The New GOP

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

While I find the owl mascot kind of cool, I'm not sure how the "we're smarter and better than you" vibe that the symbol exudes will play with the masses...

It works for the Democrats and the Republicans.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Apparently not big enough, however.

Yep, missed by about 200,000 votes out of 8 million cast.

[JPhillips]

There's anecdotal evidence that she solidified the Jewish voting block for Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Alan T

My point all along is:

1) Palin probably did get more far-right out to vote meaning more votes for the Republicans.
2) Palin pushed more moderates to vote for Obama which means more votes for the Democrats

In the end this Republican strategy of trying to appeal to the right ended up with a zero gain for them and a plus gain for the Democrats.

If they had appealed more to the moderates, they might not have had their base vote as strongly, but they would have pulled more voters from the moderate pool. This would still mean perhaps a zero gain for the Republicans, but would have been a net loss for the Democrats.

But the sometime limited polling data on the subject (cited during coverage on election night & linked by me here sometime Tuesday morning'ish) indicates otherwise. The gist of it was something to the effect that Independents who thought the VP was important in their decision to vote split slightly in favor of McCain (54% IIRC) & that 90% of Republicans who thought it was important voted also voted for McCain.

Her inclusion on the ticket may have sent a few more Dems to the polls in response but I'm just not seeing or hearing much from the final tally to indicate that she did anything but help McCain's margin. As one pundit put it Tuesday night "she did what she was supposed to do, she just couldn't do enough of it".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

McCain didn't actually lose the lead in the polls until the Subprime Crisis began.

Brings me back to something I thought about Tuesday night but don't believe I've mentioned yet.

Was McCain's call off the debate gambit & it's lack of success the most pivotal moment of the actual campaign (i.e. never mind the prevailing conditions leading up to & during the campaign for a minute)? It seemed to me at the time, and at least as much so in hindsight, that he wanted that to be his home run shot and at best he fouled it off. I don't think he really took a good swing at another pitch after that.

[Cork]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But the sometime limited polling data on the subject (cited during coverage on election night & linked by me here sometime Tuesday morning'ish) indicates otherwise. The gist of it was something to the effect that Independents who thought the VP was important in their decision to vote split slightly in favor of McCain (54% IIRC) & that 90% of Republicans who thought it was important voted also voted for McCain.

Her inclusion on the ticket may have sent a few more Dems to the polls in response but I'm just not seeing or hearing much from the final tally to indicate that she did anything but help McCain's margin. As one pundit put it Tuesday night "she did what she was supposed to do, she just couldn't do enough of it".

Accoring to reports, she didn't even know that Africa is a continent and thought it was a country. If true, that is astounding.

-Cork

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But the sometime limited polling data on the subject (cited during coverage on election night & linked by me here sometime Tuesday morning'ish) indicates otherwise. The gist of it was something to the effect that Independents who thought the VP was important in their decision to vote split slightly in favor of McCain (54% IIRC) & that 90% of Republicans who thought it was important voted also voted for McCain.

Her inclusion on the ticket may have sent a few more Dems to the polls in response but I'm just not seeing or hearing much from the final tally to indicate that she did anything but help McCain's margin. As one pundit put it Tuesday night "she did what she was supposed to do, she just couldn't do enough of it".

I have a post in the big thread detailing the crosstabs in a VP poll that showed Palin not only called more attention to herself than any VP in recent history, but also that her appeal steadily decreased since she was announced. I don't have time to look it up right now.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I think the good and bad of Palin basically cancelled each other out. She energized the social conservative base and turned off moderates. When it comes down to it, maybe there was nothing a VP candidate could do, but I don't think she helped much in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida where every recent election has been won or lost.

As Alan sorta described thats a net LOSS for the republicans, there are far more moderates than there are right wing religo-nazis (sorry, it slipped out) and Palin was aimed at the wrong crowd. She was indeed a dead anchor screwing any realistic chance McCain had. Terrible terrible decision.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Brings me back to something I thought about Tuesday night but don't believe I've mentioned yet.

Was McCain's call off the debate gambit & it's lack of success the most pivotal moment of the actual campaign (i.e. never mind the prevailing conditions leading up to & during the campaign for a minute)? It seemed to me at the time, and at least as much so in hindsight, that he wanted that to be his home run shot and at best he fouled it off. I don't think he really took a good swing at another pitch after that.

Honestly to me anyway, it felt like McCain was always looking for 'something' he could swing iwth and he just had no real ammunition. Everything about this election was bad for his party and has been for 8 years. I'm really impressed at how well he did manage to do given the completely empty cupboard he had to work with.

[RendeR]

Cam: You asked me earlier to elaborate on something, but I'm not really clear what you were looking for, can you help me a bit so I can respond to you?

[SportsDino]

I think there is room to cut the budget:

- get out of the business of corporate welfare first, this pork budget related to corporations is nuts. These are places that would be better at making money if they were not weakening themselves up at the government titty.

- No Iraq, was against it before it started because I thought they would bungle it, they did worst than I imagined them bungling it. Saves a big chunk.

- Pull out of Afghanistan, they need to police their own country. If we know of terrorist cells, blow the crap out of them before pulling out. If a democracy is not strong enough to defend itself its not going to survive as a democracy.

- Stop subsidies, yes that includes agriculture.

- Stop bailing out banks. The government should soak up a bunch of potentially revenue generating real assets instead of pooring money down the finance corruption drain (I can't deny it anymore, its just pure outright corruption at this point hiding behind the complexity of the market).

- Reduce the 'war on drugs', prisons are expensive. Prosecute fraud on Wall Street and maybe offer really huge fines/recompensation in place of jail time.

- Cut overhead across the board, particularly fire half of Congress (I'd even say go down to 1 senator per state), nuke the Department of Education (pure bureacracy not a single dollar goes toward improving student performance, its all management, the real work is done by the money given to states which eventually is given to schools).

- Simplify the IRS, first by eliminating loopholes and crazy complication of the tax code. I would support simplification even if they raise taxes on most brackets. Once the budget is cut and the code simplified, racket down the brackets till they make sense. (I disagree with flat tax and national sales tax proposals, they will increase wealth gap and strangle out people trying to rise up from the lower classes which is what we need for economic growth)

- Tax the wealth where needed, I disagree with the economics that a 1% capital gains reduction grows the economy... if anything we are seeing the opposite, an increase in speculative investment and decrease in real economic growth. Incentives should be aimed towards growing businesses (lower taxes for employees, less stupid fees, less barriers to entry, lower corporate taxes for growing the business, but more taxes on extracting the wealth from the company), not making it easier to gamble. Right now I think taxes have been rigged towards being friendly for RAIDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS for INDIVIDUAL GAIN, rather than increasing the size and value of the company for long term investment. It almost makes more sense for billion dollar businesses to pay out multiple millions in bonuses than be taxed for the amount at a high corporate rate, its 15% versus 35%... simple math for businesses that are incompetent at long term planning as it is.

- More small business, not through pork, pork seems to be gobbled up by the big boys anyway, reduce expenditures that are solely out there to make it harder to make your own business (or political party for that matter). This may be more of a state thing. As for not so small business, I think now would be a good time for a bunch of unemployed automotive talent to make a new U.S. automaker for instance.

- Stop giving research grants to the wrong people. As in alternative energy subsidies going to OIL COMPANIES. Of course they are publicizing their research into alternative energy, they want to get that GOVERNMENT HANDOUT. Big oil has no interest in truly making green fuel, take away the pork, remove the barrier to new entrants, and watch an alternative energy actually come into being this coming decade rather than another ten years of 'well the technology just isn't feasible yet...'. Its an example of government interface holding an industry back in my opinion.



So anyway, I agree with the general premise of the Chief Rum Party, I do think a central platform should be to declare a 'war on bad budget and business practices'. The only war that will actually make us money instead of spend it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Alan T

My point all along is:

2) Palin pushed more moderates to vote for Obama which means more votes for the Democrats

That's me right there Alan. I was a registered Republican (a very liberal Republican) up until the 2004 elections, where I switched to Non Partisan as I felt the Republican party had become a pawn for the religious, focusing too much on issues such as abortion and family values rather than issues that affect everyone.

With Palin on the Republican ticket, even though I like McCain, I felt this was another pander to not just the religious, but, the ULTRA religious and that swayed me to Obama.

Hands down, it was Palin, not McCain that made me vote for Obama.

I will continue to be "Non Partisan" as I don't fully agree with the Democrats or the Republicans platforms and there really is no viable 3rd party yet, in my opinion, that I can align with.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RendeR

As Alan sorta described thats a net LOSS for the republicans, there are far more moderates than there are right wing religo-nazis (sorry, it slipped out) and Palin was aimed at the wrong crowd. She was indeed a dead anchor screwing any realistic chance McCain had. Terrible terrible decision.

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

The problem wasn't too few Republicans, it was too many.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

Fickle no, common sense yes. Following a party blindy like a mindless zombie is not a quality to be proud of.

Looks like it was worth it this time. McCain could have used the votes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The flip-side, of course, is that if people who normally vote along with you for many of the same candidates are willing to vote against many of their beliefs to get the fuck away from people like you, then what good are you doing your party?

How much party is left without them? Or more to the point, how many elections did they win without the social conservatives? But maybe every 25 years or so is satisfactory for some people.

[ISiddiqui]

The reason why, while I'd like to jettison the social conservatives, but why it'd be a horrid idea is mainly because both parties are large coalitions. The Dems have their moderates and their far more progressive sphere (these ran into each other during the Clinton Health Care debacle of 1993). The Repubs have their moderates and the RR. If the RR leaves, you are left with the moderates and in a first past the post system means that the Dems will win far more (1 coalition party vs. two parties about half that size). In a Parliamentary system, it'd be perfectly ok. But that's not what we have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

How many elections did they win with JUST the social conservatives?

That's the point I've made in at least three different threads now, thanks for agreeing. See, there is still common ground to be found amongst the different factions.

[lungs]

There's got to be diminishing returns for social conservatism to hold onto archaic beliefs. Don't get me wrong, they are still large enough to have a large impact but it only makes sense that as old people die off and younger people come of age there are going to be different values that are almost universally more liberal than the previous generation.

Social conservatives need to begin the process of giving up on this generation's abominations and see what the next generation is going to throw out there. If they don't realize this soon, their lack of relevancy will become prevalent in due order.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, if the athiest-moneywhores...er moderates are so fickle that they are willing to jump to a guy with Marxist and socialist ties simply because a candidate doesn't try to hide his/her religious convictions in the closet, then that's a group that ain't worth wasting time on pursuing IMO.

See, this is an example of the ignorant crap the republicans got hurt by. people getting all uppity and defensive because obama actually knows something about OTHER forms of government.

Perhaps its time to realize that Capitalism has a lot of problems and Democracy is a great idea but we're not a pure form of either. Other forms of governance have advantages too and knowing them just MIGHT help our Country.

God forbid the right wing actually open their minds and think outside their lecturns for a decade or two.

not worth wasting time persuing? they cost you this election, you damn well better persue them and find out what THEY want your party to be doing instead of trying to force feed them whaqt the party members want. talk about socialistic.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RendeR

See, this is an example of the ignorant crap the republicans got hurt by. people getting all uppity and defensive because obama actually knows something about OTHER forms of government.

Perhaps its time to realize that Capitalism has a lot of problems and Democracy is a great idea but we're not a pure form of either. Other forms of governance have advantages too and knowing them just MIGHT help our Country.

God forbid the right wing actually open their minds and think outside their lecturns for a decade or two.

not worth wasting time persuing? they cost you this election, you damn well better persue them and find out what THEY want your party to be doing instead of trying to force feed them whaqt the party members want. talk about socialistic.

First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. The founding fathers believed establishing a pure democracy would lead to anarchy...too many Sheeple in their time too, I suppose.

Secondly, you may be right. I'm sure Amerika could probably do full-blown socialism/communism much better than the U.S.S.R., China, Korea and Eastern Europe. After all we centralized education in the 70s, and the education system has never been better, right! And the government sure proved itself in its regulation and oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, eh!

There will always be a problem with capitalism without conscience. When obtaining wealth becomes the "god" in a person's life, the ends justifies the means, regardless of who gets screwed, crushed or swindled.

And communism without Christ will always implode, because why exert yourself if you can't really better your position in life, and you can still basically get your "equal" share for doing next to nothing (in the U.S., these institutions are called labor unions). This was even a problem in the early Christian communes too, and it led the Apostle Paul to write in his epistle, "let those who aren't willing to work, not eat.

Finally, the government is all about legislating and controlling morality and behavior. Otherwise we would have a hyper laissez-faire society where officals at companies like Enron would be laughing all the way to the bank about how suckers and their money deserve to be separated rather than serving jail terms and personal vendettas to avenge murders, rapes, and other wrongs would be the norm. It's just when government tries to legislate morality in areas certain groups don't agree with is when we suddenly start hearing some complain about keeping all the "religious kooks" out of the government so they aren't cramming their beliefs down other people's throats.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Cam: You asked me earlier to elaborate on something, but I'm not really clear what you were looking for, can you help me a bit so I can respond to you?

I was just looking for a further explanation of what you meant by no government involvement in healthcare. It seems to me that few people would want NO government involvement, so I was just wondering how far you wanted a free-market healthcare system to go.

[SirFozzie]

One thing I would love to see from a GNP. No, not a loyalty pledge. A MORALS pledge. If they get convicted of any politically related crime or have an adulterous affair while in office, not only will they resign, but they should have their pension plan taken from them. Too many folks (on both sides, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly running on a morals platform is a reason why the GOP is in trouble to start) think that holding office is an excuse to plunder the nation.

[SFL Cat]

That's why Republicans generally get stung far worse by scandals than Democrats...if you're gonna ride that family values horse....

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

One thing I would love to see from a GNP. No, not a loyalty pledge. A MORALS pledge. If they get convicted of any politically related crime or have an adulterous affair while in office, not only will they resign, but they should have their pension plan taken from them. Too many folks (on both sides, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly running on a morals platform is a reason why the GOP is in trouble to start) think that holding office is an excuse to plunder the nation.

I agree. We can argue the reasons why Republicans have lost the trust of some Americans, but there really shouldn't be any disagreement over the fact that trust has been lost, and has to be regained.

If they can police corruption within the party, it stands to reason that voters will trust them to police corruption within the government at large.

I also have to say I agree in large part with SFL Cat about the continued need for a moral voice in conservatism (and progressivism as well). Liberty and morality (even downright religious ferver) have always gone hand in hand. It seems odd that we would have a place for religion in establishing freedoms, but not in preserving and continuing them.

That being said, conservatives can't ignore the portion of the party that is using religion to restrict liberties. I don't necessarily disagree with the result of what religious conservatives propose in some cases, but I disagree with making the argument on purely religious motivations. I can make arguments in favor of accepting things like Prop 8 or establishing more restrictions on abortion without getting into the saving of souls. They'll be long and convoluted arguments, but I can still make them.

It just strikes me as somewhat amusing that the response of feeling like the GOP isn't "big tent enough" is to want to start your own small tent party. Where do conservatives like me who truly do want a big tent fit in?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I was just looking for a further explanation of what you meant by no government involvement in healthcare. It seems to me that few people would want NO government involvement, so I was just wondering how far you wanted a free-market healthcare system to go.

My position isn't so much a financial one as alegal and legislative one. The government should not and IMO cannot make laws regarding how anyone elects to deal with their body. Be that choosing to not treat a given illness, abortion, pretesting in utero, and other invasive privacy issues. The government must support the system financially in SOME way, I'm certianly not sure just how MUCH they should do. I am not a fan of government run health care. I served in the Navy, those hospitals sucked...

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It just strikes me as somewhat amusing that the response of feeling like the GOP isn't "big tent enough" is to want to start your own small tent party. Where do conservatives like me who truly do want a big tent fit in?

Its called the Democratic party. *chuckles*

I for one love a lot of the ideas bouncing around the chief rum thread.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

One thing I would love to see from a GNP. No, not a loyalty pledge. A MORALS pledge. If they get convicted of any politically related crime or have an adulterous affair while in office, not only will they resign, but they should have their pension plan taken from them. Too many folks (on both sides, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly running on a morals platform is a reason why the GOP is in trouble to start) think that holding office is an excuse to plunder the nation.

In general everyone should be taking this type of pledge. I think we can and should expect more out of our public officials. I mean, it's real bad on both sides, but the Republicans should be better than this. Where is the outspoken voice of reason in this party? It hasn't been the same since Newt got bounced, and really, he was far from a model citizen.

[st.cronin]

So is the modern whig party mostly ... veterans? That's what it seems like. Their website is kind of interesting, but I'm not sure I see the potential for growth beyond the fringe. What is the focus? What is the political need they fulfill?

One of the things that Ralph Nader used to say a lot (and maybe he still says it) is that there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans - and by and large he's correct, although what he's wrong about is that that's mostly not a bad thing. The country is not, despite what people say, divided. I've said it a few times on this board, but you actually have to strain pretty hard to see any real ideological differences between Obama and McCain. There is massive cultural variety within our borders, but in terms of governance I think its safe to say that most Americans, deep down, think that the way we do things works pretty well most of the time. This is, I think, why 3rd parties don't tend to do well - if the Green party or the Libertarian party ever actually came to power, America would really change, in ways that I don't approve of, and that you probably don't approve, either.

[stevew]

Time to restart the Bull Moose party

Holy shit....this was actually written 100 years ago?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/preside...rprogress.html

I mean, I didn't check it that closely, but you could use the majority of this platform today.

[stevew]

Just a few snips

The Old Parties

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.

From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican Party, and the fatal incapacity of the Democratic Party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.

Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.

Alaska

The coal and other natural resources of Alaska should be opened to development at once. They are owned by the people of the United States, and are safe from monopoly, waste or destruction only while so owned.

We demand that they shall neither be sold nor given away, except under the homestead law, but while held in Government ownership shall be opened to use promptly upon liberal terms requiring immediate development.

Thus the benefit of cheap fuel will accrue to the government of the United Stated and to the people of Alaska and the Pacific Coast; the settlement of extensive agricultural lands will be hastened; the extermination of the salmon will be prevented, and the just and wise development of Alaskan resources will take the place of private extortion or monopoly.

We demand also that extortion or monopoly in transportation shall be prevented by the prompt acquisition, construction or improvement by the Government of such railroads, harbor and other facilities for transportation as the welfare of the people may demand.

We promise the people of the Territory of Alaska the same measure of local self-government that was given to other American territories, and that officials appointed there shall be qualified by previous bona-fide residence in the Territory.