« Obama Injects Himself Into Big Georgia Senate Race | Home | Strategic Leaks Versus Unplanned Leaks »

Poll Data: GOP Fast Becoming Rump Party

If some new poll data is to be believed, the Republicans might be in for a long time in the wilderness. Let's take a look at the numbers.

The new Gallup poll shows that the Republican Party as an institution has a 61% unfavorable rating, with only 34% favorable. And the numbers have only gone downhill since the election -- in October they were at 40% favorable and 53% unfavorable.

But it actually gets worse for the GOP from there.

A separate question in the data set showed 59% of Republicans saying the party needs to be more conservative, compared to only 12% who say the party should be less conservative. So not only is the pool of Republican voters shrinking, but the ones who remain are really nuts.

We could be seeing the emergence of a pattern common in democracies, when a ruling party is turned out of power in a landslide: The folks who are left to pick up the pieces are often the most extreme elements, and are in fact the least fit to actually clean things up. The best examples of this are probably the UK Labour Party after they were beaten by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the Conservative Party after Tony Blair finally ousted them in 1997, and over here the Democrats when they lost in 1980 and then nominated Walter Mondale in 1984.

Hmm, can anyone say Palin/Bachmann in 2012?


105 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Eric, I especially enjoyed your "really nuts" comment, well done!

user-pic

It made me laugh too, just not for the same reason.

user-pic

I'm sorry -- are you implying that the administration of the last eight years has not been really nuts?

user-pic

...are you impling that the administration of the last eight years has been conservative?

user-pic
...are you impling that the administration of the last eight years has been conservative?

Criminal is more the word that comes to mind.

People speaking for the Republican Party are saying that the party needs to let voters know what they stand for. Where were they the past eight years? They seemed perfectly content to go wherever Bush led them and to support his policies. Now the results of his policies are clear, they are repudiating them. I don’t buy it.

user-pic

...not repudiating Bush or his policies. Just pointing out that he's not a conservative Republican. Neither is McCain.

user-pic

Neither was the b-movie actor.

user-pic

Perhaps the Republicans will finally realize that their most successful presidents have been moderates, and send the preachers back to their churches.

user-pic

Lay off on SFCWallace.

SFC is one of those stalwart members of the 'Republican Base' for whom the nasty thought that two terms of Bush/Cheney have been a disaster for the nation is only now surfacing, like a turd in a public pool.

After voting for him twice, SFC now sees with clarity that Bush must be a Republican impostor. Maybe Bush is a liberal in disguise. No doubt many former right-wing cheerleaders for Bush/Cheney take this hypocritical and self-righteous view.

user-pic

Typically incoherent.

You're "conservative". You're betrayed and outraged that the Bushit criminal enterprise (not a problem for you) isn't "conservative".

You hate it that it isn't "conservative," because it didn't pursue "conservative" policies, but you support, defend, and don't reject -- or "repudiate" -- those policies.

In sum, you're the perfect representative of "conservative": incoherent, another correct term for which being "blathering".

user-pic

Then would you finally explain to me once and for all, what is a real conservative? Frankly I keep hearing that, but no one ever explains what it means.

user-pic

It claimed to be "conservaitve". And its supporters and defenders claimed it to be "conservative". And voted for it becaise "conservative".

It is only since the consequences of the policies and actions began coming home to roost that those who supported and defended them -- you being one -- turned face and ran the other way, and only when feeling defensive about your prolonged stupidity attacked that they'd all along supported and defended -- and for which voted.

And that is the current synonym for "conservative" chickenshit lemming: hypocrite.

How's that flag lapel-pin doing ya?

user-pic

I'd love to see a question that asks people to define "conservative". I bet the spectrum is fairly wide; even among Republicans.

user-pic

However, they are well defined in their conservative views as a party, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-war, and so forth. Therefore, expressing a desire to be more conservative is pretty striking, and frightening, actually.

user-pic

= firmly in the camp of the religious right.... which is also getting more conservative as they kick out or lose the sane church members they oppose.

user-pic

The old coalition was guns, God, and ... something... military?

Social conservatives are still the strongest with their anti-abortion, anti-gay positions but there seems to be a split happening with issues like science (versus creationism), the environment, and even the war. It isn't as cut and dry as it was 15 years ago.

Fiscal conservatives have split too between pro-governing and anti-governing. This is a bigger deal than we realize.

There is also the Libertarian wing who are discontented (Ron Paul types.)

And then there is the whole realm of foreign policy; isolationists like Pat Buchanan or world domination like Dick Cheney; which way will the go?

They have splits and they aren't used to it. To make matters worse, they don't have a clear leader.

user-pic

If one defines conservatism as fiscal responsibility and "small" albeit effective government, then yes that party should be more conservative.
If one defines it as religioue right wing nuttery, well then they are "nuts"!

user-pic
If one defines conservatism as fiscal responsibility and "small" albeit effective government, then yes that party should be more conservative.

I've got to disagree with this mythological description of "conservatism". If Reagan was the standard bearer of this supposed brand of conservatism, then it fails its own definition. The government saw no shrinkage under Reagan, in terms of the total size of government. And Reagan's brand of fiscal conservatism was nothing more than "borrowing our way to prosperity". It's quite a feat to be able to quadruple our national debt in 8 years. Bush's "conservatism" managed to only double it.

user-pic

Gotta agree. The republican party really isn't conservative, it's reactionary. The historic definition of conservative does not apply. It really is annoying when they throw the word around and apply it to the b-movie actor. If you look at the true definition of conservative, the democratic party is more conservative than the republican party. It's mind boggling.

user-pic

It's called marketing.

Darren Stevens was the first true Republican.

user-pic

Marketing. Branding. "Appearances" rather than substance! The emperor without clothes.

user-pic

Ours is not to question, or to reason why; ours is to simple-mindedly claim to be "conservative" as were told we are by those who claim to be "conservative" and with whose underlying hatefulness we identify.

To be accurate: when the current "conservatives" claim to be 'conservative," substitute "reationary". And that is as polite one can be about it.

The original meaning of "conservative' pre-dates the Goldwater hoax: it meant "to conserve," as in Teddy Roosevelt and the National Parks system. It did not mean -- and the Founders/Framers never used the term -- "small gov't". The latter is from far-right anti-gum'mint lunatic fringe who never "got" the fact that the Founders/Framers expresssly stipulated that the gov't is WE THE PEOPLE, not instead -- in authoritarian Reaganite terms -- a foreign entity.

user-pic

Your example about Mondale leaves one to wonder why only a mere 8 years later the Democrat won!
I think the answer is H. Ross Perot. W/o this viable third party candidate Clinton was a likely loser.

user-pic

I totally agree with you on this point.

user-pic

Hi amelie, I agree as well. Mr. bill would never have won without big ears.

user-pic

Hi Michael :) How sweet it is these days!

user-pic

Truly amazing. It is a new day and we finally have a bright future, notwithstanding all the huge problems right now. I actually feel good about where we are going with obama at the helm.

user-pic

My original mention of Mondale wasn't clear enough, I've fixed it.

I mean Mondale as the poster boy for unelectable jokers that get nomianted by parties who are just beginning their wilderness years.

It took Labour 18 years to come back in Britain. It'll take at least 12 years for the Conservatives to come back, depending on how the next election goes. And it took the Democrats 12 years to come back after Reagan's big win in 1980.

user-pic

Eric: "It'll take at least 12 years for the Conservatives to come back"

I personally don't think they will come back, at least not in the cloak they wear today. The world is changing very quickly and the next generation is viewing "conservatism" in a totally different way. I just don't see them making a comeback from where we are now which is pretty in the middle.

user-pic

The concentration of wealth is a relentless force.

user-pic

Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and I share your hope that the GOP will spend at least the next 12 years in the wilderness. (Dare we hope for 20 years as was the case from 1932-1952?) But I still have to take issue with your characterization of Mondale as a "poster boy for unelectable jokers..." He was definitely lacking in the charisma/communication department, but he was not an extremist at all, and he was a smart, substantive leader who kept his human decency. I am quite certain he would have been a very effective mainstream president, which is not something one can say for the Goldwaters or Palins of the world.

user-pic

>It took Labour 18 years to come back in Britain. It'll take at least 12 years for the Conservatives to come back, depending on how the next election goes. And it took the Democrats 12 years to come back after Reagan's big win in 1980.

It took much longer than that for the Dems to come back.

First, you use the example of a party losing by landslide, and cite Reagans victory in 1980. But Nixon whooped McGovern in 1972, by, if I remember correctly, an even bigger margin. If you consider Carter an anomaly (do you really think he would have won without watergate?), and, as someone else pointed out, Clinton wouldn't have won without Perot, either. And despite Clinton as pres. for 8 years, the Dems weren't running congress, so

So, by that count, it has taken the Dems 36 years to come "back from the wilderness".

user-pic

Mondale wasn't a "joker" -- 20something flip pseudo-cleverness notwithstanding. That he was "unelectable" was the times not the candidate.

user-pic

Totally wrong--Clinton would have won in 92 without Perot, he may not have won certain states (Montana, Georgia, New Hampshire) but he would have won, he led significantly in the polls before Perot re-entered the race, and the exit polls showed Perot drew evenly from Bush and Clinton.

user-pic

Obama isn't helping them either by reaching out to Republican moderates and non-ideologues. It's sounds like Obama is going to run a moderate Republican Foreign Policy and a Moderate Democrat Domestic/social policy which is where I think solid majority of the country finds itself.

user-pic

My gut says that Jonze is right on target here.

user-pic

Obama's genius, if he can pull it off, is that by running a "moderate Republican Foreign Policy" it eventually ceases to be "Republican" at all and just becomes Democratic.

In other words, Obama is willing and seemingly determined to co-opt the traditionally perceived strengths of the Republican party (defense, fiscal responsibility), while leaving behind the failures (social policy).

user-pic

I just heard that scowcroft from bush I is advising obama on his foreign policy team. That's huge. Bush I had probably the best foreign policy of the last 50 years or so. Maybe obama can send baker to syria and iran and knock some heads. That would be a smart move. Also, it would evidence that we speak as a country with one voice regardless of party. The end of the king cannot come soon enough.

user-pic

I see it here in Kentucky every day. The wingnut freakazoids are taking this unequivocal rejection as a defining moment for "ril murkins."

They are literally hunkering down with weapons, waiting for the n****r hordes to come rampaging over the horizon.

By the 2012 Iowa caucuses, Palin will be out of the race because she's too liberal.

user-pic

That's worrying...not just in Kentucky, either. I went hunting this weekend here in Northern California, and there was a racist sign some yahoo had put up on the gated access point for the BLM land we were hunting on.

I immediately tore it down, but one of my hunting buddies (African American) asked for the sign as a souvenir, and said something about there being ignorant people everywhere. No kidding. God, I hate racism.

user-pic
The folks who are left to pick up the pieces are often the most extreme elements, and are in fact the least fit to actually clean things up. The best examples of this are probably the UK Labour Party after they were beaten by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the Conservative Party after Tony Blair finally ousted them in 1997, and over here the Democrats when they nominated Walter Mondale in 1984.

Interesting analogies, though I'm not sure your domestic example works. Mondale was hardly an extreme candidate, but he was ill-suited for the television age and was running against a popular incumbent in a year when the economy was going strong. Four years later, Dukakis was a poor candidate for a variety of reasons, but he was anything but an extremist ("this election is not about ideology, it's about competence" -- a line that will live in infamy).

The closest U.S. parallels are Goldwater in '64 and McGovern in '72 and in both cases, the party on the losing end of the landslide won four years later, albeit by nominating more centrist candidates. Hopefully, these versions of history won't repeat themselves, and instead the wingnuts will control a shrinking, increasingly irrelevant GOP for a decade or longer, rather than just for a four-year cycle.

user-pic

I don't know about your parallels. Goldwater is close, but society and the global situation was completely different in 68. Nixon was the law and order guy and people were worried about the country becoming lawless and were afraid. Republicans have been trying the be afraid mantra for the last two cycles and it didn't work. I doubt it will work in 2012. On mcgovern, carter won because of watergate. I don't forsee that type of situation with obama.

I actually think that we may be witnessing a situation from the 1800's when a party evaporates and a new party is formed. If the republicans stay on this same track, they will become irrelevant and they will shrink more and more until a new party comes around. I think the election of obama, an african american, really hurts big time the manner in which republicans won elections since the b movie actor. It shows that society has changed dramatically and they are being left behind. Unless they wake up, the republican party will cease to exist in ten years or so.

user-pic

Exactly my point, although much better stated. Totally agree.

user-pic
I actually think that we may be witnessing a situation from the 1800's when a party evaporates and a new party is formed.

I really hope you're right, though I'm skeptical that it will happen. I suspect what's more likely to occur is that after four, eight or 12 years of the Palins of the world, some less crazy people will come back, retake control of the party and put it back into power. There are too many wealthy, powerful forces that want a strong GOP -- and that will be pissed off by some Obama actions and policies -- to let the party fade into complete oblivion. The reality also is that events we can't predict will have a huge impact on all of this. If the economy continues to crater for the next three or four years or if some new international crisis emerges, anything can happen.

But all this cold water aside, there is ample reason for hope!

user-pic

They really have to completely change their platform in order to come back into relevancy. I hate to be crass, but their base is dying off. It may happen, but they do seem stick to the same gameplan, even when its a loser. I guess we shall see, but I don't see the way the republican party is currently configured and with their current agenda can expand outside the deep south and some plain states. The fact that there is not one republican congress person in New England speaks of huge problems for the party. In order to be successful, you cannot be a regional party, as glaringly revealed by the genius Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy and obama's campaign as well.

user-pic

I think at the Republican Governor meeting, there are definitely moderate Republicans who have no intention of letting the Palins of the party take the lead. As long as those like Pawlenty and Jindal refuse to walk away from the GOP, the Repub Party will remain around, although they will remain a minority party nationally as the two forces fight it out for the direction of the party.

user-pic

Yep, I agree there are moderate republicans, and actually mccain was somewhat of a moderate before he ran for the presidency. What happened to him? I would wager the same thing would happen to jindal and pawlenty at this juncture. I really think that they need to change their platform and some of the things they allegedly stand for. Also, they are not going to win another national election with drawing from minority groups, which their platform is totally against. They are turning into the old white people's party and that isn't going to fly in the future.

user-pic

By contrast, George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative," whatever the heck that was. He turned down the crazy talk and started stealing ideas from his opponent. it was a rather effective bait-and-switch on anyone who didn't pay much attention to his record (what there was of one) in Texas.

No, more conservative will only work if President Obama proves to be ineffectual, and he had given scant evidence of that during the transition period, silly gossip notwithstanding.

user-pic

As for Jindal, in my opinion, he is totally what is wrong with the Republican party. The guy's ideology is out to lunch.

user-pic

Damn, I missed. My comment to you was attached to the branch above yours. GW on the campaign trail - softened version of conservatism meant to appeal to independents and moderate Dems. GW in practice - quite different than that.

user-pic

I've been thinking along the same lines. Many people in the south will die republicans. You can change there minds. Then there are those who are waiting for Armageddon. It's find with them if the world is destroyed (global warming) since it is the path to their heavenly reward. They have no interest in resolving this big solutions since there solution is not earthly.

user-pic

I've been thinking along these lines, too. Things may need to get worse for the R's before they start to get better. Their biggest problem is that they're ideologues - reality has no meaning for them. They'll just keep ramming into the same wall because they're convinced it just can't be there.

The other problem for the R's is that despite what they say, America is not a center-right country; it's actually quite progressive. The founding of a Democracy in 1776 was a pretty progressive idea and that progressiveness continues to this day. It's in our political genes. Conservatives are a natural minority in America, and the only way they managed to grab power at all was by developing a coalition of Wall St. Republicans, religious zealots and neocons. Because it's a coalition of necessity, not of philosophy, none of the groups really buy into the other agendas, so it's an uneasy coalition, at best. Their problem now is that the religious zealots freak out most people, the neocons have been discredited and recent history has shown the fallacy in the Wall St. Republican agenda. So what have they got? All they've got is each other, and frankly, they deserve each other.

The truth is the way to salvage the Republican party is to blow up the coalition, but they won't do that until things get a lot worse for them.

user-pic

Yep. Agreed. Don't see it happening though. This op ed by a "conservative" was right on point:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html

I really don't want one party rule. I want the republicans to get their act together to keep the dems feet to the fire. I guess we will see what happens, but it's not looking good for republicans right now.

user-pic
Conservatives are a natural minority in America, and the only way they managed to grab power at all was by developing a coalition of Wall St. Republicans, religious zealots and neocons. Because it's a coalition of necessity, not of philosophy, none of the groups really buy into the other agendas, so it's an uneasy coalition, at best.

I don’t disagree with this, but couldn’t you make the same argument about the Roosevelt Democratic coalition? Southern Democrats, Progressive New-Dealers, labor unions, big-city machines, and minorities? That turned out to be a pretty uneasy coalition too.

user-pic

The difference is that because Americans are naturally progressive, conservative parties will always be in the minority unless they form coalitions. That doesn't preclude Progressives from forming coalitions, too, but they can usually form a majority if they can attract a relatively small number of independents.

user-pic

Good catch Eric! I was going to post on this poll over at red state - kind of curious what the GOPers think. It does seem like they are hell-bent out doubling down with failure.

But not all republicans are stupid. I wonder what will become of the smart ones? I don't believe democrats will actually accept them in such a way that they feel represented - so what happens to them?

They've got money, brains, and a philosophy. Just no party to support. I can't imagine they will just go away ... so where are they going? Wherever it is, they will probably get there without deadwood - so the democrats(carrying plenty of their own deadwood) should be wary.

This is a very volatile electorate. IMO democrats aren't as strong as polling might indicate. Take nothing for granted is my advice.

user-pic

This wasn't really supposed to be a reply ... but it sort of fits here.

user-pic

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR SARAH PALIN '12!!

user-pic

I will never get the images of her "turkey slaughter" background interview out of my mind. Worse.mistake.ever.

user-pic

In what respect, Amelie?

user-pic

A few minutes ago, I was wondering what SNL was going to do with this debacle. I was thinking, "my God, what can they do with it that tops the original?"

Then--and this may go over the head of some of you younger viewers--I thought of that footage of Bush I puking on the Japanese prime minister and of the SNL version with Dana Carvey.

Then I laughed.

user-pic

Par for the course. Think of it as a metaphor for Palinism. Remember "Bridge to Nowhere," the reformer who kicked out the corrupt politicians and later herself found guilty of ethics violation. She accused Obama of Palin' around with terrorist while she slept in bed with a US hating secessionist. With Palin there is always one thing going on in foreground and the opposite going on in the background.

user-pic

"...later herself found guilty of ethics violation."
Actually, she was exhonerated, but that's just those peky fact things...

user-pic

Wrong. Try again. They found that she committed ethical violations. It's them facts, you know.

user-pic

" Alaska's Personnel Board concluded Monday that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, contradicting an earlier investigation's findings."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/palin.investigation/

user-pic

PS...neither investigation said she violated ethics laws. The one by her political enemies said she didn't violate any ethics law but they felt she abused her power....Your turn.

user-pic
"...later herself found guilty of ethics violation." Actually, she was exhonerated [sic], but that's just those peky [sic] fact things...

The original, bi-partisan investigation initiated by the Alaska legislature found that she was guilty of breaking the law.

A second investigation by a board appointed by the governor (not Palin), cleared her of any wrongdoing.

Those facts are pesky, aren’t they?

user-pic

SO you have too investigations with too different results. And the second investigation releases its results on election day. Which one is right.

From Huff Post.

What they disagree about is whether Palin, her husband, and her staff had the right to hound Monegan about the firing of Wooten. The Personnel Board said that she did have the right; the Legislative Council's reading of the Alaska Ethics Act says she did not.

And hound they did. More than three dozen times in less than two years.

In the aftermath of Monegan's dismissal, Palin gave at least four different reasons for it--all of which seem spurious, at best, and concocted, at worst. And there is strong evidence contradicting every one of her four explanations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/half-baked-in-alaska-pali_b_144132.html

user-pic

You have competing reports. As far as I know, one doesn't outweigh the other.

However one was conducted by a by-partisan body made up of elected officials while the other was a body composed of all republicans appointed by the governor. I don't know who's right.

user-pic

The beautiful thing is that her neediness and nuttiness and the existence of you tube guarantee that she will continue to do this or similar routines over and over!

user-pic

2008: The Slaughter Of The Turkeys.

user-pic

Palin/Bachmann? How about Inhofe/Tancredo '12?

I think this may be what all those books about 2012 in the "Prophecy and Astrology" section of the bookstore are about.

user-pic

Palin-Bachmann was my dream ticket for 2012, but Inhofe-Tancredo might just top it. Hard to say which would be more fun to watch. Hm...maybe Bachmann-Tancredo!

user-pic
Palin-Bachmann was my dream ticket for 2012, but Inhofe-Tancredo might just top it.

What, David Duke is not available?

user-pic

...my early call is "Gingrich/Watts" (that's why Newt doesn't want the RNC job).

user-pic

Gingrich? You are kidding right. He of putting poor children in orphanages. Gingrich? Too funny. Gingrich isn't conservative either by the way. Too funny.

user-pic

I didn't say it was a dream ticket...just watching reports and listening to discussions. Newt could step in and take the RNC job if he wanted it, he's very popular within the party. He said he doesn't want it and backs Michael Steele for the job. I think it's because he wants a shot in 2012. BTW Newt Gingrich not a conservative?...

user-pic

Nope. Look up the definition.

user-pic

The new factor that has really emerged in the last few decades is the growing number of people who call identify themselves as "idependent." It is no longer an either/or decision, where many were Republican or Democrat simply because it was the better of the two (or the lesser of two evils. Both the Democrats and the Republicans will have to sell their brand more and more so each election cycle, as fewer and fewer people just vote the same party they've always voted. Right now it seems the Dems are selling solutions and the Repubs are selling ideology. If that continues, and if the Dems are able to make some positive changes, then the Repubs are in serious trouble.

user-pic

I really don't agree. A commenter about mentions the Goldwater-Nixon sequence, mentioning that the country's descent into lawlessness eased Nixon's victory, but then concludes that since appeals to fear have not worked for the GOP for the last two cycles, they will not work in 2012. This is quite mistaken. The determinant of what will work in 2012 is what will happen in 2012. And frankly, a great deal of that is not under Obama's (or the Democratic Party's) control. The economy simply may not prove susceptible to a stimulus package. The world may become a more dangerous place--perhaps another war might break out on Russia's periphery, or perhaps Israel might be attacked again. Doesn't matter exactly what happens--the point is, Obama may well not be able to stop it.

Well, what happens if things are bad in 2012 and the public's mood is sour? The Republicans will turn the Democrats out, pretty much regardless of what the Republicans are actually proposing. This is the extreme danger of a two-party system--the opposition pretty much always profits from bad conditions, whether those conditions are ones that politicians could reasonably be expected to ameliorate or not, and whether the opposition is likely to handle them better or not. For this reason, in a system like our own, it's pretty much always the case that you want to hope that the better angels of your opposition win out, because at some point, conceivably much sooner than you expect, they will be back in power. At that point, if the people leading them came up during a recent "virulent rump" period, your country is pretty fucked.

user-pic

Second sentence should read "[a] commenter above..."

user-pic

It depends. If Obama is largely successful in improving the economy changing the divisive culture of Washington, improving our posture and position in the world, and something wrong happens just about Sept-Oct of 2012, it may have little or no impact on the election.

One event alone can but will not necessarily flip an election.

user-pic

Yep, I agree with you. Let's hope and pray nothing radical happens in 2012. I was basing my assumption on that, but you know what they say about people who assume. I can't say it due to censorship.

Commentor from above.

user-pic

The Reagan Repubs created a Frankenstein monster by bringing in the loony Evangelicals. Now, as in every Frankenstein movie, the monster is determined to kill the monster-maker. They've been steadily taking over. Now after this lost election, which they think was lost because of the moderates - they want the party all to themselves. And they actually think that if they get it they stand a chance of winning and taking over the country.

In the last couple of years I thought the best thing that could happen to their party would be Giugliani or the 2000 McCain getting the nomination and having the wackos walk out for good. Even if they lost the election they'd potentially be viable again and be able to rebuild.

But they blew it. McCain had his chance - but by picking Palin he sealed the deal for the Christian Right to confirm their death grip on the entire party. If Obama proves to be successful - and popular - the Republican Party as we know it is doomed. MICHAEL A - you suggested a new party may emerge. I hadn't thought about that before but I think you could be right. There has to be a place for conservatives who aren't religious nuts. Maybe they can call themselves the Whigs.

user-pic

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

user-pic

Permanent Republican majority, anyone?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!

user-pic

I well recall David Brooks crowing over "a Republican Party in full."

Just before it began to tank....

Now the guy, just this morning, is crowing over Obama's terrific line-up - while trying to say he's not really excited.

Talk about trying to please his masters but make a living!

user-pic

Rove recently claimed that he never said permanent but said durable. I always heard permanent. Do you have a link to substantiate permanent?

user-pic

For what it's worth, I always heard permanent as well. That was the reason that he was pushing immigration reform, along with the king, to get the hispanic vote.

user-pic

I didn't mention Rove. It doesn't matter if Karl himself ever said it. Plenty of rightwingers embraced the term and dared to dream! Hugh Hewitt for one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597931/posts

user-pic

I know you didn't mention Rove. However, right or wrong, it has been attributed for a number of years to him.

user-pic

I first became aware of this "permanent majority" concept during the Reagan years, when I read about various Republican zealots expressing the idea. It is idiotic for either party to expect to achieve a "permanent majority". I think this is one of the faulty concepts that further degraded the Republican party under Bush and hastened their return to the minority. Hubris and megalomania leading to a fall. Like Forrest Gump's ma said, stupid is as stupid does!

user-pic

Wait, Wait.

I am seeing a lot of people calling the Republican party reactionary, or empty, no ideas, bankrupt, wilderness.

But Amageddon T Thunderbird has the greatest one line of the thread.
"The concentration of wealth is a relentless force."

Let's get this straight. The Republican Party is one thing. The Republican Officials, elected party members, operatives...are CORPORATE. They are not reactionaries or out of ideas. They are RELENTLESS.
They still operate all the levers of power, they just aren't fooling the populace at this time. They will again. We have all been burned in this country, time after time, by three-piece-suit types. And we always give them back their fiefdoms. Relentless. The Great Depression, caused by the 3Piece Gang, was enough to have us quaking in our boots for generations. But we forgot and were brainwashed and history was scrubbed and we watched with our drugged eyes, the same story unfold yet again.

They get 40 years in power, we get 4-8 in this country....and they usally destroy about 1/2 of our term. In other countries with longer histories, they get it for 200 years and the prols get it for 2. Relentless.

In a few places, a more agreeable detente has been reached, Social Democracy, when helmed by reasonable and responsible people.

So I would like to disabuse all of us from using any of the trite, old, nostalgic tags we used to hang on the Republicans. Sober, responsible, conservative, tight-fisted, bootstraps, protectionist, free-marketers....FOOEY!
They are pure Corporatists, at least their leaders are. They are not dead, and they are relentless.

user-pic

Exactly!! Let's hope the republican party is still around to be a magnet for the fringe wingers, haters and militarist, that is the best hope for keeping them marginalized and their corpratist politicians out of office.
But because "The concentration of wealth is a relentless force", we will be seeing the democratic party being infiltrated by more corpratist than they already are. We will be fooled again.

user-pic

"really nuts"

Is that a technical term? Very fitting.

user-pic

I have a friend who became conservative due to bad experiences with state regulations and regulators. After watching a charismatic televangelist in the 80s, he morphed from a get-government-off-my-back conservative to a full Rushdoony-loony dominionist who believes in creationism and thinks we were given a bunch of propaganda in our 1970s high school science classes. He believes that the earth is only 6,000 years ago and that the geologic features that have been dated by scientists as much older than 6,000 years were put there by God to fool us and keep us humble.
He thought Palin was a great choice for McCain's VP. His political opinions are echoes of Hugh Hewitt, who he recommended for me to listen to. He's done voice-over work for Dennis Prager's videos.
He's rapture ready whenever Jesus comes back to save the world.
He represents the future of the GOP.

user-pic


as long as people can earn money and spend it they are left alone.

if your friend was homeless he would be considered insane.

user-pic

One other thing that needs to be kept in mind as to the future of the GOP. Thanks to the current financial crisis, which will take a long time to recover from, the largest funding sources for the GOP are going to have far less to invest in politics.

Their largest contributors are likely to be the right-wing fundagelical religious groups, the NRA, and the defense industry [which will always support pro-war Republicans who are always careful to start a war or create some "threat" (Reagan's Star-Wars) that will vastly increase the defense budget].

If Obama can manage to even make a good start on turning the economy around, much of big business will want him to stick around just to keep it going. They may not contribute to his campaign, but they probably won't support any non-business Republican candidates.

user-pic

Not so sure. I think there will be relentless pressure to buy Dems now.
I think there may be fewer companies around, but overall influence-buying won't be on their list of cost-cutting. It has always paid the highest returns of any investments.

I think businesses lay off the racketeering and influence buying, a little, durning Dem administrations...because rising tides lift all boats. Dem administrations are fairer for all and generally improve life for the working class consumers. Corporations just benefit, without having to Pay to Play.

Watching a long, long playback of the Pay to Play video; perfected by reagan, buscch1, (some clinton), and buusch2 admins is a How-To for total annihilation of a healthy and vibrant economy. Only the well-placed, well-connected, and entirely fiendish survive. Corruption is standard, almost an ethic. Nothing is merit-based. A mockery of supply and demand and market-laws.

Maybe everyone will be glad for a break, behave more responsibly, do a little housecleaning and repair of their damaged systems.

user-pic

Eric - While I agree that the Republican Party has many things in common with a rump, I don't think we can assume that all those saying they want the Party to become "more conservative" are the nuts. The word conservative is very malleable. To one Republican it means tax cutting, but to another it means balancing the budget. One thinks it means theocracy while another thinks it means absolute individual freedom. This malleability masked the contradictions within the Reagan coalition. Now that the coalition is fracturing, each sub-group (the relatively more nuts and the relatively less nuts) will fight for ownership of true conservatism.

user-pic

64 / 72 landslides: the landslide party screwed up. The Vietnam War for Johnson, and Watergate/inflation/Nixon pardon for Ford.

32 / 80 landslides: the landslide party did well in the eyes of voters and bigger landslides, and realignment in general, followed.

If Obama and the Dems screw up, it's 1968 and 1976 again. We'll be talking about the GOP "miracle comeback". And they'll be laughing at us.

If Obama and the Dems do well, it's 1936 and 1984 again. That'll take the Iraq War over; Afghanistan is OK; the economy on the rebound; and, healthcare reform and the start of a green economy/rational energy plan are in place.

I don't think this country is particularly ideological: neither liberal nor conservative. It's pragmatic, even selfish. If people feel like they and the country are better off with one party or the other, that's how they'll vote. At least that 20% or so in the middle that usually decide elections.


user-pic

Remember the Whigs?

Neither do I... they were extinct long before any of us was born. But they went through throes of self-destruction in some ways similar to what the Republicans have done, particularly their dependance on southern srtates for political power.

Republicans are reaching third-party status in record fashion. Now that the no-bid, book-cooking neocon CEO's who hijacked the party of Lincoln and turned it into the party of Bush are through, the GOP looks like an elephant graveyard.

And now that the misguided fundies are following their new Pharisees into political perdition, what remains of the GOP looks more like a dead moose than an elephant skeleton.

Like I have said before, if you want to have even a small concept of what happened to the Republican Party, think about George "Macaca" Allen, Bill "Catgut" Frist, Rick "Dog Love" Santorum, Bop "Fore-play" Ney, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, Duke "The Skipper" Cunningham, Tom "Hot Tub" Delay, John "take my wife" Doolittle (Coleman's next title), thd list just goes on and on.

How long will it take the R's to descend from third-party fringe status to whig-party extinction? That all depends on where the rift between the fundies and the corporate factions splits the party. If they do split in 2012 (Bull Mooose party redux) we may see the Republicans become a regional party, making their last stand in state legislatures like Oklahoma, Idaho, Alabama, and sadly, Kansas.

And even there, if they don't start protecting their constituents instead of corporate interests, they will fade away, like dust in the wind.

user-pic

The problem here is Bush was neither .... Bush was an unintelligent puppet purposely set into position by the powers of Big Business. In actuality he was never legally voted in. Once the courts gave it him ... the last was a gift from Diebold. As for his followers ... there really wasn't any, they were automatically voting "rubber stamp method" for thePARTY.
Anything to keep the PARTY in power.
Very, very sad picture of human behavior.

user-pic

This last full tilt looting operation is the combined behavior of 30+ years planning.
They got what they wanted.
The name/s they have used is not even part of the discussion.
Criminal activity is criminal.
8 years of crime does not need another name.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address