Has The GOP Learned Nothing?

[Kathianne]

Sometimes I just want to scream! Key point, there cannot be too much 'debate' so that the best available candidate emerges:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/12/hey-gop-establishment-stop-whining-about


<hgroup style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif;">Republican Powerbrokers Intend to Clear the GOP Field for a Favored Establishment Candidate

Republicans actually have to sort out some substantive differences on policy. Coronations do not lend themselves to self-examination.

</hgroup>David Harsanyi (http://reason.com/people/david-harsanyi/all) | December 12, 2014

Although the specifics are still hazy, The New York Times reports that a group of deep-pocketed Republican donors and bundlers has hatched a plan to clear the GOP field of all insurgents to make room for a favored "establishment" candidate—preferably Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney. But there can only be one.

This strikes me as a dubious strategy for a number of reasons. But the main point of the Times piece is to inform everyone that Republican powerbrokers intend to get ahead of the intraparty squabbling that accompanies the long primary season because, in the end, all of that ugliness would only help elect Hillary Clinton:


For the first time in decades, the Republican Party is facing a wide-open primary with up to a dozen serious candidates representing virtually every branch of the party. Republican leaders, hoping to minimize damage to their eventual standard-bearer, have already sought to compress the formal primary season and reduce the number of candidate debates.


There are a number of problems with this pitch.

To begin with, there's scant evidence that bypassing crowded primaries enhances a party's chances of winning a national election. If you take a look at some of the "wide-open" races (ones without preordained vice presidential successors) over the past few decades, you'll find that plenty of candidates prevailed in the general election after winning competitive—and sometimes acrimonious—party contests. Ronald Reagan in 1980. Bill Clinton in 1992. George W. Bush in 2000. Barack Obama in 2008. In some cases, it was the establishment that was won over in the process. All of these races determined the course of party politics for years.

These days, there is incessant whining about the slog of the primary and debate season from the media. This may just be a perfunctory complaint. But it's also wrong. Politics has a ton of problems, but too much debate isn't one of them.

We've all heard that primaries help hone a candidate's skills or test a candidate's organization or allow us to see how a candidate reacts to intense scrutiny. True. But sometimes a primary makes the candidate. A lot of people watched Obama beat Hillary—and inevitability—in 2008. The Obama mythos was secured before he ever had to repel a real GOP attack. By the general election, it was probably too late to stop his momentum. I bet Hillary wished there had been a compressed primary season that year.

And 2016 may be a bit different in other ways, as well. After seven years of functioning as the opposition, Republicans may actually have to sort out some substantive differences on policy. Coronations do not lend themselves to self-examination.
...

[gabosaurus]

Big money donors have always been the lifeblood of the Republican Party. They have always called the shots.
It is unfortunate that the power brokers have become so out of touch with reality. I know this because my husband deals with them on a daily basis. They remain stuck on the concept that "old white money" is best for leadership.


...a group of deep-pocketed Republican donors and bundlers has hatched a plan to clear the GOP field of all insurgents to make room for a favored "establishment" candidate—preferably Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney.

How sad is this choice? None of the above three has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the 2016 general election. But they are put up because the power brokers don't want to lose control to the Tea Party. And they sure as hell don't trust minorities.

The GOP needs new blood. They need a younger, more mainstream candidate that can galvanize the party. Obama did it for Democrats in 2008. He created a groundswell of support.
Pick the wrong candidate and the GOP will be on the outside for another eight years.

[Kathianne]

Gabs, both parties are dominated by rich, white males. That's just a fact and are also dominated by rich, white male bundlers.

It's not a conservative/liberal divide. Hillary was supposed to win in 2008, those rich, white males were not thrilled when the wrong candidate was elected. Indeed, today they are probably more concerned than 6 years ago.

[revelarts]

no matter who each part finally picks establishment or no.
many form both sides will blindly go and vote for them no matter what they stand for or have voted for in the past, or whatever none party positions they take.

I can't bring my self to vote for another Bush.
Didn't vote for Romney because he was basically the same as Obama and Bush
I suspect the whoever the new R candidate will be they'll have a dimes worth of real difference from Hillary policy wise.
And the beat goes on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bS3O5zg290k

[gabosaurus]

Gabs, both parties are dominated by rich, white males. That's just a fact and are also dominated by rich, white male bundlers.

It's not a conservative/liberal divide. Hillary was supposed to win in 2008, those rich, white males were not thrilled when the wrong candidate was elected. Indeed, today they are probably more concerned than 6 years ago.

You are correct with the bolded statement. Difference between Dems and GOP is that Dems now know the power of previously disenfranchised voters. Which is young people and minorities. Republicans have not learned their lesson yet.
Liberals are not that worried right now. The vocal minority expressed dismay about the midterm elections. But the big plum remains the White House. Liberals are not that worried about who the Dems select. They are anticipating the coming implosion of the GOP. Which will happen unless someone takes control and makes changes.

[Kathianne]

You are correct with the bolded statement. Difference between Dems and GOP is that Dems now know the power of previously disenfranchised voters. Which is young people and minorities. Republicans have not learned their lesson yet.
Liberals are not that worried right now. The vocal minority expressed dismay about the midterm elections. But the big plum remains the White House. Liberals are not that worried about who the Dems select. They are anticipating the coming implosion of the GOP. Which will happen unless someone takes control and makes changes.

Really?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_e xtraordinary_the_party.html


Down and Out
1.2k (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_e xtraordinary_the_party.html#)76 (http://twitter.com/search?q=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_e xtraordinary_the_party.html)

1.6k (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/12/democratic_party_s_losses_at_the_state_level_are_e xtraordinary_the_party.html#comments)
The Democratic Party’s losses at the state level are almost unprecedented, and could cripple it for a long time to come.By Jamelle Bouie (http://www.slate.com/authors.jamelle_bouie.html)

The most immediate consequence of the Democrats’ midterm disaster was losing control of the Senate and ceding Congress to the GOP. For the next two years, Democrats will have to deal with conservative legislation, right-wing hijinks, and—in all odds—a vacancy crisis, as Republicans freeze confirmations and refuse to fill spots in the executive branch and on the federal bench.

That is bad for the Democratic Party. What’s on the horizon is worse. As Amy Walter notes for the Cook Political Report, Democrats lost big at all levels of government, including the states. “Today,” she writes (http://cookpolitical.com/story/8123), “about 55 percent of all state legislative seats in the country are held by Republicans. That’s the largest share of GOP state legislators since the 1920s.” What’s more, “just 11 states have an all Democratic-controlled legislature,” and Democrats hold single-party control in just seven states. By contrast, “Republicans have a legislative majority in 30 states, including the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina,” and single-party control in most of the South.


This, Walter says, is a slow-moving disaster for congressional Democrats. She’s right. Absent major gains in 2016, 2018, and 2020, Democrats will be shut out of the next round of redistricting. If, she writes, “Democrats can’t get a seat at the redistricting table in 2020, they may find themselves locked out of a congressional majority for another 10 years.” And even if they do get a seat at the table, argues Greg Sargent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/08/the-democratic-partys-long-term-problem-is-worse-than-you-think/) for the Washington Post, there’s still the problem of population distribution; even in blue states, most Democratic voters are crammed in a handful of urban areas, which dilutes their strength in House elections. Sargent quotes David Wasserman (also of the Cook Political Report): “If Democrats were to get neutral maps drawn by God in all 50 states, they would still fall well short of winning back the House,” says Wasserman. “What Democrats really need is a massive resettlement program.”

...


Read it, you'll soon understand the real power problem for the DNC is at state levels. You might have noticed that Obamacare's biggest hurdle is the states that are taking it to the courts...

[Drummond]

I can't bring my self to vote for another Bush.
Didn't vote for Romney ....

Um ... no surprises there, then ...

But I can't resist the temptation to ask: who WOULD you vote for ? Any names available ? Any reasons available for the choices you'd like to make ?

[tailfins]

You are correct with the bolded statement. Difference between Dems and GOP is that Dems now know the power of previously disenfranchised voters. Which is young people and minorities. Republicans have not learned their lesson yet.
Liberals are not that worried right now. The vocal minority expressed dismay about the midterm elections. But the big plum remains the White House. Liberals are not that worried about who the Dems select. They are anticipating the coming implosion of the GOP. Which will happen unless someone takes control and makes changes.

Democrats don't really help those who they proport to help. When they fail, they change the terms. For example, when access to affordable healthcare is the subject, they change the subject to INSURANCE. Democrats are far more willing to force nonfunctional systems down people's throat. They are perception management on steroids.

[Drummond]

Um ... no surprises there, then ...

But I can't resist the temptation to ask: who WOULD you vote for ? Any names available ? Any reasons available for the choices you'd like to make ?

I see that Revelarts hasn't answered me.

I'm not particularly surprised.

[fj1200]

^Perhaps because you don't listen nor care what the answer is anyway.

[Jeff]

You are correct with the bolded statement. Difference between Dems and GOP is that Dems now know the power of previously disenfranchised voters. Which is young people and minorities. Republicans have not learned their lesson yet.
Liberals are not that worried right now. The vocal minority expressed dismay about the midterm elections. But the big plum remains the White House. Liberals are not that worried about who the Dems select. They are anticipating the coming implosion of the GOP. Which will happen unless someone takes control and makes changes.

Yes I agree, if Obama had a son, just look at the riots all over the country yup the Dems sure know how to reach the young

Doesn't matter R or D they are all about lining there own pockets but just go about it different ways, then of course ya have Obama, Sharpton , Jackson and Holder a different breed all in itself.

[jimnyc]

Um ... no surprises there, then ...

But I can't resist the temptation to ask: who WOULD you vote for ? Any names available ? Any reasons available for the choices you'd like to make ?


I see that Revelarts hasn't answered me.

I'm not particularly surprised.

He probably just never came back to this thread. He's usually not shy about who he supports and why. The last I saw he was a fan of Ron Paul. While I admire certain things about Paul, and what Rev is looking for in a candidate, that wackjob just kinda wandered too far into the conspiracy theory land for my liking. Looking at things now though, he would have been better than the asshole in the office now. Rev wants a libertarian I believe, someone VERY big on respecting the constitution, and someone that will knock the government down to about 7 employees! :)

[Drummond]

^Perhaps because you don't listen nor care what the answer is anyway.

Are you familiar with the saying .. "Birds of a feather, flock together" .. ?

Your defence of your comrade, FJ, is not only not a surprise, but somewhat predictable.

[Drummond]

He probably just never came back to this thread. He's usually not shy about who he supports and why. The last I saw he was a fan of Ron Paul. While I admire certain things about Paul, and what Rev is looking for in a candidate, that wackjob just kinda wandered too far into the conspiracy theory land for my liking. Looking at things now though, he would have been better than the asshole in the office now. Rev wants a libertarian I believe, someone VERY big on respecting the constitution, and someone that will knock the government down to about 7 employees! :)

... A 'nutter', in other words, as we'd say over here ...

Considering your description - would it be fair to summarise Paul as someone who abandoned the GOP .. but, NOT because he was fighting for any really recognisable Conservative cause ? Because, as I've argued elsewhere, we on this side of the Pond see Libertarianism as a form of Left-wing thinking. OK ... maybe not of the State driven variety (... particularly ...) ... but as a form of Socialism that counters the strong pro law and order Conservative instinct, therefore Anarchist in nature.

Libertarianism can only lead to chaos. No Conservative could ever tolerate such a status quo, nor ever work for any such goal.

[fj1200]

Are you familiar with the saying .. "Birds of a feather, flock together" .. ?

Your defence of your comrade, FJ, is not only not a surprise, but somewhat predictable.

It's much better than knuckleheads sitting in a circle looking stupid.


... A 'nutter', in other words, as we'd say over here ...

Considering your description - would it be fair to summarise Paul as someone who abandoned the GOP .. but, NOT because he was fighting for any really recognisable Conservative cause ? Because, as I've argued elsewhere, we on this side of the Pond see Libertarianism as a form of Left-wing thinking. OK ... maybe not of the State driven variety (... particularly ...) ... but as a form of Socialism that counters the strong pro law and order Conservative instinct, therefore Anarchist in nature.

Libertarianism can only lead to chaos. No Conservative could ever tolerate such a status quo, nor ever work for any such goal.

You are unbelievably stupid. Constitution as chaos!!! :laugh: Serious question: How hard do you need to work to have no clue?

[Drummond]

Serious question: How hard do you need to work to have no clue?

Your ego is at work again, I see. Answer: despite what you'd like to believe, I've no interest at all in regarding you as a role model !!


You are unbelievably stupid. Constitution as chaos!!! :laugh:

So, those who drafted it, intended a Libertarian America ?

Sure you're not doing the Leftie thing of hijacking Conservative thinking, Conservative integrity, and trying to claim it as your own ?

Here's something for you to mull over. The Constitution existed, did it not, during America's slave ownership period ? So, tell me ... did the Constitution forbid slavery ? Surely history records that it did nothing of the kind. But ... how come ? That is, IF the Constitution was pro-Libertarian ?

If it wasn't .. then I fail to see what you're driving at.

The Constitution failed to forbid slavery. The first notable anti-slavery and anti-racism politician of any note I'm aware of was Abraham Lincoln. What were his - CONSERVATIVE - stances on all that ?

And didn't the Left hijack his brand of politics, GENERATIONS later ?

Are you trying, now, to do the same for the way the Constitution is to be regarded ?

http://www.nlnrac.org/american/civil-war-amendments


The three amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War—the 13th, 14th, and 15th but especially the 14th—have been the most important additions to the Constitution since the original Bill of Rights. They—and especially the 14th—have also been among the most puzzling features of the Constitution. Seeing them in the light of their connection to natural rights helps to make sense of the amendments.

The three amendments were not adopted all at once, but in succession. The 13th Amendment was adopted in the immediate wake of the Civil War and had the simple and relatively straightforward task of forbidding slavery anywhere in the United States. The original Constitution contained no constraints on the power of the states to institute (or not to institute) slavery and the amendment took that power away from the states. It was an attempt to give constitutional embodiment to the central natural right—the right to liberty.

The Congressional Republicans who pushed the amendment through did not conceive of it as the first in a series, but expected it to suffice ....

See that ? It was CONSERVATIVE AMENDMENTS which made the difference which you'd, now, like to hijack for the LIBERTARIAN cause.

It's a familiar tactic of the Left ..

[fj1200]

So, those who drafted it, intended a Libertarian America ?

...

If it wasn't .. then I fail to see what you're driving at.

I'm driving at you being an idiot. That you now are claiming the Constitution as conservative when you previously indicated someone who is "VERY big on respecting the constitution" as a "nutter" only shows how easy my case is.

It's common knowledge that the Constitution was drafted by compromise, slavery of course being one. A flawed Constitution was better than no Constitution IMO. BTW, 14A was not the first reference to liberty. But it is good to see you finally coming around on supporting the Constitution however, your disdain for it and its principles is quite concerning for someone who claims to be a conservative.

[Drummond]

I'm driving at you being an idiot. That you now are claiming the Constitution as conservative when you previously indicated someone who is "VERY big on respecting the constitution" as a "nutter" only shows how easy my case is.

If it's so 'easy', then why must you play games with context ?

My 'nutter' comment was an answer to THIS, from Jim ...


He probably just never came back to this thread. He's usually not shy about who he supports and why. The last I saw he was a fan of Ron Paul. While I admire certain things about Paul, and what Rev is looking for in a candidate, that wackjob just kinda wandered too far into the conspiracy theory land for my liking. Looking at things now though, he would have been better than the asshole in the office now. Rev wants a libertarian I believe, someone VERY big on respecting the constitution, and someone that will knock the government down to about 7 employees!

Included in Jim's comment is the idea that the Government be knocked down to 7 employees (ridiculous). Included also is a reference to his wandering into 'conspiracy theory land'. All this added to my consideration of Paul as a 'nutter' ... which you've conveniently ignored.


It's common knowledge that the Constitution was drafted by compromise, slavery of course being one. A flawed Constitution was better than no Constitution IMO. BTW, 14A was not the first reference to liberty. But it is good to see you finally coming around on supporting the Constitution however, your disdain for it and its principles is quite concerning for someone who claims to be a conservative.

Yes, and the flaws, such as they were, were fixed BY CONSERVATIVES, AND THEIR PRINCIPLES.

Your claim that I have 'disdain' for the US Constitution is unfounded (.. as is so much else of what you claim for me). Justify your remark (preferably without playing more games with context ?).

[aboutime]

I'm driving at you being an idiot. That you now are claiming the Constitution as conservative when you previously indicated someone who is "VERY big on respecting the constitution" as a "nutter" only shows how easy my case is.

It's common knowledge that the Constitution was drafted by compromise, slavery of course being one. A flawed Constitution was better than no Constitution IMO. BTW, 14A was not the first reference to liberty. But it is good to see you finally coming around on supporting the Constitution however, your disdain for it and its principles is quite concerning for someone who claims to be a conservative.

fj. As a dedicated, highly qualified, professional who makes so many claims in order to bring others down to your level of misery, every time you post here. You make the rest of us believe how fully qualified you actually are to speak of Idiots. Your experience allows you to ignore your own idiocy, and easily point accusing fingers at others to distract attention from your own. If ever there was a "nutter". Combined with your miserable outlook. Most of us are proud to recognize you as the 'nutter' you've always wanted to be.

[Neo]

You are correct with the bolded statement. Difference between Dems and GOP is that Dems now know the power of previously disenfranchised voters. Which is young people and minorities. Republicans have not learned their lesson yet.
Liberals are not that worried right now. The vocal minority expressed dismay about the midterm elections. But the big plum remains the White House. Liberals are not that worried about who the Dems select. They are anticipating the coming implosion of the GOP. Which will happen unless someone takes control and makes changes.

So sayeth the local left-wing political genus... pray tell ole' wise one, what sage advice do you have for YOUR party? You know the one, it just got CREAMED in Vote14. So far as I see it, that dog don't bark, that's a har har to rely upon. (bolded)

Pa-lease...............shutty uppy, you embarrass yourself.

[aboutime]

So sayeth the local left-wing political genus... pray tell ole' wise one, what sage advice do you have for YOUR party? You know the one, it just got CREAMED in Vote14.

Pa-lease...............shutty uppy, you embarrass yourself.



Neo. NO! Let gabby continue. She's the best example anyone could hope to have of liberal lack of intelligence, on liberal steroids, that only INFLATE the space (vacuum) between liberal ears.:laugh:

[Neo]

Nahhhhhhhhh...gets old.

[aboutime]

Nahhhhhhhhh...gets old.


I agree, but I find that getting a real reason to laugh at stupidity from the LEFT coast on a daily basis. Kinda removes all needs for Pepto, or Preparation-H, when the laughter causes regulated evacuations.:laugh:

[Neo]

Yes, but so does raising ones knees to ones chin in a squatting position (or use of the "Squatty Potty", heard about it on Levines show...), yet it still remains a bore.

Lets try anew tact, lets try to EDUCATE them. one gabby @ a time if necessary, but we gotta try something new.

This gal could be our test case................you follow this line of thinking, I don't know, but I gotta give it a shot...

Now "Gabby", just to be CLEAR here, by saying "I gotta give it a shot", (sic) means "I have to try".

(That clarification also good "For those of you in Rio Linda".) nod to R.L

[fj1200]

If it's so 'easy', then why must you play games with context ?

My 'nutter' comment was an answer to THIS, from Jim ...


someone VERY big on respecting the constitution,

Included in Jim's comment is the idea that the Government be knocked down to 7 employees (ridiculous). Included also is a reference to his wandering into 'conspiracy theory land'. All this added to my consideration of Paul as a 'nutter' ... which you've conveniently ignored.

I don't play games with context, I point out your actual words and what you quoted. That context makes you look like an idiot is not really my fault. Nevertheless I took the liberty of pointing out where you posted on respect for the Constitution as being a nutter. You make this too easy. You also fail to note that "7 employees" is obvious hyperbole. You make this too easy. And if you have no idea who Paul is how can you comment on conspiracy land? You make this too easy.


Yes, and the flaws, such as they were, were fixed BY CONSERVATIVES, AND THEIR PRINCIPLES.

Your claim that I have 'disdain' for the US Constitution is unfounded (.. as is so much else of what you claim for me). Justify your remark (preferably without playing more games with context ?).

You have no respect for the rule of law and which is embodied in the Constitution along with our treaty process which determines how we treat enemy combatants as well as how we treat any citizen who might engage in terrorist activities.

But I have no issue with those amendments it's just that you make stupid proclamations about libertarians and Constitutional "chaos." :laugh:

[fj1200]

Justify your remark.

Your education on the Constitution began here:


It worries me, though, that a form of straitjacketing is in evidence. The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.