Page 8 of 8

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:09 pm
by Defiant
Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?
How about...
Republican Party
/rəˈpəbləkən ˈpärdē/
noun
1. A political party that is primarily associated with blind support for Donald Trump. See Trumpism

2. (archaic) of, relating to, or constituting the one of the two major political parties evolving in the U.S. in the mid-19th century that is usually primarily associated with business, financial, and some agricultural interests and is held to favor a restricted governmental role in economic life

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:18 pm
by Smoove_B
I don't even know where to post this stuff anymore. Please do enjoy, comments from recently re-elected Representative Steve King:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
Amazing.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:22 pm
by Pyperkub
Smoove_B wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:18 pm
I don't even know where to post this stuff anymore. Please do enjoy, comments from recently re-elected Representative Steve King:
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”
Amazing.
sing-song "which one of these is not like the others?"

Dude's batting .333 - good in baseball, awful in History class.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:41 pm
by Skinypupy
King has always been a racist douche, so these comments are surprising at all.

What is disheartening is the fact that not a single other member of the GOP will call him out on it. Whether that's because they agree or because he's on "their side" doesn't make any difference. It needs to be called out.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:49 pm
by YellowKing
It's why I don't understand how NeverTrumpers like Bill Kristol can keep hanging on. I know they're probably thinking, "I can't fix my party if I abandon it" but come on. Your party is dead. Your'e not getting it back. There is no redemption.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:59 pm
by Pyperkub
Skinypupy wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:41 pm
King has always been a racist douche, so these comments are surprising at all.

What is disheartening is the fact that not a single other member of the GOP will call him out on it. Whether that's because they agree or because he's on "their side" doesn't make any difference. It needs to be called out.
But somehow it's AOC who is a complete idiot. They don't even bother anymore. :grund:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:01 pm
by Kraken
Republican Charlie Baker has come out with some bold (for a R) and forward-thinking policy proposals in the past few months, such as doubling the tax on new home sales to fund climate mitigation -- taxing real estate to protect real estate. Previously, he signed a payroll tax increase to pay for a generous new family leave benefit. This regular Globe columnist's essay made me think of this thread.
The most popular governor in America is essentially a man without a party to call home. He’s way too liberal for Republican primary voters, yet still much too conservative to get anywhere as a Democrat.
...
Baker’s no longer pretending this isn’t about revenue-raising. All it took was the confidence that comes with winning 1.7 million votes in last November’s gubernatorial election — and perhaps an acknowledgment that there’s absolutely no place for him anyway in today’s GOP. The party he signed up for is an ideologically rigid corpse, compliments of Trump and his crew of Republican enablers.
...
Still, when Trump’s GOP is finally dead and buried, someone will have to reinvent the party he destroyed. Why not someone like Baker? The country’s politics are already trending away from Trump’s base. According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, young people, including Republicans, are shifting left on social issues and on what they believe government should deliver. That next generation of voters will redefine both parties, or maybe decide to create a new one.

In the meantime, Massachusetts is an excellent laboratory for political experimentation, with maximum national exposure. Baker has not ruled out a third term. As he starts his second, he seems focused on building a legacy by trying to do right by Massachusetts.

Too bad his party wants nothing to do with that.
IDK if the R Party can ever be rehabilitated, at least not until my generation dies off...but if it can, people like Baker will come to the forefront.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
by pr0ner
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:34 pm
by malchior
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.
It often makes sense. It depends on whether they have national ambitions. If not, they can be very effective especially as centrists. If they get Presidential ambitions then the GOP centrist often turns into a ridiculous parody of themselves. See Chris Christie. He had the makings of a great governor until he got stars in his eyes.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:41 pm
by Enough
Why We Are Quitting RedState
For more than a decade, RedState was a solid voice in the world of online conservative commentary. Unfortunately, the allure of Trumpism has left the once great site a shell of its former self.
Though we continued on in the hopes the atmosphere might change, that approach is now untenable.

A cursory glance at the front page of RedState reveals the transformation that Salem wanted is now complete. There is no local editorial control. Decisions are made behind the scenes at Townhall and subject to its review.
We are conservatives. We believe in limited government, the free market, the Constitution, and protecting the rights of the unborn. We have therefore supported the Republican Party and believed in the Republican Party for years. But a healthy Republican Party cannot exist without a healthy conservative media; likewise, a toxic, poisonous conservative media is like a parasite for the conservative movement— and, make no mistake, it will eventually kill it.

We publish this with the hope that it serves to push the Republican Party and conservative media back to the ones we respected, admired, and believed in.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 pm
by Kraken
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
That's a good question. It would depend on his opponent. But he would probably have a shot at it. Boston, Cambridge, and the Berkshires are all reliably deep blue. There's a lot of purple and red outside those enclaves. Bill Weld is still popular here. Romney was popular in his Romneycare days, before he changed his stripes and made us a punchline. Baker is popular in part because he doesn't have Potomac Fever, so it's hard to say how opinions would change if he went that way.

We like Republican executives as a fiscal check on our Democratic legislature. One-party rule inevitably leads to excesses.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:51 pm
by Holman
Kraken wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
That's a good question. It would depend on his opponent. But he would probably have a shot at it. Boston, Cambridge, and the Berkshires are all reliably deep blue. There's a lot of purple and red outside those enclaves. Bill Weld is still popular here. Romney was popular in his Romneycare days, before he changed his stripes and made us a punchline. Baker is popular in part because he doesn't have Potomac Fever, so it's hard to say how opinions would change if he went that way.

We like Republican executives as a fiscal check on our Democratic legislature. One-party rule inevitably leads to excesses.
The question isn't whether a genuinely moderate/centrist Republican could win this or that state in the general but whether they could first win the national primary. It's hard to imagine that happening with today's GOP.

How could a Baker win the Southern and Western primaries?

An America in which Massachusetts gets to choose between Charlie Baker and (say) Kamala Harris is an America in which Trump's GOP has entirely ceased to exist.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:33 pm
by Kraken
Holman wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:51 pm
Kraken wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 pm
pr0ner wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:53 pm
It continues to amuse me that some of the most popular governors are Republicans in historically Democratic states.

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
That's a good question. It would depend on his opponent. But he would probably have a shot at it. Boston, Cambridge, and the Berkshires are all reliably deep blue. There's a lot of purple and red outside those enclaves. Bill Weld is still popular here. Romney was popular in his Romneycare days, before he changed his stripes and made us a punchline. Baker is popular in part because he doesn't have Potomac Fever, so it's hard to say how opinions would change if he went that way.

We like Republican executives as a fiscal check on our Democratic legislature. One-party rule inevitably leads to excesses.
The question isn't whether a genuinely moderate/centrist Republican could win this or that state in the general but whether they could first win the national primary. It's hard to imagine that happening with today's GOP.

How could a Baker win the Southern and Western primaries?

An America in which Massachusetts gets to choose between Charlie Baker and (say) Kamala Harris is an America in which Trump's GOP has entirely ceased to exist.
Well yeah, "when Trump’s GOP is finally dead and buried" was the premise.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:10 pm
by Holman
Kraken wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:33 pm
Well yeah, "when Trump’s GOP is finally dead and buried" was the premise.
Not just Trump's GOP, but Limbaugh's and Hannity's and whichever fascist goon leads the alt-right.

The current crop of NeverTrumpers will literally be dead before the GOP retreats from fascism.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:21 pm
by Defiant

For those who live in Mass., is Baker popular enough that, if he were the Republican nominee for President, he could win the state in the Electoral College?
I know nothing about Baker, but IIRC, the average home state advantage for a Presidential candidate is like +5% (and tends to be more pronounced in smaller states). With Democrats typically winning MA in recent presidential elections by like 25%, I would be very skeptical unless he were winning in a landslide anyway.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:03 pm
by Pyperkub
developments in the CA GOP
The California Republican Party elected Jessica Millan Patterson as its new chair Sunday, making her the first woman and first Latina to lead the 140-year-old organization.



Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:37 pm
by El Guapo
Baker as a Republican would stand a 0% chance of winning Massachusetts in 2020 (even in the fantasy world in which he could beat Trump in a GOP primary). He would do much better than most Republicans, and *might* have a shot if he's running against the reanimated corpse of Joseph Stalin, but otherwise presidential elections are too national / partisan these days, and Massachusetts is too blue.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:44 pm
by $iljanus
Baker is by no means anything close to Trump ideologically but the way the GOP in general has rolled over for this asshat in the presidency I think the GOP has a bit of work to do before I even remotely consider any GOP candidate for president.


Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:05 am
by Kraken
Well, Baker restated his complete lack of national ambition in no uncertain terms again yesterday, so that point is moot. For the moment, Bill Weld is the Republicans' only hope.
Weld is not careful, and never has been — a function, perhaps, of being so patrician that he never seemed to need a job at all.

And Lord, do we need not-careful now.

His critics say Weld is too flighty to be credible here, and it is fair to say he hasn’t been relevant politically for 20 years. “Even Benedict Arnold switched allegiances less often!” Trumpkin Jim Lyons, the chairman of the Massachusetts GOP, told the Globe’s Michael Levenson.

Weld has flitted around: He endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president in 2008, ran on the Libertarian ticket in 2016, spoke highly of Hillary Clinton near the end of that race, and is now back in the GOP. But ideologically — and on Trump — Weld has been consistent.

“As I said in 1992, I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom,” Weld said. “It has an antiquated ring to it, but it shouldn’t.”

Does it ever. Many of the things Weld believes are tantamount to heresy in Trump’s GOP, which is not so much a big tent these days as a shred of tattered canvas: Weld supports abortion rights, sees climate change as the emergency it is, abhors nativism, and wants to make it easier for immigrants to work here. Voters turned off by those views will find many more where they came from.

But Weld seems to reckon he can get around the red hat brigade. He’s banking for support on independent voters, who can cast Republican primary ballots in 20 states. He might make inroads in New Hampshire. A recent UMass Amherst poll found that 40 percent of likely Republican voters there believe Trump should be challenged in the 2020 primary, with support for a contest higher among college-educated and younger voters, and women.

But Weld must convince them he’s for real here, and not just making a statement.

“There’s no reason to run except to win,” he said. “I hope it doesn’t sound vainglorious, but I could start on Monday in that job.”

The knock on Weld is that he is vainglorious, that ego is driving him here. Maybe. But the fact remains that, right now, there is only one person willing to take on Trump, and to stand up against the disaster today’s Republican Party has wrought.

Whether he has a real shot or not, this is Weld’s finest hour.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:10 pm
by Holman

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:14 pm
by Holman
A propos...

Today I returned a major graded essay to my students. According to TurnItIn, I had one plagiarist, a kid who copied significant content from a website.

I planned to talk to him after class, but he didn't attend. Later I found his email apologizing for missing class: he was in D.C. with the rest of the College Republicans, attending CPAC.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:43 pm
by Zarathud
But he most assuredly did it all himself without any assistance (from society) and your calling him out will be liberal oppression and fake grades! Why should he take any personal responsibility?

Sigh. The worst thing about conservatism is its vocal supporters are so often hypocrites.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:15 pm
by Unagi
Holman wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 6:14 pm
A propos...

Today I returned a major graded essay to my students. According to TurnItIn, I had one plagiarist, a kid who copied significant content from a website.

I planned to talk to him after class, but he didn't attend. Later I found his email apologizing for missing class: he was in D.C. with the rest of the College Republicans, attending CPAC.
Oh, it's hammer time.
Enlarge Image