The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

I think it is fair to say that the results of this presidential election will require a retooling of the Republican Party (meaning they will fix the party, not become tools again).

One of the first things that they need to do is find their leader. I doubt it will be the Senate Minority Leader (Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who won re-election). I think Mitt Romney is most likely.

For those who think it will be Sarah Palin as the frontrunner for 2012, I'm not so sure. VPs on the losing ticket don't exactly have a great history. John Edwards being the losing VP nominee in 2004 didn't help his presidential run in 2008. Lieberman failed in his presidential nomination bid in 2004 after being the losing VP in 2000. Same thing with Dan Quayle. Same thing with Geraldine Ferraro. Being the losing VP does not appear to be a great thing to have on your resume.

 

I'm not sure how popular Mitt Romney is with the current GOP to begin with, whether due to religion or other issues. Any other ideas of who has a chance for the tiller?

 

Last night, just after Obama was decleared president, New Zealand had their leaders debate (election is in a couple of days). The two major party leaders were asked if they believed in god. Both of them said that they don't know. If only the States could learn from that. It shouldn't matter what religion a person holds - it's their policies that should matter.

I would be surprised if we see any single leader take up the mantel for a fair while. In the end though, what they need to do is simply to aim for more main stream America, instead of the extreme reaches. Obama did that well, trying to take in as many branches as he could. I would bet that by the time 2016 comes around, we'll see two more centralist parties.

Given the current system used in the States, I would say a split would be very unlikely. And if it did occur, it wouldn't be long (one election - maybe two if the Dems are lucky) before someone works out that they're stealing each others vote, the more extreme of the two die away, and they reunited in one centre right party.

 

Romney's probably what the establishment would like. But the rank and file clearly heart Palin. As Obama illustrated, if it comes down to a split between the 'elites' and the 'regular folk', well, the folk win.

 

I would be interested to know what Republicans are looking for in the post-Bush years. Arnold would be the obvious choice from an outside perspecive, but the requirements would have to change for him. No doubt, Palin will be back, but she has positioned herself very poorly if the Rs want to move their party to the center. I noticed today that she has dropped the phony accent and sounded somewhat sober for a change, rather than that tone she uses when she was constantly selling herself. She obviously sees politics as theater, which it is to a degree, I suppose.

The real losers are the Evangelicals, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys, IMO. Their wedge issues are no longer in play to any large extent. Their influence in the Republican Party will be greatly diminished going forward, unless the R's wish to be only a regional party (deep south and the plains states).

 

The Republican party needs to get back to its roots. Bush was more like a drunken sailor then a true Republican. McCain won the Republican nomination because independents voted for him in the primaries, and then abandoned him in the general election.

In my opinion they need to focus on the following (in no particular order)

1. Fiscal responsibility. They used to be the party of small government. They need to get back to that.
2. Illegal Immigration- Outside of the hispanic population the general population is opposed to it. It needs to be stopped and our borders need to be secured.
3. Military- Keep the military strong. The military is the best form of welfare there is. People have a job and get training. It also fuels our research and development and technology industries.
4. Guns- The second amendment is the right which prevents the government (or anyone else) from taking away any of our other rights. Keep it strong.
5. Religion- Get away from it. In my opnion, religion is a personal thing with most people and it shouldn't be a part of a political platform. Way more people care about someone's economic plan then their religious affiliation (or at least they should).
6. Respect Obama and the Democrats- This one is probably the most controversial. Republicans are far more civil then Democrats. We don't threaten to leave the country if "our guy" doesn't win. We don't file a million lawsuits when we don't win. We don't live in a state of denial about who won. We don't advocate "assassination chic" when we don't win, etc. If a Republican Congressmen thinks it is a good idea to spend the next 2 to 4 years being a general pain in the ass and obstructing the government they should think back to the last eight years and remember how they called the Democrats whiney *****es for doing the same thing. Either be productive or do nothing, but don't get in the way. Let's see what Obama and the Democrats have in mind and see what they can do. If they screw it up royally there is always another election and the one thing we learned is that the electorate doesn't tolerate failure.
7. Iraq and Afghanistan- I know it will wound us all if Obama surrenders and just brings everyone back home. We will have to see if the media will report on the chaos and death after we leave as fervently as they have with us there. I personally, believe they were both necessary, but regardless if you do or if you don't they are both our responsibility now. If we abandon them let the shame fall where it belongs.

 

What planet do you live on, again? Republicans are more civil than democrats? Republicans don't file lawsuits? Republicans don't filibuster? Someone doesn't know his history.

Surrender? Surrender? What on earth are you talking about, Snook?

 

Surprisingly I agree with a lot of this.

1. Totally agreed.
2. I agree, but they need a vastly different approach. Demonizing hispanics and making the border a fortress isn't working. The key to this is getting Mexico to be less of a spithole...but that's another topic.
3. I agree. Although - there is a lot of wasteful spending in the military/industrial sector that needs to be shed.
4. I don't see how this is any different from what they're already doing.
5. COMPLETELY AGREED.
6. You had me in the first 4 words, giving me a small glimmer of hope that you'd actually learned something from the last 8 years of Republican rule and gained a little perspective...and then you lost me. Don't delude yourself into thinking that if THIS election had come down to a few thousand votes in a single state that the Reps wouldn't be lawsuiting themselves silly. That's a big part of the reason for the ACORN flip-out. You also seem to be ignoring the countless instances of non-civility coming from Republicans of the last 8 years, too. Tom DeLay alone is enough to render your entire point moot, and he's just the tip of the iceberg. It's in matters like these where you lack any sense of fairness or reality.
7. I agree to an extent. Your insistence on the loaded "surrender" nonsense aside, I too think doing right by both countries should be everyone's top priority. Incidentally, most Dems believe Afghanistan was the right thing to do; it's only Iraq that was the mistake.

Update: I've had a few minutes to think more on #6. My need to be magnanimous made me temporarily blind to the fact that "Republicans are far more civil then Democrats" is, to put it mildly, the biggest load of delusional nonsense I think I've ever seen posted here. And that's saying something.

 

Wow Snook, you should have seen some of the sites and messageboards I have visited today to suckle on conservative tears. I did get to suckle a bit but mostly I got scared, they do not accept the loss it is all the medias fault and massive voter fraud. They view Obama as a purebred Marxists (an insult to any marxists if there ever was one) and a terrorist symphatizer and seem to be well on their way to form what pretty much amounts to armed resistance. Sure this was perhaps extreme people but I wonder. By my standards the entire Republican party is pretty extreme and forthe people who value religion and the moral wedge issues this disaster is not to be accepted. These people are numerous, a large percentage of the American public. Your assassination chic point is confusing though, it was in and Republican rallies there was talk about killing the terrorists even before he was elected, and this was on TV so it wasnt really underground supernutters but pretty average Republican voters. Haven't really seen many calls to kill Bush despite the intense dislike for him.

 

Sorry, I have to disagree.

Is there a single Obama supporter who believes that if McCain had won there wouldn't have been riots? I haven't seen any since Obama won.

Do the Democrats still whine and wail about 2000 being stolen and love to blame "swiftboating" for Kerry's loss in 2008?

Give the Republicans some time to heal. Yes, they are disappointed and will moan about the media and ACORN for a bit, but by spring they will have moved on.

Would the Republicans ever do things like this?

 

The way I see it ....

The Republican Party is not going to change much at all. It doesn't need to (I personally would rather see a couple of changes, but...). Bush was a thorn in the side of the party (or perhaps a dagger, or great sword) and now that he is gone the party will return. I do not have confidence the democrats in Congress will be any more effective than the republicans were -- there will be new problems in four years and people will vote for (yet another) change. In reality there is no true change platform, only a 'change from what we have now' platform.

The republican party simply needs to suck it up and persevere for the next several years just as the democratic party did during the Reagan years. Sure, they'll pass it off as "the new republican party" but it will be the same players with the same priorities -- just as "the new democratic party" was.

What I would really like to see is the moderates in America becoming more involved in the primary process. As it is now we have the outer fringe in political thought making the decision on who our choices are in the main election. If more moderates get involved early in the process, more moderates will be represented on the ballot.... "that and ... world peace." (from Miss Congeniality)

 

Yo.

Kerry lost in 2004, and swiftboating likely was responsible for his loss. We'll never know for sure who would have actually won in Florida back in the year 2000, since a full, official recount of all votes statewide was never conducted. That re-count wasn't conducted because the republican appointees on the Supreme court chose to supersede Florida's right to choose how it would count its votes.

Do democrats disrupt military funerals to make sure all in attendance understand that the soldier is dead because "God hates Fags"? Do those protesters look like mainstream democrats to you? There are crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, Snook. If you try to lump us in with these extremists as if they are somehow representative of the democratic party, I'll be more than happy to lump the republicans in with the Montana Militia, the KKK, and terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. Seriously, dude, this is beyond ridiculous.

 

The key difference I think you're missing Snook: Obama just won by a landslide. Bush won both times by a very slim margin.

As for your link, the short answer is, yes. Again, step outside the cocoon...you desperately need a little perspective. If you can't make your point without nutpicking - and you are nutpicking - it's a weak point to begin with. I don't have any handy links to the equivilant filth coming from the republican side this season, but I've seen enough of it over the last 8 years to make me laugh out loud to see you act like it only comes from one side.

 

I also thought that the Bin Laden tape being released the weekend before the election really hurt Kerry quite a bit as well.

Snook - O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, Coulter, Ingraham, Savage, Beck - all fine examples of conservative "civility."

And exactly to which country would he be "surrendering?"

 

Snook, you rock! Totally agree!

 

When was that, exactly?

 

OK, I admit, I let a little bitterness through in point 6. However, the rest of point six is very valid. I will be very disappointed if the Republicans do nothing but act as Obstructionists.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 37 seconds later... ----------

Not exactly a country, but we would be handing Afghanistan to the taliban and Iraq to Al Qaeda (sic). Or do you think something different would happen if we just pull out of both nations?