on the Right believes there is nothing wrong & nothing they can learn from their critics. The echo chamber may be comfortably reaffirming, but it's clearly not working.
they are accustomed to echo chambers
They are accustomed to echo chambers where they can spout their opinions without any fear of critique. For whatever reason, the moderators of this site continue to allow both liberal and moderate voices to air their opinions here, and that keeps the discussion much more sane.
Sean Hannity used to be just a hardened Republican over the years, but with the Democrats in power he has apparently crossed over the line to batshit insane. It's like they are all having a contest now to see who can be the craziest screamer on the far right.
They haven't hit bottom yet, Henke...
...the GOP and even the Movement Conservatives react negatively toward any sort of constructive criticism, true. Reminds me of an addict or alcoholic. Can't be told or warned about the negative, destructive course they're on. They simply have to hit rock bottom before they'll finally snap out of the spell that they're under. Here's a good opinion piece on the subject if your interested ( link ). I think Ace does a fair job of describing it.
We can only hope that the GOP/Conservatives will hit bottom soon and start the journey back toward the surface. In time to make some sort of difference in the upcoming 2010 midterms. A very, very short 18 mos away. DD
LOL
I would like to make a snarky comment at this point in the thread, but I don’t want to step in the middle of a circular firing squad—lol.
One thing for sure regarding...
...Repub's and Conservatives. They've got their problems "but" they're in such a great position to make a strong comeback. Honestly the dem's ship is already starting to sink. The string quartet is still playing on the deck, however. But its just a matter of time. I'm wondering if Capt. Obama will go down w/the ship honorably or will he push some of the passengers off the lifeboats to make room for himself? Ha! DD
Frustration/Discouragement Explained
Jon, I think what you are seeing in the comments section is the same thing that is playing out in the Republican party. There are very few "leaders" who are forward thinking enough and not distracted by the daily batings by the Obama administration to realize that when this whole big government thing goes to shambles, we are going to need to have policies at the ready in order to stabilize the country. Most of the people calling for such clear thinking are unfortunately not in any position of power within the party.
Second, in reference to Sotomayor, I think Republicans do need to be offering a challenge to what seem to be ethnocentric comments. However, the response should not be the childish claims of Michael Steele, but rather a forward looking ideal to move towards (and one advocated by the much celebrated Dr. King) that we should have a colorblind society, meaning we see no color at all. I am constantly baffled by the reluctance on the part of Republicans to utter these words. It can't be because it would lose them elections or that the country is racist. We just elected a darker skinned President. So what is holding us back? I think Republicans should make this an issue on the census. Why is the government dividing people by race? We could use the Sotomayor hearings to begin this type of questioning and thinking going into 2010. (Census and elections).
In response to Freedom's Truth: I agree, Rush and the rest are the ones who have been throwing the Obama administration off message. However, I reiterate that they are only being given the microphone because we have a vacuum in our own party. This is not a criticism of Rush et al, but rather a call for people in the party to step up and fill the void.
Information is always good. that's why they define by race
and let me tell you, demographers are really looking forward to the information!
While yes, I'd rather that they also took note of other identity-related things (Mexican-Americans choose "multiple race" more than anyone else.) -- including SUV usage and how many satellite dishes everyone owns, they aren't really necessary for governmental purposes.
I'll note that you're saying Stop Taking Data about RACE but not about Single Parent Households, or anything else.
The census is a prime tool in looking at social segregation in America. Please don't ruin good tools for the sake of Political Correctness.
It's been a year
Since this site opened just over a year ago, if this is the state of the discussion, I'm not sure we have seen measurable progress toward the original goal of identifying and promoting new conservative ideas (which sounds like a contradiction in terms).
The Democratic advantage in politics is easy to define.
Barack Obama.
A whole bunch of people who voted for him but remain to his left criticize him as much as do people on the right who didn't vote for him, but there is no doubt who is in charge in Democrat land. He gives the Democratic Party a focus and a sense of leadership that even George W. Bush didn't provide to his own, but more important, when he takes the microphone, he makes a professional speaker like Limbaugh look like an unfocused buffoon by comparison. Limbaugh has a face made for radio, as they say, while Obama is physically imposing as well as gifted with a great set of tubes, and he knows how to use all his gifts.
Even if you hate him, you have to concede that he is the best public speaker of his generation, made even more so by following into office one of the worst. Clinton was good, but a piker by comparison. Critics can say that it's only pretty words, but that was what Ronald Reagan, the greatest speaker of his era, brought to the office, and why he was dubbed the Great Communicator. Ronald Reagan was smart enough to be president, but not the kind of guy who would graduate first in a Harvard Law class.
The way you inspire people is by TALKING to them, not by sending out press releases or having "pundits" deliver your message. Obama brings an organized message and presents it himself, and his conservative critics can't even agree on theirs or who should present it. Advantage Obama.
Obama's rhetoric is derived from the style of a preacher in a church, which is inspiring by definition. George. W. Bush had a style more reminiscent of a police sergeant reading the daily briefing, with a highlighted joke here and there, and his malaprops were legendary.
Like Obama, Reagan also had the advantage of following a president with far less impressive speaking skills. Obama is the Ronald Reagan the Left has been waiting for -- but even smarter, and Reagan showed them how to use that asset to their best political advantage.
What it will take to dislodge Obama is a conservative speaker with equivalent gifts. I don't see any on the horizon.
Blame Reagan.
Making Henke's point again
You write:
I think Henke is saying, and I agree if he is, that the list of Democratic advantages also includes Limbaugh, Tancredo, Palin, Joe Plumber, and others who tarnish the Republican brand with their obvous "childishness" (insert stronger words as desired).
The Republican party is shedding normal people (Colin Powell, Arlen Spector, Chuck Hagel, ...) like a comet near the sun sheds water.
The Republican party does not need another Reagan. It needs another Bill Clinton. As Governor of Arkansas, he worked tirelessly and effectively to get control of the Democratic party out of the hands of the far left and back to the centerists. Jimmy Carter never never could have promised to "end welfare as we know it". Liberal Democrats "resisted" (insert stronger words as desired) Governor Clinton.
But that takes courage. Henke himself has trouble criticizing the dangerous childish Republicans by name. He has trouble clearly articulating unpopular (among Republicans) things like honest budgeting. We need someone who can give a Sister Souljia speech to Pat Robertson (and not pull a McCain and take it back). Maybe Charlie Christ?
Carter DID promise to end welfare as we know it.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1976/welfare
did anyone believe him?
and did it matter?
If winning elections is your point,
behaving like an adult doesn't pay well. Who is the adult in the Democratic party that won the last national election? Any of the guys who said the war in Iraq was lost? That the surge wouldn't work? Or how about those complaining about the huge national debt under Bush? (as Section 9 points out above)
Michael Moore didn't hurt the Democrats; neither has Al Franken, or Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden.
So, do remarks that you or I think are childish, demagogic or buffoonish hurt politically? Not if the press doesn't keep it on page one. George Allen lost because they did. Sotomayor won't because it isn't a media issue.
In the meantime firing on those on your side who could say things better doesn't build anything up. Instead of firing on a major black Republican, why not follow the Democratic model of sticking up for him--as the Dems are sticking up for Sotomayor's comments which are open to real policy criticism. Michael Steele (who knows something about real discrimination), may have said it better, but his point stands. Do you want your case to come before a judge who looks down on people like you just because of your gender or race? If you do, you really are in the minority.
The Dems win because they don't buy into circular firing squads. They force every one to toe the major party line, but also rally behind even the most outrageous actions and statements of their own.
That, my friend, is the way to win elections.
TDW got it right; Henke trumpets in xtra firing squads
With a purely stupid, utterly unenlightening, horribly misinformed headline like "Grow up Republicans", Henke lines up yet one more circular firing squad from the totally irrelevent, farRight fringe of LibbieLoon-atic Land and can only shoot blanks. You are shooting at fellow GOPers, Jon, you're more or less shooting yourself in the foot.
Or are you trying to be deliberately untoward the GOP now? Is it all that pent up anger at still being a part of the Libertarian Party loon-atic asylum and they can't muster 1% of the vote but, according to you, represent a much braoder slice of the electorate? Think you can drive minds to the asylum if they're as fevered as yours? Is that it?
I'd suggest that instead of pointing out the GOP is acting childish, you examine your own last few posts and sharpen that #2 red pencil before writing --headlines don't replace substance... or didn't you get that memo from all the failing newspapers in the US?
And, baby, this one you wrote and the last one you referenced with your editorial endorsement is all flash and no substance. You can do better; just put down the spite... you wanna tell the world what's right with the Libbie Loon-atics, go for it. 'Cause you sure don't know jack about the GOP. And it's showing.
who the fuck is rallying around Lieberman?
... just curious, mind.
Lieberman is ALWAYS off message, and always spouting to the press as loud as he can scream.
Jon, they behave like
Jon, they behave like children because, in many respects, they are children---in mindset and behavior---with limited intellectual and analytical skill. Rank and file Republicans---"the base" as it is lovingly called---is not likely to demand better because many of them are also child-like in their thinking. This is the unwinding of a political party. It began some 12 to 15 years ago when the GOP apparently decided that a frontal lobotomy was easier and simpler than having to think and to lead.
Well now that a revealing comment
It takes some huevos to claim intellectual and analytical superiority.
Your arrogance and ability speak in such a dismissive way of millions of your fellow Americans may be something to ponder. Predictions of the end of one party or the other actually shows a lack of mature thinking.
Obama's arrogance (as parroted by you) may be his undoing, ultimately.
"Pride goeth before the fall". . .
he's got some hubris, indeed.
but simply predicting that the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs or Federalists is not outside the realm of possibility. In my state, the republican strategists are rather looking forward to it! [when your party is so fragmented that a moderate state like Pennsylvania wants you to finish splitting, ayiyi].
You know demographics. It's easy to target the south with "big buck" lines and stuff about the Democrat being "uppity" -- problem is, that dog won't hunt outside the south and Appalachia.
It was easy enough for Reagan to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, to his racist campaign. He'd talk all racist down south, and then come up north and make other arguments.
Problem is, we've now got video cameras and people outside the south do NOT think like Southerners... in fact, much of what the South prides itself on is considered downright bewildering and somewhat upsetting outside it (in this I'm emphatically not talking about standard rural ethos... that's the same everywhere). To take a less-cited example that I'm familiar with -- dry counties. Anywhere else, that would be considered, well, mostly wrong -- forbidding other people to have alcohol because you don't like it. Another is 'forcing everyone to fit in' -- as currently exemplified by EnglishOnly laws. Other places, people ask, "what's the harm if they don't go to church, or if they're still learning english? they still have to be able to figure out how to pay taxes, don't they?"
The Republicans are more and more a Southern party -- they don't have one Congressional representative from New England, and more and more of their party comes from the South. This means that the message is skewing more and more towards things that please the South, and not so much what pleases the rest of the country.
I've got nothing against a purely Southern party -- but it won't win elections. And the Republicans are on the road to radicalizing. Unless they moderate, the party is quite likely to fracture. (ahem. you hear one democrat mention gun control? that's "moderation" -- a party-level decision Not To Pursue a particular issue).
Right now, the republicans seem to want it both ways, using Cheney and all the old fogeys to say "yes to gay marriage" while letting all the actual elected people gin up the base. Mixed messages like that seem to me (amateur!) like a pretty tough sell.
I see some of your points
Particularly the differences between north and south. I found myself in the middle of a dispute between a large northern manufacturer and a deep south retailer years 20 years ago. It became clear to me then that there are real cultural differences. But those differences have been there for years. And we are going to see another migration to the sun belt soon.
I see what is happening now as a defeated party that is stuggling to get its act together. It will. New leaders and new voices will emerge. The fact that Jon created this post is good because it creates discussion. Hannity and Limbaugh will be around for as long as they want to be, but they are not the voice of the GOP. It looks like the first steps have been taken by some key GOP leaders to differentiate themselves from those those views.
I am interested in what is happening in europe right now. It is headed to the right in a big way. Something to consider.
Yeah, the cultural differences have been there for years.
... but every year the differences grow more stark. I think the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention was the real turning point in the engineering of the south as a Republican stronghold.
I as well believe that new leaders and new voices will emerge -- I just don't see it as happening with the current party. I think that it has soiled it's branding just too far -- and that every generation since the Boomers is less brainwashed (or brainwashed by more intelligent marketing by creative class professionals, a newly Democratic faction).
Since there's such a fundamental schism in terms of social control between the South and everyone else, I hope to see the New Whigs (lacking a better name right now) splitting off from the Southern Republicans.
Remember, you don't need 50%+1 to win... ;-)
I want a Republican party that believes in good government, in wise and judicious solutions, and in science again. That's the only way America will continue to prosper.
As long as the Republican party continues to be anti-science, I cannot in good conscience vote for a Republican legislator.
I know I often seem like a liberal (and on some issues I certainly am), but above and beyond that, I want practical solutions to real-world problems. I think most creative class professionals are that way. If you had a strongly pro-science Republican (someone who might call for a reduction in abortions through more thorough saturation of MorningAfterPills, including teaching in schools), who nonetheless was setting out ways to reduce government and localize payment of taxes -- I'd vote for him, if his plans looked reasonable.
Jon, you can put down your rifle, the firing squad is retired...
including your frequent contributions to the circular firing squad leveled at all GOPers... and even leveled at people who AREN'T the GOP... but that hasn't stopped you from aiming. I wish your aim was a good as, say, Vice Prez Cheney's or Newt's.
Childish you call them? Have you had a look in your mirror lately?
Newt's speech before the joint House-Sen GOP fundraising group wasn't anything close to "childish". Maybe you need to put down the rifle yourself, move out of the LibbieLoon-atics Kindergarten Room of Politics and join the grown ups.
For everyone else, Newt's observations are found here: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/08/HP/A/19537/2009+GOP+SenateHouse+Dinner.aspx
And no, my DailyKos Diaristia Readers, the major story wasn't that Sarah Palin upstaged Newt... the story is that Newt took excellent aim at Obama's first 100 days, the promise of another 1000 days and found Obama severely lacking, found the GOP ready and focused and Mewt got in some excellent jabs at the Democrats. All without making fun of Obama's kids, which is something the Democrats haven't been able to achieve with all their meanspirited jabs at the Palin kids.
All while staying on message (did you get that memo, Jon?) and speaking about what the GOP has done, can do, must do. More constructive and positive than this TheNextRightGripe site. Far more instructive than Jon's usual bitch session, too.
Newt is history
Newt may see himself as a potential candidate, but he is a preening, egomaniacal buffoon.
He has so many vulnerabilities as a candidate that he won't get past a primary, because the other GOP candidates will take him out before the Dems even get a shot at him.
You have your morality scandal, where he had his first wife sign the divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer, then started openly squiring mistress Callista Bisek around while marriage #2 was still in force and while he was working on impeaching Clinton for the same thing. After two divorces and after openly engaging in extramarital behavior before marrying his mistress, he "converted" to Catholicism, a degree of hypocrisy hard to fathom. Maybe you think no one will mention this, but I think they will.
He admitted to shutting down the government because he felt snubbed when he he had to ride at the back of AIR FORCE ONE. Acting like a spoiled brat is SO mature. The impeachment of Clinton backfired when polls showed that the public was disgusted more by the impeachment than by the act that led to it, and his numbers plummeted into negative territory.
Finally although 83 of 84 ethics charges against him while Speaker were dropped, he admitted to providing the Republican majority Ethics Committee with inaccurate information. He barely survived a coup attempt to strip him of his speakership. He resigned his seat in what appears to be a snit after being re-elected. He couldn't be leader any more, and had to join the ordinary congresscritters.
There is so much available to be used against him in an election that it's hard to see why he even wants to subject himself to it.
exactly
newt is all about ego.....he just needs to keep himself in the news. the best way for him to do that is to constantly pretend he is going to run for office. that way he will always be in the spotlight, but never have to actually serve as president and make tough choices/disappoint people.
Ahhh, thanks for the lesson in Echo Chamber 101
xc1148 offers: "newt is all about ego".
Then xc1148 is all about ECHO. Didn't anyone ever teach you, xc, that parrots are boring pets after the first 5 minutes of ownership... polly want a cracker?
Careful there, cowboy.
You included spaces between all your words. I might not recognize your particular brand of crazy if you don't AddTheWordsTogether.