Fundraising for 2019/2020: 12 Months Renewed - We are good until October 2020. Paypal Donation Link Here

Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39251
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:05 am

Would you say the show is not "hard" to get into?
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Max Peck » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:17 am

hepcat wrote:Would you say the show is not "hard" to get into?
That depends on whether or not you have a Gibson Girl fetish.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zarathud » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:54 pm

Hepcat has a Bea Arthur fetish. So, yes.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39251
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:28 pm

Why do you trivialize my feelings for Bea?
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34833
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:11 pm

A few days ago I read a column that purported to explain why Republicans keep sliding farther and farther to the right. The gist of it went like this:

The Republican Party is an ideological party that believes in small government and low taxes above all else. When they lose an election, it's because they weren't ideologically pure, so they move farther to the right. When they win office and fail to shrink government (which is virtually always), their voters accuse them of not being ideologically pure enough and demand more extremism.

Democrats, OTOH, are a coalition of groups with specific objectives. When Democrats lose an election, it's because they appealed to the wrong groups or failed to turn out their voters or backed the wrong programs. Democrats react to losses by rebalancing their interest groups or promising more stuff to more people.

This is why Republicans try to out-conservative one another while Democrats don't dwell on liberalism as a philosophy or even self-identify as such.

One party pragmatically tries to advance the agendas of disparate interest groups while the other is ideologically bound to block them. When Democrats fail, they blame tactics. When Republicans fail, they blame ideological impurity.

I thought that was an interesting perspective.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21823
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:51 am

Yep. And It didn't used to be this way, either.

I know I keep harping on this, but the modern GOP was established on new-found Southern strength in reaction to the Civil Rights movement. Reagan wedded this new base to full-blown opposition to government, and Newt Gingrich solidified it by declaring Congressional war on a sitting president in ways that really hadn't been done in modern times. The grounding for all of this is ideological rather than practical. Ideology is the promise the party makes to its members.

The tension between the ideological purity and national electability gives rise to the pattern Kraken laid out above. Ideology is successful in local races (especially with gerrymandering), but it doesn't win you the White House. When the time comes to choose a presidential candidate, the compromise nominee might win or lose, but in the end he never seems Republican enough: Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, all three Bushes.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by GreenGoo » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:37 am

The last 16 years (close enough) have been split down the middle. So they were ideologically pure enough during Bush's terms?

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zarathud » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:28 am

President George W. Bush offered a relief from Clinton, 10 years of tax cuts, another war on Iraq, a new war on terrorists, school testing, oil drilling, and social conservatism. Any ideological impurities were swept under the rug. You can't get more Republican than the son of the former President who rebuilt the modern GOP after Nixon with Karl Rove and then served under Reagan.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34833
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:09 am

GreenGoo wrote:The last 16 years (close enough) have been split down the middle. So they were ideologically pure enough during Bush's terms?
You'd think that winning two national elections would be a Yes. But he expanded the government and ran up the biggest deficit ever, so Hello Tea Party.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:28 pm

Zarathud wrote:President George W. Bush offered a relief from Clinton, 10 years of tax cuts, another war on Iraq, a new war on terrorists, school testing, oil drilling, and social conservatism. Any ideological impurities were swept under the rug. You can't get more Republican than the son of the former President who rebuilt the modern GOP after Nixon with Karl Rove and then served under Reagan.
You forgot Medicare part D
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34833
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:13 pm

Inside the GOP Clown Car is an entertaining and occasionally insightful look at the GOP field's attempts to out-crazy one another. (Spoiler: Blame Trump.)
Politics used to be a simple, predictable con. Every four years, the money men in D.C. teamed up with party hacks to throw their weight behind whatever half-bright fraud of a candidate proved most adept at snowing the population into buying a warmed-over version of the same crappy policies they've always bought.

Pundits always complained that there wasn't enough talk about issues during these races, but in reality, issues were still everything. Behind the scenes, where donors gave millions for concrete favors, there was always still plenty of policy. And skilled political pitchmen like Christie, who could deftly deliver on those back-room promises to crush labor and hand out transportation contracts or whatever while still acting like a man of the people, were highly valued commodities.

Not anymore. Trump has blown up even the backroom version of the issues-driven campaign. There are no secret donors that we know of. Trump himself appears to be the largest financial backer of the Trump campaign. A financial report disclosed that Trump lent his own campaign $1.8 million while raising just $100,000.

There's no hidden platform behind the shallow facade. With Trump, the facade is the whole deal. If old-school policy hucksters like Christie can't find a way to beat a media master like Trump at the ratings game, they will soon die out.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:37 pm

CallBuzz takes a look at a "Reasonable Republican":
GOP conundrum Here’s Duf’s challenge: While he’s an economic and foreign policy conservative (he opposed the Iran nuclear deal, for example), he’s essentially pro-gay marriage, favors a pathway to legality for undocumented immigrants, opposes further offshore oil drilling, takes a libertarian stance on abortion rights and wouldn’t shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood and, perhaps most politically perilous of all, believes – gasp – in actually governing...

...Bottom Line: Duf Sundheim is a thinking person’s Republican. We’re just not sure there’s a thinking person’s party out there on his side of the aisle.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 61358
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:54 pm

I'd like to know more about his economic and foreign conservatism. He passes, can you send him here, please?

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:40 pm

LordMortis wrote:I'd like to know more about his economic and foreign conservatism. He passes, can you send him here, please?
Some tidbits from the article:
He wouldn’t immediately repeal Obamacare, for example, but he’d like to replace it with a system based on medical care, not medical insurance controlled by Washington.

His biggest concern is that the economic system is not working for average, working Americans – “people with full-time jobs, stagnant wages and rising costs” who are being squeezed by a system that doesn’t work for them.

He’d like to resurrect the community bank system, make it easier for small businesses to depreciate capital equipment and “encourage job growth in the U.S.” (although exactly how he’d do that is still rather fuzzy). Of one thing he’s certain: “The middle class is being hollowed out.” And he’d be dedicated to reversing that.

He says he’s for clean air and water, but he also argues that some environmental regulations go too far (like EPA regulations on truck emissions, for example) and that the feds could do more to help streamline development of manufacturing plants and keep gasoline taxes from overwhelming small businesses.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 9271
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Jaymann » Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:18 pm

I have been wondering why, if the Republicans can't come up with a decent presidential candidate and their ideology is bankrupt, do they control both houses of Congress? I think what voters hear is similar to what a dog hears when it's owner is speaking:

"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah, blah blah, lower taxes, blah blah blah, blah, blah, blah."
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zarathud » Thu Sep 17, 2015 1:28 pm

Gerrymandering districts based on demographics makes for uncontested elections. All you have to do is avoid a primary contest.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34833
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:08 pm

Zarathud wrote:Gerrymandering districts based on demographics makes for uncontested elections. All you have to do is avoid a primary contest.
That explains why the House is a lock until at least 2022, after the next census. It doesn't explain statewide Senate elections. For that, you have to invoke Democratic voters who only turn out for presidential elections; by that reasoning, the Senate will flip in '16.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:22 pm

Kraken wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Gerrymandering districts based on demographics makes for uncontested elections. All you have to do is avoid a primary contest.
That explains why the House is a lock until at least 2022, after the next census. It doesn't explain statewide Senate elections. For that, you have to invoke Democratic voters who only turn out for presidential elections; by that reasoning, the Senate will flip in '16.
Also that all of the Democrats from Red States who swept in on Obama's Coattails in '08 didn't hold in '14 - which was primarily a Red State Senate year. If Obama had been a bit more of salesman and not a policy President, maybe the Democrats don't lose as many - but he's more the type to go quietly about his business, and he really needed to do a better job of selling what he was doing on the job (in addition to actually doing it).

If you look back to '08, he has accomplished an awful lot of what he said he would set out to accomplish, despite the complete lack of cooperation from across the aisle.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:29 pm

Back to the 21st Century GOP reaping what it has sown:
Today the Republican Party has two choices before it: It can either reform itself, or fracture and surrender to the Troll Party.

Let me explain what I mean. The Troll Party’s central characteristic is an ever tightening spiral of self-reinforcing and self-referential purity tests that makes communicating with anyone beyond the febrile and furious a nearly impossible task. The people pushing for this transformation aren’t a majority yet, but when a virus infects the body politic, its minuscule size belies its massive impact.

That’s what is happening inside the GOP, and why the disease vector, in the form of Donald Trump, puts the entire conservative movement at risk of being hijacked and destroyed by a bellowing billionaire with poor impulse control and a profoundly superficial understanding of the world. The Troll Party puts nationalist, anti-establishment bluster before the tenets of our constitutional republic.

So who comprises the Troll Party? Some of them are a distaff faction of the Tea Party, angry that the leadership in Washington doesn’t pursue their agenda with the bloody-mindedness and tempo they demand. Many are angry that the GOP lost to Barack Obama twice and, in their minds, allowed through action or inaction a set of economic, social, and cultural changes that make them feel powerless. ..

...Others are reality television viewers who don’t get the artifice and irony, even after almost two decades of the form. Some are walking, talking comments sections of the fever swamp sites. Some are your aunt or mom, sending the long, rambling chain emails about Obama’s birth certificate with multiple forwards, fonts, colors, and glittery eagle gifs. Some pose as strict Constitutionalists, loyal unto death to the founders, except when Trump is talking.

Some of the dregs of the creepier neighborhoods of Reddit, Voat, and 4chan have joined for the lulz. The Troll Party looks at the kooks, the overt white supremacists (oh, pardon me, “race realists”), neo-Nazis, flaming anti-Semites, birthers, truthers, Jade Helmers, chemtrailers, and assorted other conspiracy whackjobs in their midst and shrugs it off with a grin.

The same people who viewed Obama’s long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers or the endorsement of his candidacy by assorted Panthers, commies, cranks, and graying 1960s revolutionaries as disqualifiers for holding the presidency are now largely silent as David Duke and company board the Trump Train...

...The contagion hasn’t infected the entire GOP, not by a long shot. But it’s spreading. The traditional elements of limited-government fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense hawks are still there. But the Troll Party screams louder, and its members have reached a point where they are more than content to watch the world burn around them if they don’t get their way, right this minute...

...It’s pointless to try to explain to Troll Party members that they’re blind to the tensions and realities of how the world, humanity, and Washington actually function. It’s impossible to explain to them that politics is transactional. That’s not a defense of Washington as it is but a description of its dysfunction. They ascribe Washington’s nature not to their own contradictory desires (“Keep the Government’s Hands Off My Medicare!”) but to conspiracy and contempt...

...The shift is evident online and on conservative radio. Hosts increasingly aren’t drawing an ideological contrast with the Democrats or liberals, even though they’re in the most target-rich environment of the last decade. They’ve taken to whipping the Troll Party into a daily frenzy, driving home the message over and over that somewhere there is an establishment of people in their own ideological and political movement or party who hate them and seek to destroy them.
There is FAR too much truth in this article.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21823
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:28 pm

A pair of amazing charts comparing the ideological make-up of the House of Representatives in 1967 and today.

Linked from Daily Kos, which is obviously a liberal site, but the numbers tell their own story.

First the GOP:

Enlarge Image

And now the Dems:

Enlarge Image

And it should be remembered that the Democrats of the late 1960s were a mixed party with many Southern conservatives still on board. The Dems "became more liberal" simply by jettisoning their own right wing.
That's what we see in the dramatic figure above: The most liberal Republicans of today occupy the same ideological space as the most conservative Republicans of the 1960s.
Put another way, if Democrats had lurched as far to the left as Republicans have to the right, Bernie Sanders would have been more conservative than almost the entire Democratic Party back when he was serving in the House.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.


User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:02 pm

A pretty bad 24 hours for the 21st Century GOP Witch hunts. Both Benghazi! and the IRS investigations are shown to be complete duds in terms of scandal! and shown to be complete political witch hunts.

Maybe, along with the Speaker mess, the GOP is at a turning point where an increase in their sanity stats are possible...
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Max Peck » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:05 pm

Pyperkub wrote:A pretty bad 24 hours for the 21st Century GOP Witch hunts. Both Benghazi! and the IRS investigations are shown to be complete duds in terms of scandal! and shown to be complete political witch hunts.

Maybe, along with the Speaker mess, the GOP is at a turning point where an increase in their sanity stats are possible...
Or... It just may be the opportune moment to double down.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zarathud » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

I expect Carson will surge on the momentum of OUTRAGE!
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Holman
Posts: 21823
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Approximately Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman » Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:33 pm

Pyperkub wrote:Maybe, along with the Speaker mess, the GOP is at a turning point where an increase in their sanity stats are possible...
More likely they are riding this train all the way to R'lyeh.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 34833
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:
Kraken’s avatar
Offline

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Kraken » Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:34 pm

And yet nearly half of Americans keep voting for them. I don't know if that's a bigger indictment of the electorate or the D Party.

When you live in a declining empire, maybe crazy is the way to go.

User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Max Peck » Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:52 pm

Kraken wrote:And yet nearly half of Americans keep voting for them. I don't know if that's a bigger indictment of the electorate or the D Party.

When you live in a declining empire, maybe crazy is the way to go.
"The people are never wrong." - S. Harper
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26885
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Rip » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:06 pm

Kraken wrote:And yet nearly half of Americans keep voting for them. I don't know if that's a bigger indictment of the electorate or the D Party.

When you live in a declining empire, maybe crazy is the way to go.
It is a strategic move. Swerve towards anarchy and since only crazy right wingers have kept their weapons they take over.

:ninja:

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19374
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Pyperkub » Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:59 am

Hmm - the problem isn't even just the Freedom Caucus. 538 breaks it down:
House GOP factions in 2015

51 “Dependables”: voted with leadership all five times
39 “Allies”: voted with leadership four of five times
51 “Helpers”: voted with leadership three of five times
53 “Skeptics”: voted with leadership two of five times
25 “Agitators”: voted with leadership one of five times
11 “Rebels”: voted with leadership zero of five times

Note: 17 Republicans didn’t cast enough votes to be counted in one of the above groups.

Most House Republicans aren’t simply “establishment” backers or “tea party” rebels. In fact, the plurality in the middle belongs to what The New York Times has dubbed the “Vote No, Hope Yes” caucus. These Republicans vote strategically with the leadership just enough of the time to jockey for plum committee assignments, but they voted against Boehner enough to shield themselves from a tea party primary back home.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 4731
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Alefroth » Sat Oct 24, 2015 2:50 am

Pyperkub wrote:Hmm - the problem isn't even just the Freedom Caucus. 538 breaks it down:
House GOP factions in 2015

51 “Dependables”: voted with leadership all five times
39 “Allies”: voted with leadership four of five times
51 “Helpers”: voted with leadership three of five times
53 “Skeptics”: voted with leadership two of five times
25 “Agitators”: voted with leadership one of five times
11 “Rebels”: voted with leadership zero of five times

Note: 17 Republicans didn’t cast enough votes to be counted in one of the above groups.

Most House Republicans aren’t simply “establishment” backers or “tea party” rebels. In fact, the plurality in the middle belongs to what The New York Times has dubbed the “Vote No, Hope Yes” caucus. These Republicans vote strategically with the leadership just enough of the time to jockey for plum committee assignments, but they voted against Boehner enough to shield themselves from a tea party primary back home.
ftfy

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 7302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Little Raven » Sat Oct 24, 2015 10:56 am

I've been so trained by the internet that I read that 3 times looking for the 'fix' before I found it.

It never occurred to me that you were actually just fixing something.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."

User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 4731
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Alefroth » Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:41 pm

:ninja:

User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 18250
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:23 pm

Funny but pathetic story today in the WSJ. Paul Ryan was meeting with some Republican lawmakers to try and convince them to support to Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. These lawmakers told him they were against it because they thought it was too easy on China. Ryan had to explain to them that China was not part of the pact :doh: :grund:
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 61358
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:11 am

Grifman wrote:Funny but pathetic story today in the WSJ. Paul Ryan was meeting with some Republican lawmakers to try and convince them to support to Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. These lawmakers told him they were against it because they thought it was too easy on China. Ryan had to explain to them that China was not part of the pact :doh: :grund:
Paul Ryan is either ignorant of what the TPP is doing or he is obfuscating. The TPP will allow member countries to label things as originating in their countries while allowing them to be mostly build in non member countries.

We won't know the greater details until there is a large public review but here is an example in my industry:

http://www.strtrade.com/news-publicatio ... 91515.html

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22935
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by RunningMn9 » Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:19 am

LordMortis wrote:Paul Ryan is either ignorant of what the TPP is doing or he is obfuscating.
Or he knows that the TPP can't be harder on China, because China is not a member of the TPP. I suppose you could suggest that the agreement could be harder on member countries in their dealings with China - but then there wouldn't be a TPP. And while that might be fantastic for LM, not having a TPP is probably not one of the stated goals of the 12 nations involved in negotiating the TPP.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 61358
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis » Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:33 am

RunningMn9 wrote:Or he knows that the TPP can't be harder on China, because China is not a member of the TPP. I suppose you could suggest that the agreement could be harder on member countries in their dealings with China - but then there wouldn't be a TPP. And while that might be fantastic for LM, not having a TPP is probably not one of the stated goals of the 12 nations involved in negotiating the TPP.
If by LM, you mean the production of things in the US in an attempt to slow the gap between labor and children of the trust fund, um, yep, I guess?

User avatar
Max Peck
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Max Peck » Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:08 pm

What are the implications if any of the 12 countries fails to ratify the TPP? Would it still go into effect, just with fewer members, or it mean more rounds of negotiations? My guess would be that it depends on the country in question; the impact of losing the USA would be something different from losing Canada, for instance. With our new government, ratification here is not a given. The agreement was reached just prior to the election, and neither Trudeau nor Mulcair were briefed on it at the time. Trudeau has stated that he is pro-trade, but all that means is that he favours the idea of a trade pact in principle, but not necessarily the terms of this one. This puts us in the strange, if not unique, position of having a deal negotiated by one party that will need to be ratified by a different party with (on the surface, at least) a very different ideological position. It should be interesting to see just how that plays out here, even if it doesn't affect the bigger picture all that much in the end.
Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22935
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by RunningMn9 » Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:48 pm

LordMortis wrote:If by LM, you mean the production of things in the US in an attempt to slow the gap between labor and children of the trust fund, um, yep, I guess?
By LM, I mean you and the line of propaganda (true or false) that you've been fed.

My point is simply that those that are trying to negotiate the TPP obviously aren't going to try to not negotiate the TPP.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

malchior
Posts: 9350
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior » Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:32 am

Pyperkub wrote:Maybe, along with the Speaker mess, the GOP is at a turning point where an increase in their sanity stats are possible...
We'll see...we can only hope but meanwhile on the other side of Hazard County.

I particularly love the call to have a Speaker from outside Congress. Everyone in Washington is ... from Washington ... so bring in someone from outside of Washington ... because they won't be from Washington. :grund: In my mind. I don't think that is a nut we want to crack. If you really pursue it to an *very unlikely* end Congress could pick the President without a single vote being cast for that person.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Defiant » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:41 am

This thread probably deserves a resurrection, given the likelihood of a Trump candidacy (and the possibility of a realignment that's been raised by FiveThirtyEight), but I'm bumping it to post this article by a former Republican governor and senator.

This Congress, which will most likely be the last Republican Congress for some time, needs to use its majorities to lay down significant conservative policy markers.

If it does so correctly, a couple of these proposals might even make it to the president’s desk. There they will be vetoed, but at least they will have been put on the record — and into prominent public view.

These markers will also give Republicans a basis for rebuilding the party on strong, clear policies in the “post-Donald” or “post-Ted” period of resurrection.

Post Reply