From the article, it seems they are just hanging around, waiting for public memory to fade, so they can blame the recession on Obama.

Quote :

"Another party wise man, Fred Malek, told POLITICO the party now sits at its “nadir” – though he, like others, said its best hope is to wait for the economy to tarnish Obama. ... “Our leaders’ arguments are falling on deaf ears today, but they are sound. It’s just a matter of time before this becomes Obama’s recession,” he said. "

In the mean time, they'll condem Rush and praise him, at the same time.

Quote :

""The 'Rushification' of the GOP is the natural and inevitable result of the fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership -- Republican elected officials and party officers -- are doing little to bring the party back," he said. "Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is no vacuum in nature as empty as the leadership of the Republican Party today." "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090305/pl_politico/19636

3/5/2009 10:03:59 AM

lol... They're trying to be fiscal conservatives again -- Fuck the GOP.
Any republican with half a brain will become a libertarian. I'm not sure how many republicans are that smart, though....



[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 10:12:00 AM

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : nvm]

3/5/2009 10:33:24 AM

During the Diane Rhem Show this morning, several of the commentators made a pretty good comparison with the Democrats after their rout in 2004. After that mess, there was a lot of questions about who was leading the party, what they were going to do, etc. Apparently those issues were sorted out pretty quickly.

While I'm skeptical about the Republicans because they have fewer potential leaders to tap (though for the Democrats, few in the beginning of 2005 might have expected Obama to be leading the Democrats by the end of 2008), I wouldn't count the Republicans out. One could say that for the Democrats, it took them a good four to six years before they managed to reinvent their party.

3/5/2009 2:12:52 PM

or you could argue that it took them twelve years or more.

3/5/2009 2:20:46 PM

As far as I'm concerned , the republican party can just stay in the wilderness. The last 8 years have demonstrated once again that they really are the party of Lincoln; war, big government, handouts to big business, self-righteous platitudes, empty rhetoric, nationalism, trampling civil liberties, and everything else that entails.

3/5/2009 3:08:15 PM

I would say that Obama owns the recession as much as Democrats asserted that Bush owned 9-11 (at least the cause of it) and the recession of 2000 which is to say, while there is some culpability in both parties neither is completely at fault...these assertions of problems that affect the entire country being the fault of one party are for stupid people to believe.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2009 3:15:27 PM

The GOP could get a lot more people to join if they stuck to a fiscal policy that's not as idealistic as the Libertarians, accepted science for the most part, and went back to their neutrality over abortion they had until the Reagan election and the rise of the Christian Coalition et al.

Unfortunately, the loudest activist voices will never let this happen.

3/5/2009 6:52:05 PM

There is nothing like piling on. Now it's Reagan's political director Ed Rollins, who is talking about the down and out Republican Party:

Quote :

"The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/rollins.republicans/index.html

3/5/2009 10:21:30 PM

the libertarians need to take off their ratty t-shirts and get serious about their candidates. this is the best opportunity they'll ever have.

I'm talking to you, Chris Cole. Go shave FFS:

3/5/2009 10:31:39 PM

What do you expect? Only internet neckbeards are socially naive enough to think being a libertarian is cool.

3/6/2009 9:55:38 AM

Quote :

"accepted science for the most part,"

you mean like how Obama "accepted science" by scrapping Yucca, something with 30+ years of scientific study behind it? Give me a fucking break. If "accepting science" means "bending to fraudulent studies on the climate," then I am happy to deny it

3/6/2009 11:36:41 AM

I would say that neither of the 2 things you just mentioned relating to science remotely compare to the blatant stupidity of trying to teach creationism

3/6/2009 12:38:51 PM

Quote :

"If "accepting science" means "bending to fraudulent studies on the climate," then I am happy to deny it"

what about recognizing the potential of stem cell research?

or not decrying the teaching of evolution?

or claiming that "homosexuality is a choice"?

or realizing that abstinence education doesn't work?

or caring about the dangers of any number of chemicals that somehow end up in food and water?

or even acknowledging that, yes, there is such a thing as man made climate change?

3/6/2009 12:54:22 PM

^ I'm more than happy to recognize all of the above factors you list, but it does seem like Obama is already picking and choosing just what science he wants to prevail in policy - case in point being Yucca.

3/6/2009 6:34:29 PM

yeah, i dont agree on that either but i'm going for utility here. one is better than none.

basically it's whoever distances themselves the most from the Heritage Foundation, Focus on the Family, et al. i'd be happy to support a more ideologically pure party if it was possible that they could influence policy but i don't see that right now in this country. there are some state-level 3rd parties that have influence (esp in places w/ fusion voting like NY) and I'd be all for fusion voting here.

[Edited on March 6, 2009 at 6:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2009 6:49:26 PM

Quote :

"or claiming that "homosexuality is a choice"? or realizing that abstinence education doesn't work?"

Okay, you had some points with the others. But with these two I fail to see any connection. No one really knows why people are homosexual, there are tons of research that support both sides, and the truth is it is probably a bit of nature and nurture (much like everything else). Abstinence education, or any sex education, has very little to do with science, and again the plurality of research(which isn't science in the context of say stem cell etc) is undecided and unclear.

Neither party is really the "science" party, they both support science only to their own ends. The Obama administration is just doing what it's base wants. The Dems have the support of the environmentalist groups whom oppose nuclear energy, so what do you know, Obama opposes it (though he says otherwise, it's pretty clear nuclear is going no where). Much like bush was against federal funding for Stem cell research because of the support of the anti-abortion groups. Same old story, just different characters.

3/6/2009 6:58:36 PM

In criticizing the GOP, I wasn't explicitly endorsing the Democrats, though I do tend to support them more because I think they fall woefully short on issues such as...

Quote :

"No one really knows why people are homosexual, there are tons of research that support both sides, and the truth is it is probably a bit of nature and nurture (much like everything else). Abstinence education, or any sex education, has very little to do with science, and again the plurality of research(which isn't science in the context of say stem cell etc) is undecided and unclear."

The GOP was, acknowledged or not, pretty solidly on one side of these issues. who had the ear of the president more than anyone else on these issues? he met with the religious right far more than other parties on these issues if we are to infer this from the fact that he had a regularly scheduled meeting with RR leaders every monday.

Sex education not an issue of science? Are you aware of some of the misconceptions taught through abstinence ed. with regards to STDs, pregnancy, etc (all very much issues of science)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

3/6/2009 7:10:15 PM

Erm, I was referring to the point that there is no scientific consensus on what type of sex education is best. That some people who teach abstinence are idiots is irrelevant.

3/6/2009 7:14:57 PM

even if abstinence is best (of course not having sex is 100% more efficient in stopping STDs), come on now, people are going to have sex whether you like it or not. Sorry to break it to you. It's better to prepare them for all possibilities.

also, i think it's pretty clear that whoever the next face of the GOP is (we know about Palin, Jindal is the same maybe crazier, Romney will do anything to appease the base as evident in his flip on abortion, and so on, we know what Huckabee is like) isn't going to be any different on these sorts of issues.

I'm serious when I say I'd support a Republican who'd lay off the dogma and reject the religious right.

[Edited on March 6, 2009 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2009 7:18:05 PM

The GOP split....Has the major fissure started?

Quote :

"Steele 'choice' gaffe sparks GOP revolt. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s series of gaffes turned into something more serious Thursday, as leaders of a pillar of the GOP—the anti-abortion movement—shifted into open revolt over comments in an interview with the men’s magazine GQ. Steele called abortion an “individual choice” and opposed a constitutional ban on abortion in the Feb. 24 interview, which appeared online Wednesday night. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090312/pl_politico/19956

3/12/2009 10:19:13 PM

Quote :

"In criticizing the GOP, I wasn't explicitly endorsing the Democrats, though I do tend to support them more because I think they fall woefully short on issues such as..."

This totally makes since.

I agree with the GOP about a lot of stuff especially economic items. While much of the democratic platform I disagree with and find annoying.

Nonetheless the democrats do/say a lot less shit that makes me go WTF and whose platform has a lot less items that i have serious qualms about.

3/12/2009 10:33:09 PM

This is a golden opportunity for the Republican Party to exorcise itself from the control of the Pro-Life wing of the party. While I realize the serious moral implications of abortion, the fact that a moderately sizable, or at least vocal, group of voters places this issue as the litmus test runs off a sizable number of competent legislators. If the Republican Party goes ahead and quits bowing to this wing of the party while they're still down, Pro-Lifers will find that they really have no-where to go other than the GOP and will, at worst, become conservative leaning independents. They're not going to rush into the arms of the Democrats.

The Republican Party should take this as a bankruptcy, trim the fat, reorganize, and emerge as a leaner, more focused political entity.

Quote :

"Only internet neckbeards are socially naive enough to think being a libertarian is cool."

There are "internet neckbeards" at all corners of the political spectrum. I consider myself a "small l" libertarian who is disappointed by the political lightweights the LP puts up and disgusted by the excrement the other two parties keep chumming the political waters with.

Quote :

"accepted science for the most part"

Interestingly enough Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium in NYC, made it a point to mention in a recent speech that scientific funding generally goes up under Republican Presidents (most recently Regan and GWB) and down under Democrats like Bill Clinton. I'm not saying this absolves the Republican Party of playing to the "intelligent design" wing, but market entrepreneurs need new science to make new products.

3/12/2009 10:44:46 PM

^i would imagine that that is typically due to increased military funding, ie it ends up being indirect science funding rather than direct

3/13/2009 12:04:33 AM

doesn't look like a clear correlation to me.

3/13/2009 12:06:56 AM

Bush is sending us to Mars mutha fucka

3/13/2009 12:44:56 AM

Republican Party = socially conservative, fiscally conservative, pro-life
splits into:
Libertarian Party = socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-choice
Christian Party = socially conservative, fiscally liberal, pro-life
?

3/13/2009 2:54:45 AM

man i would love if we had a "christian party"

Quote :

"Bush is sending us to Mars mutha fucka"

RED ROCKS, YAY YAY

3/13/2009 9:13:35 PM

Quote :

"Libertarian Party = socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-choice"

No, if the GOP splits, it will be into the "Christian Party" people you mentioned, and the Main Street Caucus.

I don't see a split occuring wherein the pro-choice people jump to a group that wants to abolish the FDA and has a significant portion of its base believing in private defense.

3/14/2009 6:09:13 PM

Quote :

"What do you expect? Only internet neckbeards are socially naive enough to think being a libertarian is cool."

LOL

3/15/2009 7:06:06 PM

Calling libertarians "fiscally conservative" is an understatement. You aren't going to have republicans organizing under that banner unless you want to rape the meaning of "libertarian." I don't think the real libertarians would stand for it either. And with the republicans courting Jindal, I don't think they want this either.

3/15/2009 7:53:21 PM

all of that is true, but there are a WHOLE LOT of people who identify themselves as libertarian or libertarian-leaning, but are still pragmatists and don't go to the extreme of the Libertarian Party.

What those fringe Libertarians will stand for is irrelevent--there aren't enough to be the driving force anywhere.

What's more plausible is that the GOP gets tired of getting smoked in elections and decides to come home to its limited government roots, as people like me (the pragmatic, moderate, fiscal conservative, limited government types) aren't voting for them anymore, and the social far right can go sit in the corner and squawk, but who cares...I mean, what, are they gonna go vote Democrat or something? No. Worst case, they get pissed and sit at home (unlikely on any significant scale, in my opinion), and it's just a trade for the people like me who weren't voting for them.

3/15/2009 9:25:45 PM

You're right. If they will take that stance and run with it, they will sail into power in 2010 and 2012. The Democrats are basically handing it to them on a silver platter right now.

3/15/2009 9:55:07 PM

are you serious

i just saw poll results on friday that the congressional approval rating has more than doubled

SILVER PLATTER

3/15/2009 11:05:29 PM

I don't see the libertarian party gaining any ground, just because some of their positions seem so extreme. I think everyone should be as free as possible, as long as they're not infringing upon the rights of others. And, if that's the goal, it has to go for the economy too. The more people are allowed to keep what they work for, the better.

You hear a lot of people talking about some kind of party that would be socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. It may be an oversimplification, but I don't see why a party like that couldn't have broad-based appeal. Can the Republican party become that party? I don't know, probably not. I just can't see a new party being successful, unless there were a lot of people pushing for it.

3/16/2009 4:10:55 PM

The problem with any group moderating itself is that moderation isnt sexy and doesnt fire up the masses.

3/16/2009 9:21:30 PM

^ agreed, although how does that Barry Goldwater quote go, again... Something about moderation and virtues and stuff?

^^ the Libertarian Party isn't going to gain enough ground to become significant. General libertarianism, I think, may likely gain a lot of ground, and I don't know that the GOP will become a libertarian party, but MAYBE it will come home and embrace limited government again.

3/16/2009 11:39:54 PM

Quote :

"^ agreed, although how does that Barry Goldwater quote go, again... Something about moderation and virtues and stuff?"

extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

i can't say i agree and, well, he got killed in that election (i mean, here's a guy who would probably have nuked N. Vietnam, but he also knew the secret about Roswell so he must be respected still).

3/19/2009 7:31:04 PM

that was actually meant to be rhetorical

but it bears mentioning in here, anyway



I like Goldwater a lot. He's one of my favorite political figures. I don't know that he would've nuked N. Vietnam or anyone else, but I will say that his rabidly hawkish foreign policy is my major point of contention with him.

and yeah, he got crushed by LBJ, and look at the shitshow that turned out to be. That's like saying that Britney Spears or Nickelback make good music on the grounds that they're popular.

3/19/2009 8:27:46 PM

I think I was trying to say that people saw his hawkishness and claims that "extremism is no vice" as off putting regardless of what LBJ said. I like Goldwater in many ways, but 1964 Goldwater isn't someone I'd vote for and I think that the Kennedy assassination guaranteed that no matter who ran, the GOP was SOL.

3/22/2009 10:25:21 PM

http://media.fukung.net/images/14381/503b63f0bae58862d0a49e4a63cc121a.jpg

4/1/2009 7:40:07 PM

hahaha my favorite ones are the immigrants bringing in syphillis and gonoerhea or the personal message to the terrorist "Hey Terrorist... We are not afraid!"

4/1/2009 8:22:38 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21932.html

thats how we roll yo!

4/30/2009 1:45:55 PM

Haha I love how a majority of that collage has green S&P lol. Oh wait

4/30/2009 4:38:57 PM

I just noticed that the labeled Arlen Spector a democrat long before he switched.

4/30/2009 4:42:40 PM

I love the ATHF signs.

5/2/2009 1:50:13 PM

noonan had a good piece in the journal i thought

5/2/2009 4:48:36 PM

well, as long as we're sharing Gallup polls that show surprising swings (in the abortion thread), here's one on the decline of the GOP
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx

The Republican party shows a decline in membership in every major demographic since 2001 except "frequent church goers", which is flat

5/18/2009 10:43:50 PM

drudgereport is the best news site, hands down.




they are the masters of suggestive headline juxtaposition

5/19/2009 12:07:15 AM

^^ Frequent church-goers fail to condition on evidence, who'da thunk it?

5/19/2009 3:28:39 AM