Where does the GOP go from here?

[Blart]

Latinos (http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/jeffbiggers/arizonas-election-promise-record-early-latino-vote-taking-sheriff-arpaio-just). Young women (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2233/gender-gap-republicans-democrats-presidential-elections). Highly educated (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/the-politics-of-going-to-college/) whites.

These groups are getting bigger and more powerful each election, and they don't particularly like Republicans.

Will the GOP become more moderate to accommodate the new electorate, or will they dig in their heels and go full-on Tea Party in 2014/16?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Where does the GOP go from here? (assuming Mitt loses)

Hopefully the way of the Dodo and the Pterodactyl. :thumbs:

[Old Dude]

Off-year elections always favor the more extreme segments since they tend to be more active & energized. So I fully expect the tea party to be back in force in 2014 regardless of who wins today.

[razorwire77]

They basically have two options as I see it.

A.) Continue to embrace the far right factions of their party and become increasingly less relevant in national elections. Sure they'll dominate local legislatures in the South, Alaska, Kansas etc., but with enormous consequences nationally as the demographic of the country changes.

B.) Stop purging moderates from your party. Move to center-right on social issues. Traditional wedge issue social politics are increasingly ineffective as a means to divide and conquer the electorate. Acknowledge the basic economic truth that taxation and revenue needs to generated in a fair and progressive way to ensure a healthy republic.

Embrace the realistic tenets of Libertarianism (controlling government surveillance/web privacy, ending the economic disasters of foreign interventionism, reducing subsidizing the military expansion of countries like Pakistan, India and Israel and ending the failed war on drugs crusade.)


We'll see what happens.

[ScottXray]

if the GOP continues along the road they have been on, they
will become more and more irrelevant...You correctly identified
that the electorate is changing and moderation is what is needed in the future.

Rush and the extreme right have driven the GOP positions
over the last 12 years, with more and more emphasis on social
issues ( abortion, gay marriage etc) that are generally dismissed
by most moderates...and which is where the country as a whole is headed.

Most people really don't care about gay marriage, in fact think that gays
should be afforded the same status as heterosexual couples. Although they
don't want gays to be considered "normal" behavior, they don't want to see them punished for being so.

By playing to the RTL/anti gay side they are distancing themselves from the average persons position, and alienating women in most cases.

In this election the only position they can really attack Obama on with the average middle class voter is the economy, and they have to convince them that the fault of the economy is wholly his, despite the fact that there is significant evidence that he has made significant progress overcoming a near depression level economic disaster, that he INHERITED at the start of his term, and mostly without any help from a congress that seems to want to play politics and not solve anything.. If they have been able to convince enough of the independent electorate that its Obamas fault, they can win today.

Assuming they have not and Obama wins it will be interesting to see if the Congress can finally decide to actually accomplish anything, or if the bickering and games continue. If so there will be wholesale movement to throw EVERYONE out in 2014, and a third party may be able to emerge at last.

[Rohirrim]

Hard to predict what crazy people will do. ???

[orinjkrush]

http://walkingdead.smokingzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/zombie_reagan.jpg

[TonyR]

Win or lose, we are in the twilight of the Age of Reagan. Romney’s efforts have almost recreated the Reagan coalition, but in today’s America that is no longer enough. To prevail in 2014 and beyond, the Republican party will need to learn to adapt its principles to new times and new voters...

We must take on this challenge anew as we undertake our rendezvous with destiny and remake the conservative majority Reagan bequeathed to us. To do that, we must also ask and answer two other questions. If we didn’t [win], why? If we must, how? I believe we can and will answer these questions, as painful as the discussion amongst us will be at times, and I believe that regardless of what happens tomorrow, the American sun will rise and set with conservatism. For there is nothing wrong with conservatism that reapplication of conservative principles won’t solve, and there is nothing wrong with America that rededication to conservative principles won’t cure. - Henry Olsen, a vice-president of AEI, predicting an Obama victory in National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/332590

[Blart]

I can imagine a pro-choice, pro-immigration, moderate conservative winning a general election.

I just can't imagine them winning a primary.

[peacepipe]

They basically have two options as I see it.

A.) Continue to embrace the far right factions of their party and become increasingly less relevant in national elections. Sure they'll dominate local legislatures in the South, Alaska, Kansas etc., but with enormous consequences nationally as the demographic of the country changes.

B.) Stop purging moderates from your party. Move to center-right on social issues. Traditional wedge issue social politics are increasingly ineffective as a means to divide and conquer the electorate. Acknowledge the basic economic truth that taxation and revenue needs to generated in a fair and progressive way to ensure a healthy republic.

Embrace the realistic tenets of Libertarianism (controlling government surveillance/web privacy, ending the economic disasters of foreign interventionism, reducing subsidizing the military expansion of countries like Pakistan, India and Israel and ending the failed war on drugs crusade.)


We'll see what happens.if being liberatarian is center right than than being republican means you're a liberal.

[Rohirrim]

I really think Huntsman would have won this election, but the whackos that took over the Republican party are too rabid to compromise with reality. Such is the problem with trying to translate Right Wing Wonderland into the real world. Frankly, I'm baffled that Romney made it to the top spot. I thought it would be Perry, or maybe Cain. Mitt really just benefited from everybody else blowing themselves up. Of course, Mitt only persevered by professing himself a sudden convert to the fringe and bowing in obeisance to their psycho politics; A sale of the soul that I guess Huntsman found a little too distasteful. Remember when all the Tea Party faithful were crying, "Anybody but Mitt!" Ha!

[Jetland]

it is going to be a fascinating next two years for the GOP there is no doubt now they have to adapt

[Taco John]

Mitt Romney's loss shows one thing and one thing only: a moderate conservative cannot win. The Reagan coalition has to be rebuilt. I think it will. I think Rand Paul is the future of the Republican party at this point.

[BroncoLifer]

it is going to be a fascinating next two years for the GOP there is no doubt now they have to adapt

Really, there's no doubt? Why then was this election closer than 2008? If Obama and the Dems continue to **** the bed, in 4 years from now those people who still blame Bush won't.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Once again, America emphatically rejects the regressive agenda.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thurston concedes! :thumbsup:

[MrPeepers]

They basically have two options as I see it.

A.) Continue to embrace the far right factions of their party and become increasingly less relevant in national elections. Sure they'll dominate local legislatures in the South, Alaska, Kansas etc., but with enormous consequences nationally as the demographic of the country changes.

B.) Stop purging moderates from your party. Move to center-right on social issues. Traditional wedge issue social politics are increasingly ineffective as a means to divide and conquer the electorate. Acknowledge the basic economic truth that taxation and revenue needs to generated in a fair and progressive way to ensure a healthy republic.

Embrace the realistic tenets of Libertarianism (controlling government surveillance/web privacy, ending the economic disasters of foreign interventionism, reducing subsidizing the military expansion of countries like Pakistan, India and Israel and ending the failed war on drugs crusade.)


We'll see what happens.

really think this is accurate as a small govt, fiscal conservative, and socially moderate i dont identify with either party, and would move towards republicans if they would get their nose out of my social business and support more freedom.

[Jetland]

Really, there's no doubt? Why then was this election closer than 2008? If Obama and the Dems continue to **** the bed, in 4 years from now those people who still blame Bush won't.

I see the wound is still too fresh we can talk later

[Taco John]

it is going to be a fascinating next two years for the GOP there is no doubt now they have to adapt

The long road to recovery. They tried to get one last fix with an establishment candidate. They told themselves that it would be enough to carry them over. The hated Obama enough, and had more than enough money. What they forgot is that they need a message. Hating Obama isn't a message. You have to actually believe in something. What does Mitt Romney believe in? Everything.

The next Republican will be formidable. He'll have a clear and inspirational message. He'll speak to the entirety of the Reagan coalition, from libertarian, to blue-dog democrats. And he'll win big.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The next Republican will be formidable. He'll have a clear and inspirational message. He'll speak to the entirety of the Reagan coalition, from libertarian, to blue-dog democrats. And he'll win big.

After what just happened tonight, I can't even begin to imagine what basis this prediction could have in reality or fact...


....but reality and facts have no place in Republican World, I realize.

[Taco John]

After what just happened tonight, I can't even begin to imagine what basis this prediction could have in reality or fact...


....but reality and facts have no place in Republican World, I realize.

I'm not sure what you think happened tonight. America froze like a deer in headlights. What do you think you won? We have essentially the same house, and essentially the same senate, and we are facing budget armageddon at the turn of the calendar.

Obama isn't getting anything through the house. Republicans aren't getting anything through the senate. This presidency is a lame duck before it even begins. How's that for "reality?"

You know who really won tonight? Libertarians. We got the gridlock we were hoping for, and sent our message to the Republican party.

[BroncoLifer]

I see the wound is still too fresh we can talk later

Everybody tries to read way too much into every election win/loss (just like with the Broncos). Overreaction is easy.

[Rohirrim]

I'm not sure what you think happened tonight. America froze like a deer in headlights. What do you think you won? We have essentially the same house, and essentially the same senate, and we are facing budget armageddon at the turn of the calendar.

Obama isn't getting anything through the house. Republicans aren't getting anything through the senate. This presidency is a lame duck before it even begins. How's that for "reality?"

You know who really won tonight? Libertarians. We got the gridlock we were hoping for, and sent our message to the Republican party.

Yes, the libertarian utopia is still effectively unruffled by reality. Well done.

[SoCalBronco]

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/187788_68288332783_1392033146_n.jpg

http://www.nndb.com/people/353/000087092/mitch-daniels.jpg

[Inkana7]

I'm not sure what you think happened tonight. America froze like a deer in headlights. What do you think you won? We have essentially the same house, and essentially the same senate, and we are facing budget armageddon at the turn of the calendar.

Obama isn't getting anything through the house. Republicans aren't getting anything through the senate. This presidency is a lame duck before it even begins. How's that for "reality?"

You know who really won tonight? Libertarians. We got the gridlock we were hoping for, and sent our message to the Republican party.

The same thing was said in 1996. The surface hasn't changed, but the message is clear. The GOP needs to change their approach, perhaps radically. This election should have been a slam dunk for them if they understood what a 21st-century America looks like at all. Guess what? The US is running out of white males, who seem to be the only group that Republicans think matter.

[Taco John]

Yes, the libertarian utopia is still effectively unruffled by reality. Well done.

Reality? You guys are celebrating an Obama victory when the Republicans are projected to pick up 65 seats in the house - a bigger gain than in 2010 - the biggest single election gain since 1938. And while they didn't turn the senate, the Republicans are picking up more seats there.

I'm not really sure what you think Obama won here. This isn't even a stay of execution he's winning. He's winning the lamest duck presidency probably in the history of politics. What do you honestly imagine he can get accomplished?

[myMind]

Reality? You guys are celebrating an Obama victory when the Republicans are projected to pick up 65 seats in the house - a bigger gain than in 2010 - the biggest single election gain since 1938. And while they didn't turn the senate, the Republicans are picking up more seats there.

I'm not really sure what you think Obama won here. This isn't even a stay of execution he's winning. He's winning the lamest duck presidency probably in the history of politics. What do you honestly imagine he can get accomplished?

You're attitude is exactly why his first term was so difficult. Focusing more on how to dampen his efforts rather than work together as a nation to put the past behind us and move forward as a secular altruistic nation. When Democrats lose 8 years of power they grow stronger and evolve, for some reason I don't see the GOP ticket in 2016 being all that different from today.

[theAPAOps5]

They basically have two options as I see it.

A.) Continue to embrace the far right factions of their party and become increasingly less relevant in national elections. Sure they'll dominate local legislatures in the South, Alaska, Kansas etc., but with enormous consequences nationally as the demographic of the country changes.

B.) Stop purging moderates from your party. Move to center-right on social issues. Traditional wedge issue social politics are increasingly ineffective as a means to divide and conquer the electorate. Acknowledge the basic economic truth that taxation and revenue needs to generated in a fair and progressive way to ensure a healthy republic.

Embrace the realistic tenets of Libertarianism (controlling government surveillance/web privacy, ending the economic disasters of foreign interventionism, reducing subsidizing the military expansion of countries like Pakistan, India and Israel and ending the failed war on drugs crusade.)


We'll see what happens.

Oh it would be glorious if they did this. They would win back this moderate, even thought I didn't vote liberal. I voted as well as I could around realist libertarians and people I could embrace.

Unfortunately the Republican Party is like my drunk Grandpa at a family get together. Tired message, bible thumping, and alienating all the moderate grandkids who are now old enough to know to get the hell out of the room and tune him out.

[Dexter]

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/187788_68288332783_1392033146_n.jpg



THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Huntsman 2016. LETS GO

[Blart]

Mitt Romney's loss shows one thing and one thing only: a moderate conservative cannot win. The Reagan coalition has to be rebuilt. I think it will. I think Rand Paul is the future of the Republican party at this point.

McCain and Romney were both moderates (at least before and after their primaries) - I could see why Republicans would want to nominate a hard-core conservative.

I just don't see it as a winning strategy. Rand Paul would be annihilated in a general election, pick your gaffe: BP oil spill (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmAG S73bmnkM&ei=awyaUNzoDaLzyAHwrIGQDg&usg=AFQjCNFLgsCBhACDGGTOZ1dkOd6IdEkBCw&sig2=8ZxU5D86ERlbkFENRdTqzQ), civil rights (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CFoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2F2010%2F05%2Frand-paul-and-civil-rights&ei=hQyaUKfYEPGCyAHkvYDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNH9G8wzqbDsclTtYniDSWmO1UWdlQ&sig2=ikV6u8vVm8kxFl06LBDahA), no abortion for rape victims, etc. It wouldn't be pretty.

This isn't 1980, it's not even 2004. The electorate is much different. Who would Rand Paul attract, aside from white men?

[Rohirrim]

Reality? You guys are celebrating an Obama victory when the Republicans are projected to pick up 65 seats in the house - a bigger gain than in 2010 - the biggest single election gain since 1938. And while they didn't turn the senate, the Republicans are picking up more seats there.

I'm not really sure what you think Obama won here. This isn't even a stay of execution he's winning. He's winning the lamest duck presidency probably in the history of politics. What do you honestly imagine he can get accomplished?

Celebrating? If I'm doing any celebrating at all, it's simply because Romney doesn't get to go into the WH and replay the Bush disaster. I didn't vote for Obama. My major issues didn't even get discussed in this campaign by either candidate, which is why I went third party. As far as what he can get accomplished, I think the Republicans will have to realize that this was an ass kicking. Whether they take any lessons from it depends on how steeped in their extremism they are. They can't stall for another four years or they risk the American people giving them twice the ass kicking in the next election. Same with the banksters. They aren't going to sit on their money for four more years. This election is going to break up some of the intransigence. Obama won. That's over. The uncertainty should now be dead. Winner or loser, everybody has to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and get moving. That's what I think is going to happen.

This election effectively killed the Tea Party, BTW.

[Taco John]

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Huntsman 2016. LETS GO

Hate to say it, but Romney lite has no shot at the White House after losing to Original Romney.

[Rolandftw]

The long road to recovery. They tried to get one last fix with an establishment candidate. They told themselves that it would be enough to carry them over. The hated Obama enough, and had more than enough money. What they forgot is that they need a message. Hating Obama isn't a message. You have to actually believe in something. What does Mitt Romney believe in? Everything.

The next Republican will be formidable. He'll have a clear and inspirational message. He'll speak to the entirety of the Reagan coalition, from libertarian, to blue-dog democrats. And he'll win big.

Reagan coalition? Despite Republican's insistence otherwise, there is really not much in common with either side of the split of the current Republican Party and Reagan.

I'm sure Republicans will do what they seem to be best at: Attempt to make the other party look bad, to increase the odds of the American public voting for them

[The Lone Bolt]

Hate to say it, but Romney lite has no shot at the White House after losing to Original Romney.

Honestly, if you think that Romney's problem is that he wasn't conservative enough then you are in for a rude awakening.

The republican party is too far right to win. They need more moderate candidates, not fewer.

[houghtam]

Honestly, if you think that Romney's problem is that he wasn't conservative enough then you are in for a rude awakening.

The republican party is too far right to win. They need more moderate candidates, not fewer.

Demographics reflect this.

Denial of this is just as bad as denial of the Nate Silver polling information.

Is math a sin to you, Taco John?

[Blart]

Republicans don't want a moderate. Americans don't want an extremist.

[bpc]

Have to think personnel freedom and liberty will eventually come back into popularity this time with minorities and female voters leading the way. Nobody cares about gay issues. Safety, economic freedom principles will eventually rule again or the economy will fall in on itself and we'll have much larger issues to deal with. The same people voting to tax upper class citizens will be the ones bitching/fighting against it when they are in that role.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Because the right has the tragic flaw of being overly principled to the point where they believe compromise is failure, I think they double down on the ultra-conservative ideas and lose even worse the next time. Then they will wise up to the radical elements in their party finally and try to repair the party in 2020. The question I have is, will it be too late??

[Dexter]

Hate to say it, but Romney lite has no shot at the White House after losing to Original Romney.

Huntsman is far more moderate and honest than Romney. Romney was one of the most in-genuine candidates I've ever seen run. He's also extremely disconnected from the reality of your every day american.

I have no doubt Romney cares about people in within his circle. But unfortunately I'm not sure he gives 2 ****s about others. To me, Huntsman passes that test.

I also really like what I have heard from Chris Christie. He really showed a lot of character over the past week. He seems really really conservative, but it really seems like he cares about everybody.

Oh and Biden is high if he thinks he can be elected President. Unless the republicans nominate someone like Palin, Santorum, or Bachman I can guarantee you I will vote R against a Biden ticket. Biden is ****ing weird.

[SoCalBronco]

Hate to say it, but Romney lite has no shot at the White House after losing to Original Romney.

Huntsman was the only GOPer that could have won in the general election. He's the only one that would have attracted moderates, which Obama won easily, and his more reasonable social positions would have seriously cut into Obama's lead among women. His problem was the primary. He was even more unacceptable to the base than Romney was. Ofcourse, it was the base that brought us guys like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. HTF could anyone vote for him over a guy like Dick Lugar who was one of hte nation's greatest assets in foreign affairs?

I warned about this very long ago. Hopefully lessons are learned.

[BroncoBeavis]

Hate to say it, but Romney lite has no shot at the White House after losing to Original Romney.

Exactly what I was thinking. Dude‘s just like Romney only slightly harder to stomach.

[Dexter]

Huntsman was the only GOPer that could have won in the general election. He's the only one that would have attracted moderates, which Obama won easily, and his more reasonable social positions would have seriously cut into Obama's lead among women. His problem was the primary. He was even more unacceptable to the base than Romney was. Ofcourse, it was the base that brought us guys like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. HTF could anyone vote for him over a guy like Dick Lugar who was one of hte nation's greatest assets in foreign affairs?

I warned about this very long ago. Hopefully lessons are learned.

I hope so. While I realize Republicans don't want to concede a lot to Democrats on certain positions, I and a lot of independents along with most Americans hope there is some compromise over the next four years. We elect officials to get **** done, not sit on their hands and bicker over every dumb thing.

[BroncoBeavis]

Because the right has the tragic flaw of being overly principled to the point where they believe compromise is failure, I think they double down on the ultra-conservative ideas and lose even worse the next time. Then they will wise up to the radical elements in their party finally and try to repair the party in 2020. The question I have is, will it be too late??

Yeah. The party that nominated McCain and Romney was all about puritanical ideology.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Reality? You guys are celebrating an Obama victory when the Republicans are projected to pick up 65 seats in the house - a bigger gain than in 2010 - the biggest single election gain since 1938. And while they didn't turn the senate, the Republicans are picking up more seats there.

I'm not really sure what you think Obama won here. This isn't even a stay of execution he's winning. He's winning the lamest duck presidency probably in the history of politics. What do you honestly imagine he can get accomplished?

Celebrating Amemdment 64 I see? Here outside the bubble, we know that there were 245 R in the house. They arent getting to 310

If current margins hold, they are projected to get 2 or 3 seats

[Jetland]

Have to think personnel freedom and liberty will eventually come back into popularity this time with minorities and female voters leading the way. Nobody cares about gay issues. Safety, economic freedom principles will eventually rule again or the economy will fall in on itself and we'll have much larger issues to deal with. The same people voting to tax upper class citizens will be the ones b****ing/fighting against it when they are in that role.

ugh

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Yeah. The party that nominated McCain and Romney was all about puritanical ideology.

I am just commenting on the calls the reason that he lost was he wasnt conservative enough. If that becomes the prevailing school of thought, then it is a step backwards. Given how the right thinks about things, I suspect this will be the case.

[Taco John]

McCain and Romney were both moderates (at least before and after their primaries) - I could see why Republicans would want to nominate a hard-core conservative.

I just don't see it as a winning strategy. Rand Paul would be annihilated in a general election, pick your gaffe: BP oil spill (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmAG S73bmnkM&ei=awyaUNzoDaLzyAHwrIGQDg&usg=AFQjCNFLgsCBhACDGGTOZ1dkOd6IdEkBCw&sig2=8ZxU5D86ERlbkFENRdTqzQ), civil rights (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CFoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2F2010%2F05%2Frand-paul-and-civil-rights&ei=hQyaUKfYEPGCyAHkvYDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNH9G8wzqbDsclTtYniDSWmO1UWdlQ&sig2=ikV6u8vVm8kxFl06LBDahA), no abortion for rape victims, etc. It wouldn't be pretty.

This isn't 1980, it's not even 2004. The electorate is much different. Who would Rand Paul attract, aside from white men?


well geez... If Mother Jones doesn't endorse Rand Paul, what hope does he possily have?

I think you GREATLY underestimate Rand Paul's appeal across every demographic.

[Taco John]

Celebrating Amemdment 64 I see? Here outside the bubble, we know that there were 245 R in the house. They arent getting to 310

If current margins hold, they are projected to get 2 or 3 seats

i stand corrected. i misread a WSJ article on the subject...

[Taco John]

The 4 liberty candidates who ran all won tonight, if that gives you any idea about the Republican path forward...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The same thing was said in 1996. The surface hasn't changed, but the message is clear. The GOP needs to change their approach, perhaps radically. This election should have been a slam dunk for them if they understood what a 21st-century America looks like at all. Guess what? The US is running out of white males, who seem to be the only group that Republicans think matter.

Ding ding ding! Winner.

The aforementioned demographic shifts are forcing the GOP increasingly into a "catch 22." That is, if they offer policies that appeal to Latinos, African Americans, and other groups, then they lose the mainstays of their voter base, i.e., evangelicals, uneducated/low-info working class white southern males, affluent "I got mine - screw everybody else" types, et al.

Bottom line: The GOP base is comprised of people who fear change and who want to take America back to the 1950s.

Anyone who believes this problem is going to go away in four years is about as naive as it gets.

[bronc_fan23]

This isn't 1980, it's not even 2004. The electorate is much different. Who would Rand Paul attract, aside from white men?



People who want to end foreign wars, end drone attacks on innocent civilians, end the Patriot Act, end NDAA, rapidly end the war on drugs, who want a choice when it comes to health care, those who want economic freedom, those who want to balance the budget and get out of debt, the list goes on.

Mitt Romney wins tonight with the Ron Paul block, that much is clear.

The Ron Paul people weren't going to vote for the war mongering, drug warrior, big spender and current President Barack Obama, and they sure weren't going to vote for the sleazy liberal from Massachusetts, so the votes were split between votes for Gary Johnson (over a million votes) and write ins for Ron Paul.

[bronc_fan23]

The 4 liberty candidates who ran all won tonight, if that gives you any idea about the Republican path forward...


Taco, you and I both know that Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, they need to get put in their place and exposed for the crony-capitalist and war mongers that they are.

We can only hope these liberty candidates make noise against big spending and continued foreign entanglement.

Liberty won in many states tonight, and we have a clear goal in 2016. :boxing::thumbsup:

[Blueflame]

Roughly 50% of the American voting population is female... the Republican party cannot continue with their patronizing and draconian attitudes toward 50% of the electorate and expect to win at the polls. The party must distance itself from the more extreme Tea Party positions... such as "legitimate rape" and the entirely ludicrous notion that the female body has ways of rejecting pregnancy if the woman is "really" raped... or that a pregnancy resulting from rape is "God's plan" and the rapist's seed a "gift" from God to the rape victim. If they don't pay attention to what the electorate said today re: Akin and Mourdock, then it's a huge voter demographic that they'll continue to alienate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Roughly 50% of the American voting population is female... the Republican party cannot continue with their patronizing and draconian attitudes toward 50% of the electorate and expect to win at the polls. The party must distance itself from the more extreme Tea Party positions... such as "legitimate rape" and the entirely ludicrous notion that the female body has ways of rejecting pregnancy if the woman is "really" raped... or that a pregnancy resulting from rape is "God's plan" and the rapist's seed a "gift" from God to the rape victim. If they don't pay attention to what the electorate said today re: Akin and Mourdock, then it's a huge voter demographic that they'll continue to alienate.

QFT.

Does anyone really believe the voters who are most loyal to the GOP are going to suddenly and magically reject the attitudes described above and recognize women as equals between now and 2016?

If so, then you better get some "hope and change" of your own!

[Old Dude]

I've been around the block enough times to know that you never write off a major party.

The GOP got 48% of the popular vote and they overwhelmingly control the House. Not sure, but I think they picked up some governorships.

They aren't going away.

[BroncoBeavis]

I am just commenting on the calls the reason that he lost was he wasnt conservative enough. If that becomes the prevailing school of thought, then it is a step backwards. Given how the right thinks about things, I suspect this will be the case.

Both men were compromise candidates. Not anywhere near the right wing of the party. People who can't recognize that are usually just pseudo-independents. They like to think of themselves as flexible but at the end of the day they're just following labels.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Both men were compromise candidates. Not anywhere near the right wing of the party. People who can't recognize that are usually just pseudo-independents. They like to think of themselves as flexible but at the end of the day they're just following labels.

You are also failing to realize that it was the influence from the ultra-right that blew it for him. His primary positions were extremist - and he had to to get out of there - and his VP choice was FAR right. Just because he backed away from them towards the end doesnt mean he is a moderate.

The other thing that blew it for him was the voter suppression really angered the D base and they turned out almost as good as 08. Massive backfire.

[BroncoBeavis]

You are also failing to realize that it was the influence from the ultra-right that blew it for him. His primary positions were extremist - and he had to to get out of there - and his VP choice was FAR right. Just because he backed away from them towards the end doesnt mean he is a moderate.

The other thing that blew it for him was the voter suppression really angered the D base and they turned out almost as good as 08. Massive backfire.

Not so much. If you'd like me to show how many things O was hard left on during election season before doing some real world moderation we can do that.

And O nowhere near matched 2008. He's about 10 million votes shy as of right now. As I said elsewhere he likely won't see as many votes as Bush got in 2004. This was a suppression election and the strategy paid off.

[BroncoInferno]

well geez... If Mother Jones doesn't endorse Rand Paul, what hope does he possily have?

I think you GREATLY underestimate Rand Paul's appeal across every demographic.

You're painfully delusional if you think anyone with the sort of Draconian economic views of Paul has any chance in a GE. Romney began to narrow things in the polls when he pivoted back to the center in the first debate. It was his far right posturing during the primaries that had him so far behind throughout most of the campaign.

[TonyR]

It's game over for the party of the angry, white male. The GOP should have figured that out in 2008 but they decided to try again in 2012 and paid a steep price for it.

[BroncoInferno]

Romney is not a right-wing extremist. To win the nomination, though, he had to feign being one, recasting himself as “severely conservative” and eschewing the reasonableness that made him a successful, moderate governor of the country’s most liberal state. He had to pass muster with his party’s right-wing base on taxes, immigration, climate change, abortion, and gay rights. Many of his statements on these issues were patently insincere, but that was hardly reassuring. Romney’s very insincerity and flexibility made it improbable that he would stand up to the GOP’s hyper-partisan congressional wing once elected any more than he had during the primaries.

http://news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost

[Old Dude]

I think the GOP's biggest problem was overconfidence.

They just couldn't imagine the country re-electing Obama given the jobless rate and state of the economy.

So, instead of worrying about electibility and moving a few inches more toward the center, they got involved in a long and expensive primary battle, and their platform, if anything, moved further to the right.

Romney attempted to move back toward the center, but he had to move so far that he looked wishy-washy and inconsistent.

The 47% remark was a devastating torpedo.

Add in the rape remarks of a couple high profile candidates (and they happened just at the point when a lot of undecideds were making up their minds.)

Add in the loss of momentum with Sandy. And the NJ governor working hand in hand with Obama - which didn't help the GOP argument that Obama was not capable of any kind of bipartisan action. And the memories of how Bush messed up with Katrina. (When the GOP was doing everything humanly possible to distance itself from Dubbya.)

But the killer, I think, is that they underestimated Obama's "ground game" and his ability to get his constituents out to vote. In that regard, the youth of the democratic party is a big advantage. Energy, social media, neighborhood organizations, etc.

Given the fact that evangelicals make up such a huge portion of the party, I doubt that we'll see the GOP move very much on the kinds of social issues that are involved there.

More likely, they'll soften on immigration and make a play for the Latino voters. Bush did much better with that demographic and it got him elected twice.

[gunns]

Roughly 50% of the American voting population is female... the Republican party cannot continue with their patronizing and draconian attitudes toward 50% of the electorate and expect to win at the polls. The party must distance itself from the more extreme Tea Party positions... such as "legitimate rape" and the entirely ludicrous notion that the female body has ways of rejecting pregnancy if the woman is "really" raped... or that a pregnancy resulting from rape is "God's plan" and the rapist's seed a "gift" from God to the rape victim. If they don't pay attention to what the electorate said today re: Akin and Mourdock, then it's a huge voter demographic that they'll continue to alienate.

:thumbsup: Exactly!

And congratulations to the state of NH who elected an all female delegation last night.

[Old Dude]

Latino vote:

Bush (2000): 35%
Bush (2004): 39%
McCain (2008): 31%

Romney (on eve of election, 2012): 23%

[Kid A]

Latino vote:

Bush (2000): 35%
Bush (2004): 39%
McCain (2008): 31%

Romney (on eve of election, 2012): 23%

In the kind of infamous "off the record" interview Obama did with the Des Moines Register (which the White House later released), he was pretty blunt about one thing: that he believes the GOP realizes they have screwed themselves with Latinos on the immigration issue and will be very willing to pass bipartisan immigration reform in the next couple years without throwing a fit in public. Seems kind of inevitable to me too.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

An unsustainable demographic trend

By Steve Benen (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_nv/more/section/archive?author=steve-benen)

Wed Nov 7, 2012 10:11 AM EST

Mitt Romney took an enormous gamble about a year ago: he would run very far to the right (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/17/13917574-outreach-without-deeds-is-useless?lite) on immigration policy, alienating the fastest growing segment of the American electorate on purpose, in order to secure the Republican Party's nomination. Then, he hoped to be able to avoid a drubbing from Latino voters in the general election. It was, as Ron Brownstein put it, Romney's "original sin (http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/mitt-romney-s-original-sin-20120920)."

The gamble, we now know, failed miserably. President Obama won close races in Colorado, Nevada, and (probably) Florida, and it was Latino voters who made this success possible.

But let's also step back and look at the bigger picture.

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benenB90C6AC5-A35C-0284-A38D-8DDCC91F6FA3.jpg&width=600

After George W. Bush's relative success eight years ago, this current trajectory simply isn't sustainable for the Republican Party, and basic self-awareness suggests the party must recognize its dilemma.

As NBC's First Read put it (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14993875-first-thoughts-obamas-demographic-edge?lite) this morning, "[M]ake no mistake: What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces."

It was an offhand comment made in August, but one of the more important quotes of 2012 came from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who conceded (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-republican-convention-emphasizes-diversity-racial-incidents-intrude/2012/08/29/b9023a52-f1ec-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html), "The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

The question then becomes what the party intends to do about it. As the party does some wound-licking and soul-searching, I might suggest putting this at the top of the to-do list. If party leaders think "self-deportation" is the appropriate solution, they can expect to see more results like yesterday's.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<header class="wrapped clearfix"> Obama Victory Signals New Democratic Dominance in U.S. Politics

by Peter Beinart (http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/peter-beinart.html) <time class="timestamp" datetime="2012-11-07T06:08:00.000Z" pubdate="pubdate">Nov 7, 2012 1:08 AM EST </time>

It wasn’t 1992 all over again—but 1936, when FDR won despite a terrible economy. Peter Beinart on how the GOP will keep losing if it doesn’t change with the times.

</header> This campaign, like every campaign, pundits offered historical analogies. 2012 was 2004 or 1992 or 1948. But, in the end, it wasn’t any of those. It was 1936.

For roughly half a century after the Civil War, Republicans dominated American politics because they dominated the North. But by the 1920s, after almost four decades of Catholic and Jewish immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, the North had changed. And instead of embracing that change, the GOP fought it, spearheading blatantly anti-Catholic measures like Prohibition and shutting down mass immigration in 1921 and 1924. Democrats capitalized, nominating a Catholic, Al Smith, in 1928. Smith lost, but in 1932 Franklin Roosevelt built on the coalition he had forged, and won the presidency by combining the white South—a traditional Democratic stronghold—with the new immigrants of the urban North. Then, to an unprecedented degree, he appointed Jews and Catholics to top administration jobs. In 1935 Time magazine noted the change by featuring two key Roosevelt advisers, the Catholic Thomas Corcoran and the Jewish Benjamin Cohen, on its cover.

<figure class="multimedia section"> http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/11/07/obama-victory-signals-new-democratic-dominance-in-u-s-politics/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1352298150325.cached.jpg <figcaption class="figcaption"> A supporter of President Obama holds a sign during an Election Night rally in Chicago. (Daniel Acker / Getty Images)
</figcaption> </figure> But it was only in 1936, when FDR won despite a terrible economy and the venomous opposition of much of the Northern WASP elite from which he hailed, that Republicans began to acknowledge that America had changed—and left them behind. And that’s exactly what Republicans are realizing again Tuesday night. For the last four years, Republicans have argued publicly, as they did between 1932 and 1936, that their defeat was a fluke. They’ve said John McCain was a bad candidate who only lost because Americans were sick of George W. Bush. They’ve said the Tea Party heralded an anti-government shift that would sweep the GOP back into power. They’ve said America was still a center-right country.

But in slightly more hushed tones, conservatives have also said something else: that Americans are becoming dependent on government, that we’re becoming a nation of victims. It was through this racially loaded rhetoric—crystallized by Romney’s 47 percent comment (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/06/oops-first-debate-47-percent-more-2012-election-turning-points.html) to a group of super-rich old white donors in Palm Beach—that conservatives backhandedly acknowledged that the country was moving away from them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/obama-victory-signals-new-democratic-dominance-in-u-s-politics.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:thumbsup: Exactly!

And congratulations to the state of NH who elected an all female delegation last night.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/46207_10151308372656125_804175526_n.jpg

;)

[bronc_fan23]

Wasn't the Democratic dominance supposed to be after they won the Presidency, House and the Senate? We saw how long that lasted.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Latinos (http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/jeffbiggers/arizonas-election-promise-record-early-latino-vote-taking-sheriff-arpaio-just). Young women (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2233/gender-gap-republicans-democrats-presidential-elections). Highly educated (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/the-politics-of-going-to-college/) whites.

These groups are getting bigger and more powerful each election, and they don't particularly like Republicans.

Will the GOP become more moderate to accommodate the new electorate, or will they dig in their heels and go full-on Tea Party in 2014/16?

Here's a pretty good idea, from a staunch Republican that writes on my blog:
http://dailydickpunch.com/2012/11/07/with-our-tails-between-our-legs/

[Inkana7]

well geez... If Mother Jones doesn't endorse Rand Paul, what hope does he possily have?

I think you GREATLY underestimate Rand Paul's appeal across every demographic.

And there is no doubt that you overestimate it. Rand Paul has no chance, zero, to win a general election, which sucks, because more people need to be exposed to the Aqua Buddha story.

[BroncoBeavis]

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benenB90C6AC5-A35C-0284-A38D-8DDCC91F6FA3.jpg&width=600

Wow, this is groundbreaking stuff. By looking at this graph you'd almost think that Winners of an election get a higher percentage of votes than losers of an election.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1732706_o.gif

[elsid13]

Like a gambler losing big, I expect them to double down on bad hand expecting that their luck will turn.

[Arkie]

When Democrats lose 8 years of power they grow stronger and evolve, for some reason I don't see the GOP ticket in 2016 being all that different from today.

Not after the first four years. The Democrats nominated a rich Massachusetts Moderate out of touch with the people.

[footstepsfrom#27]

To hell in a handbasket I'd say.

[Blart]

well geez... If Mother Jones doesn't endorse Rand Paul, what hope does he possily have?

I think you GREATLY underestimate Rand Paul's appeal across every demographic.

I'm pretty sure saying you'd vote against civil rights is going to lose you one, maybe two votes beyond MJ readers. Supporting Todd Akin to the bitter end might lose you a couple more.


I know the guy you really want:

Ted Cruz, aka Republican Obama.

Son of a Cuban immigrant.

He frequently name-drops Ron Paul and Milton Friedman in campaign speeches.

He started early. His father sent him to a private, right-wing school, where teachers assigned books from Ludwig von Mises, Frédéric Bastiat and Murray Rothbard. He was the star student.

Cruz went on to Princeton, where he amassed countless trophies on the debate team while crushing liberal adversaries, then went on to Harvard Law, where he worked on expanding the ideas of the founder's Natural Law.


If the GOP wants to double-down on the tea party, Cruz is their man.

[frerottenextelway]

It may take a decade, but the next party to challenge the Democrats on a national stage will come from the left, whatever it may be called.

[baja]

Latinos (http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/jeffbiggers/arizonas-election-promise-record-early-latino-vote-taking-sheriff-arpaio-just). Young women (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2233/gender-gap-republicans-democrats-presidential-elections). Highly educated (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/the-politics-of-going-to-college/) whites.

These groups are getting bigger and more powerful each election, and they don't particularly like Republicans.

Will the GOP become more moderate to accommodate the new electorate, or will they dig in their heels and go full-on Tea Party in 2014/16?

There is no segment in America that needs a third party more than the Republicans. It's the only way they survive in any recognizable way. Their only chance is to fracture the base of the Dems and get back to being the consecutive party.

[frerottenextelway]

If you want to get even less of a growing minority, Rand Paul is the answer. It will be Jindal in 2016, who is at least sane. The Dems, who knows...

[Arkie]

It may take a decade, but the next party to challenge the Democrats on a national stage will come from the left, whatever it may be called.

I was hoping for less spending. Oh well, lets all get government jobs. The times are a-changin'

[frerottenextelway]

I was hoping for less spending. Oh well, lets all get government jobs. The times are a-changin'

Government jobs keep shrinking & private sector jobs are growing, but good luck, at least many are unionized so you won't get fd over if you get one!

[Taco John]

I'm pretty sure saying you'd vote against civil rights is going to lose you one, maybe two votes beyond MJ readers.

Not really too worried about the re-trying of the Civil Rights issue. Especially once it gets out that Rand Paul will pardon all non-violent drug offenders - which is the real civil rights issue of our time (that so many of today's modern "civil rights" "champions" seem to ignore).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JA2ehvB-_Ac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Ted Cruz, aka Republican Obama.


Ted Cruz will be leaned on heavily for the Rand Paul 2016 campaign.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benenB90C6AC5-A35C-0284-A38D-8DDCC91F6FA3.jpg&width=600

Wow, this is groundbreaking stuff. By looking at this graph you'd almost think that Winners of an election get a higher percentage of votes than losers of an election.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs3/1732706_o.gif

Thanks for letting us know how that graph looks through those fact and arithmetic-blocking sunglasses the right used to call the election for RobMe.

http://www.bartcop.com/Rove-timeline-11-7-12.jpg

[Rohirrim]

If you want to get even less of a growing minority, Rand Paul is the answer. It will be Jindal in 2016, who is at least sane. The Dems, who knows...

I find the assumption that the Right wants to lean more toward sanity humorous and kind of touching, in a hopelessly naive sort of way. ;D

At any rate, the Dems are just as ethically bankrupt as the Republicans. They have learned, faster than the Right, how to cater to the minimum required of the electorate to get elected without bringing real change to the table. They'll probably be rewarded with more special interest bucks.

Like people with real political knowledge keep trying to point out, Obama is not much different than Eisenhower, or Nixon. In other words, by electing Obama, we're not moving forward, we're sliding backwards, but in a comfortable, let's not rock the boat too much, kind of fashion. Of course, that's an improvement over the Right's "Every man for himself" ethos.

What this country needs, not now, more like ten years ago, is real change. Obviously, our economical model doesn't work. Our energy model doesn't work. Our political model doesn't work. Our health care model doesn't work. Our foreign policy paradigms are antiquated. Our social systems are bankrupt. And all this **** is worldwide. Civilization is not addressing its problems. Mankind is in denial.

Hell, the biggest problems facing mankind, population and climate change, aren't even on the table for discussion. The first word I heard out of the candidates regarding climate change was a single sentence in Obama's acceptance speech.

[Bronco Yoda]

The uneducated angry evangelical white voter is a drug that the GOP will not be able resist. And there is still enough of this drug out there to party like it 1899.

Fear and hate is a powerful control mechanism. Once they started down this dark side years ago... it was only a matter of time.

[Dudeskey]

Put simply, the GOP needs to at least go back to the principals of Goldwater and actually stick to them. Which means they need to distance themselves from the religious nutjobs and stick to their principals of individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. None of this authortarian crap where they're pushing their values on the rest of the country.

[ZONA]

if the GOP continues along the road they have been on, they
will become more and more irrelevant...You correctly identified
that the electorate is changing and moderation is what is needed in the future.

Rush and the extreme right have driven the GOP positions
over the last 12 years, with more and more emphasis on social
issues ( abortion, gay marriage etc) that are generally dismissed
by most moderates...and which is where the country as a whole is headed.

Most people really don't care about gay marriage, in fact think that gays
should be afforded the same status as heterosexual couples. Although they
don't want gays to be considered "normal" behavior, they don't want to see them punished for being so.

By playing to the RTL/anti gay side they are distancing themselves from the average persons position, and alienating women in most cases.

In this election the only position they can really attack Obama on with the average middle class voter is the economy, and they have to convince them that the fault of the economy is wholly his, despite the fact that there is significant evidence that he has made significant progress overcoming a near depression level economic disaster, that he INHERITED at the start of his term, and mostly without any help from a congress that seems to want to play politics and not solve anything.. If they have been able to convince enough of the independent electorate that its Obamas fault, they can win today.

Assuming they have not and Obama wins it will be interesting to see if the Congress can finally decide to actually accomplish anything, or if the bickering and games continue. If so there will be wholesale movement to throw EVERYONE out in 2014, and a third party may be able to emerge at last.


Yeah, I agree. I think Rush and the other extreme wack jobs really influence too many people in to having to take those same positions just to get anywhere in the party really hurt them. Exit polls showed just 20% of Americans think the Tea Party is a good thing. So the faster they can shut Rush and others up, stop taking stupid pledges before they are even a candidate, they have a chance. Otherwise, no way.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The uneducated angry evangelical white voter is a drug that the GOP will not be able resist....


The GOP simply cannot survive without those folks.

Take them out of the equation, and the party ceases to exist.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/535620_10151309559691125_1480942405_n.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"I can't quit you..." :laugh:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533795_556505311041651_1099997125_n.jpg

[TonyR]

I know the guy you really want:

Ted Cruz, aka Republican Obama.

Son of a Cuban immigrant.

I think it's almost guaranteed that their will be a minority GOP candidate in the mix in 2016. They'll either have to go moderate or minority, and the latter is probably more likely than the former.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think it's almost guaranteed that their will be a minority GOP candidate in the mix in 2016. They'll either have to go moderate or minority, and the latter is probably more likely than the former.

An attempt to put a minority on the ticket will be so transparent that it will probably blow up in their faces - just like their efforts to appeal to women voters with Palin. Ha!

[TonyR]

Idiot George Will (who I used to like), who predicted a Romney landslide, is now saying Rubio is the solution ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/06/george_will_marco_rubio_is_tonights_winner.html ). Some guys at The American Conservative are pushing back:

T]he premature elevation of Rubio as frontrunner for 2016 is precisely the wrong strategy for building a Republican majority. Rubio is young and charismatic. But he’s a vocal supporter of the Bush-era policies that voters have twice rejected, especially on foreign policy. One lesson of this election is that Americans do not want another war. I doubt their appetite for confrontation will increase over the next four years. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/george-will-gives-more-bad-advice/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=george-will-gives-more-bad-advice

The bigger flaw in that statement from Will is the assumption that this is something to be fixed by nominating the right sort of person, as if a party’s demographic appeal depended mainly on the personal history of its presidential candidates or other political leaders. If a party has little or nothing relevant to say to a certain constituency or group, the people at the top of the party won’t make any difference. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/no-marco-rubio-is-not-the-answer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=no-marco-rubio-is-not-the-answer

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Not really too worried about the re-trying of the Civil Rights issue. Especially once it gets out that Rand Paul will pardon all non-violent drug offenders - which is the real civil rights issue of our time (that so many of today's modern "civil rights" "champions" seem to ignore).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JA2ehvB-_Ac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




Ted Cruz will be leaned on heavily for the Rand Paul 2016 campaign.

I don't know... seems like civil rights such as gay marriage (or at least civil unions) is "the" civil rights issue. But I guess now we have to divide and conquer every question for some reason.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush single-handedly hosed the GOP brand for generations to come.

Prior to Bush, the GOP had done an effective job of hoodwinking the electorate with Reagan's fake populism, etc., but Bush, with his brazen "yeah, I'm a crook who uses government power to serve the interests of the plutocrats - what are you gonna do about it?" administration, allowed America to get a good look at "the man behind the curtain," so to speak.

Without making some fairly radical, structural changes to its core principles and philosophy, the GOP's only remaining recourse will be to find new and improved ways to deceive voters into believing the party is something it's not.

That's going to be as difficult as it would be for the guy who broke into your house, robbed you blind, and allowed his buddies to run a train on you to disguise himself well enough to get you to let him through the front door again.

[Blart]

Not really too worried about the re-trying of the Civil Rights issue. Especially once it gets out that Rand Paul will pardon all non-violent drug offenders - which is the real civil rights issue of our time (that so many of today's modern "civil rights" "champions" seem to ignore).


The left ignores racial disparity (http://www.theroot.com/views/president-narrows-racial-gap-drug-sentencing) in the enforcement (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/3/decades_of_disparity_new_study_underscores)of drug laws (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06disparities.html)? I wonder what the "Fair Sentencing Act" Obama signed was about.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JA2ehvB-_Ac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If that's how you think a majority of people will look at a man - in 2012 - who thinks Woolworths had a right to refuse blacks because "founders" and "property!" then by all means, nominate away.

You may be correct - the GOP might go extreme with a Rand Paul / Ted Cruz / Tea Party nomination, but I don't think you represent the current GOP majority. The majority that nominated a moderate, who was once pro-choice, pro-healthcare, and not afraid to work with Democrats.

Some other issues with the Tea Party 2016 idea:

Exit polls showed Tea Party favorability at 21%.

Romney's biggest rise in polls came when Etch-a-Sketched into a moderate in the Denver debate, where he said he'd increase Medicare spending, wouldn't cut taxes on the rich, would force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc. You may be viewing politics from inside a paleocon bubble.

[Rohirrim]

An attempt to put a minority on the ticket will be so transparent that it will probably blow up in their faces - just like their efforts to appeal to women voters with Palin. Ha!

I really expect to see the GOP rehabilitating Jeb Bush and putting him into prominence in the party over the next four years. He speaks fluent Spanish and his wife was born in Mexico. The Latino vote is very conservative on many social issues and the more conservative among them could be split off from the Dems as long as comprehensive immigration reform is still not hanging out there. That's why I expect the GOP to push through an immigration reform bill quickly (and tell the fringies to go stick it). They have to start pushing the fringe out of the party if they hope to win a general election.

Of course, I thought for sure they would run Huntsman against Obama, and look what they did. Maybe expecting "reason" out of the Right is just not realistic? ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I really expect to see the GOP rehabilitating Jeb Bush and putting him into prominence in the party over the next four years. He speaks fluent Spanish and his wife was born in Mexico. The Latino vote is very conservative on many social issues and the more conservative among them could be split off from the Dems as long as comprehensive immigration reform is still not hanging out there. That's why I expect the GOP to push through an immigration reform bill quickly (and tell the fringies to go stick it). They have to start pushing the fringe out of the party if they hope to win a general election.

Of course, I thought for sure they would run Huntsman against Obama, and look what they did. Maybe expecting "reason" out of the Right is just not realistic? ;D

The catch 22 is that the fringe has become the mainstream where the GOP voter base is concerned.

If the rethugs move in a direction that appeals to immigrants, then they lose every state that went for RobMe in this election. Then they're left with the impossible odds of turning enough blue states red to change the electoral map to their advantage.

[Blart]

Of course, I thought for sure they would run Huntsman against Obama, and look what they did. Maybe expecting "reason" out of the Right is just not realistic? ;D

I think you're closer to being right in your last paragraph. Old Dude made some good points, but I think he's forgetting who runs the show.

Electorate data is nothing but hard, factual evidence. How does Roger Ailes usually respond to that stuff?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think you're closer to being right in your last paragraph. Old Dude made some good points, but I think he's forgetting who runs the show.

Electorate data is nothing but hard, factual evidence. How does Roger Ailes usually respond to that stuff?

When the GOP decided to get in bed with the evangelicals and the racist goobers, little did they know it would be "'til death do we part." ;D

[Rohirrim]

The catch 22 is that the fringe has become the mainstream where the GOP voter base is concerned.

If the rethugs move in a direction that appeals to immigrants, then they lose every state that went for RobMe in this election. Then they're left with the impossible odds of turning enough blue states red to change the electoral map to their advantage.

I don't know about that. I think this election was a slap upside the head. The message, loud and clear, "If you stick with the extremists, you're going down with the extremists." Boehner just said, during an interview, that he now considers Obamacare the "law of the land" and he doesn't intend to launch any more efforts to overturn it. If ever there was a shot across the bow of the Tea Party, that was it.

Chuck Todd was saying yesterday that if the Republicans don't figure out how to reconnect with a broader base, they are going to face every presidential election with the Dems sitting on 242 electoral votes before the contest even starts.

[Blart]

Chuck Todd was saying yesterday that if the Republicans don't figure out how to reconnect with a broader base, they are going to face every presidential election with the Dems sitting on 242 electoral votes before the contest even starts.

Nate Silver says 285 ;D

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/?gwh=AF97CE2CB375275E4D2E52943E2B2B8D




also, lol
@adamkotsko #DoesAnyoneKnowWhereICanFind liberals concern-trolling Republicans on strategies they should use to be competitive again?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The kids will destroy the GOP

READ MORE: http://bit.ly/RmsLSN (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FRmsLSN&h=CAQGoHuxR&s=1)

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544816_10151237172769255_1195343614_n.png

[Rohirrim]

Nate Silver says 285 ;D

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/?gwh=AF97CE2CB375275E4D2E52943E2B2B8D

Yikes! If that doesn't wake those dopes up, nothing will. Keep in mind that Obama almost won North Carolina. It's actually kind of beautiful and validates the founders' design. In a sense, trusting in the good sense of the American people, the system ensures that extremism can't gain control over all, even if it does take over some states, or even a region. You've got to come to the table and compromise at some point if you wish to garner enough electoral votes to win the highest office.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Out of all the data in the exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls), nothing should scare Republicans more than the chart above. President Barack Obama won the 18-29-year-old vote 60-37. He lost the 65 and older vote 56-44. Guess who will be around longer?

And for Republicans hoping that young voters would stay home, the opposite happened—in 2008, the 18-29-year-old vote was 18 percent of the total. It was 19 percent this year.

Political science dogma states that partisan preferences get baked in after voting in two elections. I'm not sure I've ever seen a study proving that, but Republicans better hope that conventional wisdom is wrong, because after 2008 and 2012, millennial voters are giving Democrats massive advantages, and they'll need that to change to stay competitive over the long haul.

But this will be particularly hard for the GOP because the youth vote overlaps with another problem demographic for Republicans—non-Anglo voters. Latinos, in particular, are significantly younger (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1940/hispanic-united-states-population-growth-2010-census) than the overal population, but African Americans and Asians are also growing at higher rates than the white vote.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9852/large/1940-1.png?1352396382

Latinos grew by 15 million between 2000 and 2010, while African Americans and Asians both grew by 4 million. Meanwhile, the white vote grew by a stunningly small 2 million. Asians voted for Obama by a 73-26 margin. Latinos did so by a 71-27 margin. And African Americans did so by a 93-6 margin. Democrats may have only won 39 percent of the White vote, but that's all we need these days.

Smart Republicans will spend the next two years talking about how they need to better appeal to non-white Americans. Problem is, they're a tiny minority in their party. Can they embrace comprehensive immigration reform in the face of their xenophobic wing? Can they suppress their base's racist instincts in order to present a more tolerant facade to millennials? Can they cast aside their anti-gay bigotry and push for equality?

The obvious answer is no. Heck, most of the GOP base don't even consider non-Whites to be "real" Americans! But the winner of that intra-party civil war will determine whether Republicans can remain a viable national party in the cycles to come.

[Rohirrim]

The kids will destroy the GOP

READ MORE: http://bit.ly/RmsLSN (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FRmsLSN&h=CAQGoHuxR&s=1)

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/544816_10151237172769255_1195343614_n.png

My oldest son (21) and all his buddies voted Green Party, so the Dems have some waking up to do as well.

BTW, Rocky Anderson took in over 35,000 votes. :ouwknow:

[Old Dude]

Alec Baldwin: "You know your party is in trouble when they ask you if the "rape guy" won, and you have to ask, "which one?"

[Taco John]

I don't know... seems like civil rights such as gay marriage (or at least civil unions) is "the" civil rights issue. But I guess now we have to divide and conquer every question for some reason.

I agree, and the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue for almost a decade now. They lost this battle a LONG time ago, but have opted to lose it in SLOOOOOOOOOOW motion.

[Taco John]

The left ignores racial disparity (http://www.theroot.com/views/president-narrows-racial-gap-drug-sentencing) in the enforcement (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/3/decades_of_disparity_new_study_underscores)of drug laws (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06disparities.html)? I wonder what the "Fair Sentencing Act" Obama signed was about.



If that's how you think a majority of people will look at a man - in 2012 - who thinks Woolworths had a right to refuse blacks because "founders" and "property!" then by all means, nominate away.

You may be correct - the GOP might go extreme with a Rand Paul / Ted Cruz / Tea Party nomination, but I don't think you represent the current GOP majority. The majority that nominated a moderate, who was once pro-choice, pro-healthcare, and not afraid to work with Democrats.

Some other issues with the Tea Party 2016 idea:

Exit polls showed Tea Party favorability at 21%.

Romney's biggest rise in polls came when Etch-a-Sketched into a moderate in the Denver debate, where he said he'd increase Medicare spending, wouldn't cut taxes on the rich, would force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, etc. You may be viewing politics from inside a paleocon bubble.


I'd be one of the ones who gave the tea party low favorability. It was co-opted by disparate interests and turned into something completely different than what it started out as. That happens on both sides.

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward. We'll know this question when its Republicans who are calling for States rights in such cases as marijuana legislation.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I agree, and the Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue for almost a decade now. They lost this battle a LONG time ago, but have opted to lose it in SLOOOOOOOOOOW motion.

They're not "opting to lose it in slow motion." They're opting to lose it. Period. They refuse to believe that gay brothers and sisters are PEOPLE.

And yes, it really is that simple.

[Dexter]

They're not "opting to lose it in slow motion." They're opting to lose it. Period. They refuse to believe that gay brothers and sisters are PEOPLE.

And yes, it really is that simple.

This is one thing that really never ceases to amaze me.

A good portion of the GOP are extremely hypocritical.

"Don't tread of me" they say.

But you can sure as hell tell women, gays, pot smokers, and non Christians what they can or cannot do. Until they change these awful attitudes that lead into this hypocrisy and reach out to more Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups, they will not be able to win another election. There just aren't enough christian men and women to make up for it.

The number of Latino's and young people that vote each election cycle will continue to increase, and the GOP better as hell figure out how to come to the middle more to appeal to these groups. Unfortunately, they're so tied to the evangelicals that it is going to be really tough.

But if you ask Fox News or its viewers, it was because Chris Christie said something nice about Obama, Hurricane Sandy helped the dirty liberals, and the dirty liberal media influenced viewers overwhelmingly by failing to criticize Obama.. ever. It had nothing to do with the lacking appeal to independents like myself, Latinos, African Americans, Women and other minority groups whatsoever right?

[Dexter]

I'd be one of the ones who gave the tea party low favorability. It was co-opted by disparate interests and turned into something completely different than what it started out as. That happens on both sides.

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward. We'll know this question when its Republicans who are calling for States rights in such cases as marijuana legislation.

There really isn't a whole lot I disagree with here. Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they say, but the more libertarian ones sure can be. I'd like for them to be consistent. You can't call yourself fiscally conservative, and spend billions of dollars on wars, and nation building.

Libertarians with social values would demolish Democrats, if they could get the red states to vote for them.

[Dexter]

If you want to get even less of a growing minority, Rand Paul is the answer. It will be Jindal in 2016, who is at least sane. The Dems, who knows...

Rand Paul, I could tolerate. Jindal, no thanks.

[houghtam]

There really isn't a whole lot I disagree with here. Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they say, but the more libertarian ones sure can be. I'd like for them to be consistent. You can't call yourself fiscally conservative, and spend billions of dollars on wars, and nation building.

Libertarians with social values would demolish Democrats, if they could get the red states to vote for them.

There is also a pretty big difference between being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible, IMO. I wholly reject the idea that democrats cannot be fiscally responsible...a look at Bill Clinton's two terms shows that, and obviously we'll never know what kind of policies Obama would have sought to put in place had his hand not been forced with the bailouts, etc? Of course the point may be moot anyhow, considering that a large part of the reason he was elected in the first place was to clean up after Bush.

Although I see a shift more toward libertarianism as a potential game changer for the republican party, it does concern me that every person I've ever known who claims to be a libertarian puts fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Every one I've known, if given a choice between, say, spending money to make sure everyone who is eligible to vote can do so, and lowering taxes, they take the money every time. To me, social issues should almost always come before fiscal issues.

Again I'm not saying all libertarians are like this, but the 5 or 6 I know have that opinion.

[Dexter]

There is also a pretty big difference between being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible, IMO. I wholly reject the idea that democrats cannot be fiscally responsible...a look at Bill Clinton's two terms shows that, and obviously we'll never know what kind of policies Obama would have sought to put in place had his hand not been forced with the bailouts, etc? Of course the point may be moot anyhow, considering that a large part of the reason he was elected in the first place was to clean up after Bush.

Although I see a shift more toward libertarianism as a potential game changer for the republican party, it does concern me that every person I've ever known who claims to be a libertarian puts fiscal issues ahead of social issues. Every one I've known, if given a choice between, say, spending money to make sure everyone who is eligible to vote can do so, and lowering taxes, they take the money every time. To me, social issues should almost always come before fiscal issues.

Again I'm not saying all libertarians are like this, but the 5 or 6 I know have that opinion.

Oh, I completely agree with you :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There really isn't a whole lot I disagree with here. Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they say, but the more libertarian ones sure can be. I'd like for them to be consistent. You can't call yourself fiscally conservative, and spend billions of dollars on wars, and nation building.

Libertarians with social values would demolish Democrats, if they could get the red states to vote for them.

That would be an impossibly hard sell. Red state voters are about as socially conservative (the exact opposite of social libertarianism) as it gets.

The red staters who vote GOP already embrace libertarian economic philosophy, which is about as extreme as it gets (Ayn Rand is the model.)

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/643999_437125779679840_1946665927_n.jpg

[BroncoBeavis]

That would be an impossibly hard sell. Red state voters are about as socially conservative (the exact opposite of social libertarianism) as it gets.

The red staters who vote GOP already embrace libertarian economic philosophy, which is about as extreme as it gets (Ayn Rand is the model.)

Yeah, totally. Cuz freedom is really only safe when it's locked in the bedroom. LOL

[Drek]

I'd be one of the ones who gave the tea party low favorability. It was co-opted by disparate interests and turned into something completely different than what it started out as. That happens on both sides.

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal. The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward. We'll know this question when its Republicans who are calling for States rights in such cases as marijuana legislation.

Really?

Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 were all kings of deficit spending and those are the idols the current GOP prays to.

The days of Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower are over. Those republicans are long gone. Now fiscal conservatism is nothing but a talking point, and when office they rush to flood money into corporate coffers via military expansionism, massive tax cuts, and irresponsible gov't. contracts.

At this point the mature path towards fiscal stability as a nation is an "all of the above" approach that Obama is currently championing. He is more of a fiscal hawk than the vast majority of the current GOP.

And if we see Schweitzer run in 2016, a dem governor from Montana who took the state's historic average of $50M annual surpluses and turned them into $400M annual surpluses, that argument is going to get a LOT harder for the GOP to make.

The democratic party is already moving at a healthy clip into true social liberalism. If people like Obama, Schweitzer, and Bill Clinton have their way the party will reign in government spending quite effectively in the near term.

What does that leave for the GOP who right now can't stop talking about abortion, rattling sabers towards Iran, and giving fiscal reform ideas that consist of closing down entire branches of the government (DoE, EPA, etc.)?

Not much.

If Obama strikes a deal with Boehner before the fiscal cliff he's going to go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time and will galvanize the U.S. in a way like we haven't seen since FDR. That was a 36 year period with only 8 with a republican POTUS who was the supreme commander in Europe for WWII and was such a moderate that he actually expanded New Deal programs and launched the highway system.

The only path to relevance the GOP has, as far as I can see it, is Neo-Confederacy. They need to throw out the party platform and start over with one centered on state's rights across the board on social issues. That is how they can appease the base without completely scorching the earth with moderates. Gay marriage? If your state wants to allow it. Legal dope? If your state wants to allow it. States get to pick their social stances and with 50 states you can bet that one of them will meet your personal views.

[TonyR]

The Republicans have the best shot at winning this new race to the center because Democrats are incapable of being fiscally conservative. The question is whether or not they are ready to jettison their socially conservative baggage in favor of the way forward.

Wow. To believe the first comment begs the question as to whether or not you've been paying attention to politics over the last several years. The GOP, in its current state, winning a race to the center? And being fiscally conservative? That's laugh out loud funny stuff right there. And then "the question" you reference in your second point? I think the answer to it is rather clear right now. Think about it. You'd expect 2008 would've woken the party up. 2012 proves that it clearly didn't.

[BroncoBeavis]

Wow. To believe the first comment begs the question as to whether or not you've been paying attention to politics over the last several years. The GOP, in its current state, winning a race to the center? And being fiscally conservative? That's laugh out loud funny stuff right there. And then "the question" you reference in your second point? I think the answer to it is rather clear right now. Think about it. You'd expect 2008 would've woken the party up. 2012 proves that it clearly didn't.

Republicans have trouble living up to their ideals, true. But it's not hard to see why. Spending is easy. Cutting is hard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/530686_556963434329172_928272313_n.jpg

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Republicans have trouble living up to their ideals, true. But it's not hard to see why. Spending is easy. Cutting is hard.

You're right, it's easy to see why.

They're ****ing hypocrites. The lot of em.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're right, it's easy to see why.

They're ****ing hypocrites. The lot of em.

This.

Today's GOP is nothing more than organized crime.

Republicans' use the power of government to siphon the contents of the treasury into the coffers of banksters, fat cat corporations, oil companies, war profiteers, and Wall Street grifters.

Can you think of the last time republicans did anything for working people or the middle class?

[TonyR]

...too many conservatives believed their own propaganda. This is what it’s like to live in a cocoon. The apparent inability to appreciate why any sane person might contemplate voting for Barack Obama is evidence of, well, of the closing of the conservative mind.

Hence the recourse to fantasies of the sort that leave the average, sober-minded voter wondering just what kind of crazy juice you’re hooked on. Obama wants to make the United States a kind of France? Check. Obama wants to crush religious liberty in America? Check. Our colleges are indoctrinating yet another generation of sadly-impressionable young American minds? Check. (Bonus: perhaps it would be better and certainly safer if fewer Americans risked going to college!) There is a War Against Americanism and Barack Obama is the enemy general? Check. The media are hoodwinking poor, gullible Americans? Check. Universal healthcare is the road to serfdom? Check. The people, damn them, are too stupid to know any better and deserve what they get? The fools. Check. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/the-view-from-the-cocoon-of-denial-and-epistemic-closure/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-view-from-the-cocoon-of-denial-and-epistemic-closure

[bombay]

http://tippingpitchers.com/images/icons/icon1.png
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone:

There's been a lot of hand-wringing among conservatives of the Rush/Hannity school in the last few days, a lot of concern about this outreach question, and honestly, the tone of the discussion is beginning to sound like the last days of a failed 1950s marriage. The husband who's gone all day at work comes home and throws his hands up in the air in mock frustration: what do you want from me, another Cadillac? Another fur coat? I just got you new shoes last week!

And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs. All she wants her husband to do is listen to her, or take a day off work sometime and take her for a drive in the country, or make some spontaneous show of affection, maybe popping home for lunch like in the old days – just some evidence that he's even faintly aware of what's going on in her head. But when they try to talk it out, things just get worse, because in his very manner of asking her what's wrong, all hubby does is reveal that he thinks of his wife entirely as a nagging, financial parasite who's always on his ass about something.


Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.


But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.


It's hard to say whether it's good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it's their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn't look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.

[Blart]

Although I see a shift more toward libertarianism as a potential game changer for the republican party, it does concern me that every person I've ever known who claims to be a libertarian puts fiscal issues ahead of social issues.

Exactly.

Where was the libertarian-right during the great struggles for individual liberty? Civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians? I see the left fighting with their bodies and wallets, but I don't see many right-libertarians.

I do, however, see right-Libertarians fighting for privatized highways and corporate rights.

What about voting rights, abuses by police and the military, and religion taking over politics? I see the left fighting, but am waiting on those socially liberal/fiscal conservative folks to join.


Libertarians are more likely to apologize for social abuses.

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises, after Mussolini seized Italy.

[Rohirrim]

http://tippingpitchers.com/images/icons/icon1.png
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone:

There's been a lot of hand-wringing among conservatives of the Rush/Hannity school in the last few days, a lot of concern about this outreach question, and honestly, the tone of the discussion is beginning to sound like the last days of a failed 1950s marriage. The husband who's gone all day at work comes home and throws his hands up in the air in mock frustration: what do you want from me, another Cadillac? Another fur coat? I just got you new shoes last week!

And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs. All she wants her husband to do is listen to her, or take a day off work sometime and take her for a drive in the country, or make some spontaneous show of affection, maybe popping home for lunch like in the old days – just some evidence that he's even faintly aware of what's going on in her head. But when they try to talk it out, things just get worse, because in his very manner of asking her what's wrong, all hubby does is reveal that he thinks of his wife entirely as a nagging, financial parasite who's always on his ass about something.


Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.


But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.


It's hard to say whether it's good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it's their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn't look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.

Has Matt met Lonestar?

[Rohirrim]

Meanwhile, back in the Right Wing Amusement Zone, the Tea Party faithful are notifying the Republican Party that the reason that they lost is because they didn't go "conservative" enough.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d110/surfdahfire/inconceivable.jpg

[TonyR]

^ Taibbi nails it as usual. Sullivan has a really good take as well. Here's part of it:

...These charlatans and money-grubbers have turned the broad tradition of Anglo-American conservatism into Southern Fried Fanaticism - and I wanted to see them crackle in their batter. They have replaced empirical doubt with unerring faith in an ideology that had its moment over thirty years ago and is barely relevant to the world we now live in. That faith has been cynically fused with fundamentalist religion to make it virtually impossible for the GOP to accept that women are the majority of voters in this country, that gay couples are equal to straight ones, that 11 million illegal immigrants simply cannot be expected to "self-deport" en masse by a regime of terrifying policing, that war is a last and not a first resort, that the debt we have is primarily a function of two things: George W. Bush's presidency and the economic collapse his term ended with.

This kind of total fanaticism about an ideology that bears no resemblance to Burkean conservatism is often called religious. But the truly religious person is not focused on the Electoral College math, but on living her own life the right way in accordance with the God she worships. She is not obsessed with policing society to keep the "other" at bay - the homosexual, the African-American, the Latino immigrant, the single mother, the young straight dude who is truly baffled by the anachronisms of homophobia and the belief that alcohol is less harmful than marijuana. She knows that living a good life is hard enough without controlling the lives and fates and dignity of others.

But the person who fuses Manichean political warfare with theological certitude cannot, will not, abandon that stance for pragmatic purposes - because there is no greater evil than pragmatism for the fanatic. A political party can adapt and change; a fundamentalist religious party loses its entire authority if it admits error, because its message is based on religious texts that are held to be inerrant. The biggest obstacle in front of today's GOP threfore remains theo-political fundamentalism, and how it can be overcome... Give the whole thing a read here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/will-the-rights-fever-break-ctd-1.html

[houghtam]

Exactly.

Where was the libertarian-right during the great struggles for individual liberty? Civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians? I see the left fighting with their bodies and wallets, but I don't see many right-libertarians.

I do, however, see right-Libertarians fighting for privatized highways and corporate rights.

What about voting rights, abuses by police and the military, and religion taking over politics? I see the left fighting, but am waiting on those socially liberal/fiscal conservative folks to join.


Libertarians are more likely to apologize for social abuses.

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises, after Mussolini seized Italy.

Because most "Libertarians" do not fit the description of Libertarians, as defined politically. They are not "fiscally conservative, socially liberal", they are "fiscally conservative, socially ambivalent".

It is not enough to just "be okay with" people getting the same rights as you. "I just don't care whether gays can marry, or whether minorities are treated equally, but stop taxing me" doesn't make you a Libertarian, it makes you a Republican who is too weak to take a stand on half (or more) of the issues the people in our country face.

[Obushma]

Politic doesnt fall on a horizontal line like most people on here are trying to paint, both parties lean Authoritarian. The way the GOP gains votes is to move towards individual liberty, no more Nation Building (the idea of Mccarthyism is dead to younger generations), and to move away from the idea of a central planning debit based economy.

[Rohirrim]

Politic doesnt fall on a horizontal line like most people on here are trying to paint, both parties lean Authoritarian. The way the GOP gains votes is to move towards individual liberty, no more Nation Building (the idea of Mccarthyism is dead to younger generations), and to move away from the idea of a central planning debit based economy.

Yeah. We should go back to 18th century economic principles. That'll work. :oyvey:

[BroncoBeavis]

Yeah. We should go back to 18th century economic principles. That'll work. :oyvey:

Hey, low CO2 emissions, no GM crops or industrial farming... Free Roaming Buffalo and infrequent showering.

I always thought the 1700s was where you guys were trying to take us. :)

[Rohirrim]

^ Taibbi nails it as usual. Sullivan has a really good take as well. Here's part of it:

Give the whole thing a read here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/will-the-rights-fever-break-ctd-1.html

But the person who fuses Manichean political warfare with theological certitude cannot, will not, abandon that stance for pragmatic purposes - because there is no greater evil than pragmatism for the fanatic. A political party can adapt and change; a fundamentalist religious party loses its entire authority if it admits error, because its message is based on religious texts that are held to be inerrant. The biggest obstacle in front of today's GOP therefore remains theo-political fundamentalism, and how it can be overcome.

Libertarians suffer from the same addiction to "purity." We just live in a fundamentalist age. It's all over the world, obviously a human disease. I still hold to my theory that 9/11 drove half the country mad with terror. The response is a kind of psycho ghost dance accompanied by the music of apocalyptica. How many of these nutjobs (like Palin, Hannity and Beck, for example) think Obama's reelection is the end of America? The simply pragmatic are the revolutionaries. Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Hey, low CO2 emissions, no GM crops or industrial farming... Free Roaming Buffalo and infrequent showering.

I always thought the 1700s was where you guys were trying to take us. :)

Are you kidding? All that methane?

[bronc_fan23]

Politic doesnt fall on a horizontal line like most people on here are trying to paint, both parties lean Authoritarian. The way the GOP gains votes is to move towards individual liberty, no more Nation Building (the idea of Mccarthyism is dead to younger generations), and to move away from the idea of a central planning debit based economy.


Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go. They would have us move to the left and so that we can become a nation of one party rule. (which is why they like Huntsmann)

There will always be Americans who will listen to a message of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. The GOP lost its way because they like big government when it suits their needs, but rail against it when the other guys in power. Consistency earns you the respect of independents and excites the Republican base. Consistency means Republicans need to realize that big government includes the military industrial complex, and foreign wars abroad.

This also means the Republicans need to stop fitting everyone in their little box, there is common ground to be found with everyone. These litmus and purity tests that Republicans tend to have are a losing formula. Obama will run this country into the ground the next four years, there will be opportunity for the GOP, but only if they do it correctly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go.

Yes, by all means, I urge you not to listen to us.

Just keep doing what you've been doing and "stay the course." :~ohyah!:

[bronc_fan23]

Yes, by all means, I urge you not to listen to us.

Just keep doing what you've been doing and "stay the course." :~ohyah!:

I say the exact opposite in my post, but thanks for playing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I say the exact opposite in my post, but thanks for playing.

This is the nugget I was responding to:

Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go. They would have us move to the left and so that we can become a nation of one party rule. (which is why they like Huntsmann)

Apparently, you believe you won't have to move toward the left on any issue, or make any sort of concessions to the opposition moving forward.

Good luck with that.

[bronc_fan23]

Apparently, you believe you won't have to move toward the left on any issue, or make any sort of concessions to the opposition moving forward.

Good luck with that.

Anti-war and pro-civil liberties was to the "left" during the Bush years, but are traditional conservative principles, so I wouldn't call that moving to the "left". (Plus liberals are all for allowing Obama to be Bush 2.0 in this regard)
Allowing states to make their own choices on drugs, abortion, and gay marriage is a part of State's right's and also a traditional conservative principle.(10th Amendment)

So no, I wouldn't call it moving to the left, as these positions are all part of a limited government.

[bronc_fan23]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/back-to-constitutional-conservatism/


Back to Constitutional Conservatism




Now that Mitt Romney has lost, virtually everyone agrees that the Republican Party needs to change. Liberals say the GOP needs to become more moderate. Conservatives say it has become too moderate. In a way, both sides are right — and wrong.
The moderate Republican ticket that liberals and GOP establishment types covet has been tried recently: Mitt Romney and John McCain. Conservatives are right that a more moderate Republican Party is not the answer.
What many of them are wrong about is conservatism. To turn on talk radio or watch Fox News is not to experience the philosophy of Bill Buckley, the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, or even something like the free market proposals of Jack Kemp. Aside from Paul Ryan’s proposals for entitlement reform—one of the few tangibly conservative and positive differences that separated the Romney and Obama tickets—the populist Right remained stuck on stupid: The President “apologizes” for America; the U.S is threatened by Sharia Law; “Where’s the birth certificate?” Obama eats dog. Donald Trump. Dinesh D’Souza.
Demagoguery, partisanship, and conspiracy theories do not represent ideas. They represent a lack of them. Throw in some clumsy language about “legitimate rape” and couple it with Romney’s Dubya impression on foreign policy, and Americans saw a “conservatism” they didn’t want. Who can blame them?
But they don’t necessarily want Barack Obama’s America either. Voters weren’t in love with George Bush when they rejected John Kerry. They just liked Kerry less. On paper, Democrats should have lost, if sour economies and high unemployment still have anything to do with how people vote. That Romney couldn’t beat Obama says far more about the Republican Party than it says about the Democrats.
The formula for victory is not being more Democrat-lite or neocon-heavy. It also does not lie in embracing socialism or abandoning social issues. The GOP can become a national party again by offering new ideas rooted in old ones.
Since the 2010 elections, “constitutional conservative” has become a popular term for some Republicans, who actually set out to distinguish themselves from the Bush-era. But what does it mean?
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government. The core definition of being a conservative in the United States, traditionally, is a belief in small government. At its inception, the Tea Party was perceived primarily as a movement against government spending and debt, and majorities of Americans were on board. A 2009 Rasmussen poll (http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2009/04/21/majority-of-americans-support-tea-parties/) showed that 51 percent of Americans viewed the massive Tax Day protests that year favorably. As late as January 2011, the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/01/tea-party-republicans-gallup.html) reported: “A new Gallup Poll out this morning finds that 71 percent of Americans, even many who do not think highly of the ‘tea party,’ say it’s important that Republicans should take its positions into account.”
Those who now blame Republican losses in this election on the Tea Party are not blaming the philosophy of limited government. They are blaming a movement that has become associated with too many issues besides limited government, including the social issues on which the early movement remained neutral.
But how should a constitutional conservative approach social issues? In this election, voters approved gay marriage in four states. Two states voted to make recreational marijuana legal. A true constitutionalist recognizes that the regulation of marriage and drugs is not found in the Constitution; therefore the 10^th Amendment renders these the jurisdiction of the individual states. Conservatives have made such cases against federal healthcare and gun regulation for some time. They should now be consistent and comprehensive in their constitutional arguments — even when they might disagree with the outcomes.
While polls show that Americans are more accepting of same-sex marriage and relaxed drug laws than ever before, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-americans-are-becoming-more-pro-life/2012/05/24/gJQAsqt4mU_blog.html) reported in May that a Gallup poll showed: “The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…” The Post continued:
The polling shows that rather than embracing abortion with increasing gusto, Americans—especially young Americans—are rejecting it with increasing disgust, and not just for religious reasons.
Roe v. Wade has long been the heart of the pro-life movement, which if overturned would allow the states to decide the abortion issue. States are now deciding on the issue of gay marriage and drugs in ways that wouldn’t have been politically possible a decade ago. As public attitudes shift on abortion, so may the politics—and constitutional conservatives could stand ready to make the most effective pro-life arguments in the history of the movement.
If youth attitudes could shift the abortion debate, the same could be true concerning our greatest financial drain: entitlements. Unlike their parents, younger Americans do the math and do not expect Social Security and Medicare to survive. The same could be true concerning youth attitudes toward the second greatest drain on resources: A counterproductive and costly foreign policy. Unlike their parents, young people can comprehend an America that does not play policeman or provider to the world while the next generation foots the bill.
A platform of constitutionally limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility could provide fresh answers to the old questions that now impede the GOP’s electoral success. This is not a departure from conservatism but a return to it.
Or the Republican Party can keep recycling Bush-isms—promising more government, war, and less freedom. Constitutional conservatism is the way forward. Conservatism defined as simply hating Democrats will remain a ticket to nowhere.
The lesson of 2012 is that the Republican Party must truly become the limited government party it has always pretended to be—or it will die.

[houghtam]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/back-to-constitutional-conservatism/

“The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…”

And this is where labels will get you in trouble.

Exit polling from this past Tuesday shows that nearly 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

[BroncoBeavis]

“The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…”

And this is where labels will get you in trouble.

Exit polling from this past Tuesday shows that nearly 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

Legal means different things to different people. And the fix is easy, if the hardest-core social cons can get their heads out of their asses.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/c_704gbgxumquq0p_oxqiw.gif

Join together the "Illegal in All Circumstances" and the "Legal only in a few circumstances" groups, and you have a solid majority. Very few people in reality support the "anytime, anywhere, and for any reason" abortion platform of the Democratic party.

The social cons just need to shut up about the rape and incest stuff and realize that a compromise is more likely to get them 80% of what they want instead of none of it.

[Taco John]

Where was the libertarian-right during the great struggles for individual liberty? Civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians? I see the left fighting with their bodies and wallets, but I don't see many right-libertarians.


Quite simply put, you're not looking - and don't care to see it. Libertarians have been fighting for civil rights since the beginning of time. It's central to what makes them libertarians.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p9rw4UiY2g0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[W*GS]

Libertarians have been fighting for civil rights since the beginning of time. It's what makes them libertarians.

Yep - the civil right for business owners to tell out-groups to **** off.

Libertarians aren't the vanguards of civil liberties - they're little more than useful tools for plutocrats.

[Taco John]

Yep - the civil right for business owners to tell out-groups to **** off.

Libertarians aren't the vanguards of civil liberties - they're little more than useful tools for plutocrats.

Individual liberty is individual liberty. The community does the rest of the work. The Klu Klux Klan wore hoods for a reason - to protect their identities because they knew that if outsiders saw who they were, they'd be ostracized. Same goes with businesses. I'd just as soon know openly who is racist so that I can keep my dollars out of their pockets.

[Taco John]

It took a coalition of the left and the libertarians who identify on the right to make gay marriage possible in Washington State.

[houghtam]

Individual liberty is individual liberty. The community does the rest of the work. The Klu Klux Klan wore hoods for a reason - to protect their identities because they knew that if outsiders saw who they were, they'd be ostracized. Same goes with businesses. I'd just as soon know openly who is racist so that I can keep my dollars out of their pockets.

Does the same apply for anti-gay, or do you draw the line there?

Not picking a fight, I'm just curious what your thoughts on the whole Chik-fil-A thing was, and I'm too lazy to go look up to see if you ever weighed in.

[W*GS]

Individual liberty is individual liberty. The community does the rest of the work. The Klu Klux Klan wore hoods for a reason - to protect their identities because they knew that if outsiders saw who they were, they'd be ostracized. Same goes with businesses. I'd just as soon know openly who is racist so that I can keep my dollars out of their pockets.

Obviously that didn't work in the South. Plenty of businesses run by bigots thrived for many years.

What is it with libertarians and their attachment to rationalist ideals that are completely unsupported by history, facts, and evidence?

[W*GS]

Not picking a fight, I'm just curious what your thoughts on the whole Chik-fil-A thing was, and I'm too lazy to go look up to see if you ever weighed in.

Libertarians never have a problem with a business being bigoted. They assume that the business will suffer for its prejudice. As we saw with Chik-Fil-A, that's not true.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/back-to-constitutional-conservatism/

Good points made here. Too bad the screamers on the Right will drown out this kind of approach. The Republicans big mistake was catering to the extremists, racists, and evengelical nutjobs in order to take the South away from the Dems. Now, they're stuck with them. It's that age old question: Once you've jumped on a tiger's back, how do you dismount?

How strange that we seem to be still carrying on the same debate over what kind of government we have that Jefferson and Hamilton were conducting more than two hundred years ago.

[cutthemdown]

“The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…”

And this is where labels will get you in trouble.

Exit polling from this past Tuesday shows that nearly 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

I still hope one day it won't be, and that the people agree with that. Who knows maybe in 100 yrs when we solve more social problems, if we do. We could reach a point someday, of enlightenment and prospierty, where society looks back at killing unborn babies as barbaric.

[cutthemdown]

Repubs have already shown their hand. They will embrace immigration reform, and open up to raising revenue through the closing of loopholes.

Obama will have to counter with accepting the loopholes, and trying to get something from the rich. Not sure repubs will just let him raise them the way he wants. I dont see the poltiical motivation from them for that. IMO Obama has more to gain by dealing, and more to lose by not. Also not like he ever has to worry about raising money again, except for his library someday. Obama may deal more then liberals would like. And i think repubs will do some things the far right hates, like accepting immigration reform that grants citzenship to illegal immigrants, and changes the way we handle immigration.

[Rohirrim]

Repubs have already shown their hand. They will embrace immigration reform, and open up to raising revenue through the closing of loopholes.

Obama will have to counter with accepting the loopholes, and trying to get something from the rich. Not sure repubs will just let him raise them the way he wants. I dont see the poltiical motivation from them for that. IMO Obama has more to gain by dealing, and more to lose by not. Also not like he ever has to worry about raising money again, except for his library someday. Obama may deal more then liberals would like. And i think repubs will do some things the far right hates, like accepting immigration reform that grants citzenship to illegal immigrants, and changes the way we handle immigration.

Your mistake here is thinking that Obama is the one with the weak hand. He's not. Boehner is. McConnell is. And they know it. Which is why Boehner is already making conciliatory statements about Obamacare and immigration. The trend is going against them and they didn't get where they are by being unable to read the message of the electorate. They also know that they are stuck between the rock of Obama's victory and the hard place of the screaming Right fringe.

[houghtam]

Your mistake here is thinking that Obama is the one with the weak hand. He's not. Boehner is. McConnell is. And they know it. Which is why Boehner is already making conciliatory statements about Obamacare and immigration. The trend is going against them and they didn't get where they are by being unable to read the message of the electorate. They also know that they are stuck between the rock of Obama's victory and the hard place of the screaming Right fringe.

Exactly. If the tax cuts expire, everyone's taxes go up. Easymode campaigning for the Dems in 2014 - "so-and-so signed the pledge, taxes got raised anyway, so-and-so is at fault." Revenue will increase by a ton, the budget will be easier to balance, and the Dems will get credit.

OR the Republicans can compromise, allow the upper level cuts expire while extending them for the middle class, they will look like great compromisers going into 2014, could probably pick up some more seats in Congress in the midterm, and begin work on immigration reform to put them in a good position for 2016.

[Taco John]

Does the same apply for anti-gay, or do you draw the line there?

Not picking a fight, I'm just curious what your thoughts on the whole Chik-fil-A thing was, and I'm too lazy to go look up to see if you ever weighed in.

I'm definitely against government being anti-gay, or anti-any people. Government's job is to protect life, liberty, and property and do so regardless of race, sex or creed.

What does Chik-fil-A have to do with government?

[houghtam]

I'm definitely against government being anti-gay, or anti-any people. Government's job is to protect life, liberty, and property and do so regardless of race, sex or creed.

What does Chik-fil-A have to do with government?

It wasn't about government, it was about you personally. You said I'd just as soon know who's racist so I know where not to spend my money. I was just curious if that applied to anti-gay businesses for you, as well.

[gunns]

The long road to recovery. They tried to get one last fix with an establishment candidate. They told themselves that it would be enough to carry them over. The hated Obama enough, and had more than enough money. What they forgot is that they need a message. Hating Obama isn't a message. You have to actually believe in something. What does Mitt Romney believe in? Everything.

The next Republican will be formidable. He'll have a clear and inspirational message. He'll speak to the entirety of the Reagan coalition, from libertarian, to blue-dog democrats. And he'll win big.

I remember hearing this after Clinton's second election. And the Republican did win, but not big, not even the popular vote. But as has been stated, a fiscal conservative and one moderate on social issues I believe too will win. For me, that's Huntsman. An amazing politician. I will never forgive Obama for calling him as Ambassador to China and leaving our state with garbage.

[baja]

Your mistake here is thinking that Obama is the one with the weak hand. He's not. Boehner is. McConnell is. And they know it. Which is why Boehner is already making conciliatory statements about Obamacare and immigration. The trend is going against them and they didn't get where they are by being unable to read the message of the electorate. They also know that they are stuck between the rock of Obama's victory and the hard place of the screaming Right fringe.

With Congress' popularity at a whooping 5% the republicans best chance at re-election would be to compromise and I bet they do.

[gunns]

Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go. They would have us move to the left and so that we can become a nation of one party rule. (which is why they like Huntsmann)

You obviously know nothing about Huntsman.

There will always be Americans who will listen to a message of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. The GOP lost its way because they like big government when it suits their needs, but rail against it when the other guys in power. Consistency earns you the respect of independents and excites the Republican base. Consistency means Republicans need to realize that big government includes the military industrial complex, and foreign wars abroad.

Agreed. Finally someone who sees Republicans doing what they stereotype Dems for.

This also means the Republicans need to stop fitting everyone in their little box, there is common ground to be found with everyone. These litmus and purity tests that Republicans tend to have are a losing formula. Obama will run this country into the ground the next four years, there will be opportunity for the GOP, but only if they do it correctly.

A little extreme and dramatic. The problem is the Republicans attempted to portray the last 4 years the same, and at least half of Americans saw what Obama had inherited from the GOP and that he did not run the country into the ground. While many saw this as an extremely close election it really was not and the GOP should see that more than anyone. They still operated on stereotypes and did not think they needed to worry about the "traditional non-voters", normally leaning democratic, part of the "47%, young, minorities, and poor. This is why they were so confident in the election. They need to wake up and not just put on the appearance of changing their views, but actually act on them. Yes the next 4 years will be different as it's all Obamas now and we do need to be in a better place than now or the American public will definitely be in it for a change but not to the GOP if there isn't dramatic change.


Response in red, have to write something to submit.

[Taco John]

It wasn't about government, it was about you personally. You said I'd just as soon know who's racist so I know where not to spend my money. I was just curious if that applied to anti-gay businesses for you, as well.


I don't have a Chick-fil-A in my area.

I didn't really pay attention to that whole fracas, to be honest. Did they say they weren't serving gay people or something?

As far as me personally, I voted in favor of allowing gay people to marry in Washington state. As I said before, the government shouldn't discriminate based on race, sex, or religion. It should see all citizens merely as individuals, devoid of race or sex or creed.

[Blart]

Quite simply put, you're not looking - and don't care to see it. Libertarians have been fighting for civil rights since the beginning of time. It's central to what makes them libertarians.

They give civil-rights lip service, but so do Scientologists. Both groups care much more about money (and eating souls).

The ACLU, for comparison, takes on 6,000 civil liberties cases a year free of charge.

And voter suppression? Apparently that's another issue that's not as important as privatized roads. Democracy, after all, is a rather touchy subject for right-libertarians.

Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises each coddled up to fascist dictators. I think houghtam is right - right-Libertarians think civil liberties are nice, but unrestrained capitalism is far more important.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

>> I think houghtam is right - right-Libertarians think civil liberties are nice, but unrestrained capitalism is far more important.<<

Exactly.

Libertarian economic philosophy is an even more extreme version of the "free market" insanity that caused the crisis of '08.

The voters have rejected that philosophy in the last two presidential elections - not sure why the Ayn Rand acolytes believe they'll embrace it in 2016.

[elsid13]

Exactly.

Libertarian economic philosophy is an even more extreme version of the "free market" insanity that caused the crisis of '08.

The voters have rejected that philosophy in the last two presidential elections - not sure why the Ayn Rand acolytes believe they'll embrace it in 2016.

Because Ayn Rand crowd is just a fanatical about that fiction religion like beliefs as the those believe in Scientology and L Ron Hubbard's bull****

[BroncoBeavis]

The ACLU, for comparison, takes on 6,000 <s>civil liberties</s> political interest cases a year free of charge.

FIFY

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I still hope one day it won't be, and that the people agree with that. Who knows maybe in 100 yrs when we solve more social problems, if we do. We could reach a point someday, of enlightenment and prospierty, where society looks back at killing unborn babies as barbaric.

They're not unborn babies.

They're collections of cells.

But otherwise, good luck with all that "someday women won't want to have control of their own healthcare decisions" stuff.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

As long as ignoramuses like cutthemdown "stay the course," the Dems will continue to win elections.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602308_557384564287059_669452873_n.jpg

[nyuk nyuk]

When the GOP decided to get in bed with the evangelicals and the racist goobers, little did they know it would be "'til death do we part." ;D

Right, because everyone knows that Bull Connor was a Republican.

Oith to libs, can you hear us now?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So It Begins – GOP Civil War

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/herman-cain-flickr.jpg (http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/herman-cain-flickr.jpg)

Within 24 hours of the Romney defeat, Herman Cain was calling for the Tea Party to leave the Republican Party, as you can hear on “Focal Point” here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0Q3xghOTckM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right, because everyone knows that Bull Connor was a Republican.

Oith to libs, can you hear us now?

Like most post-truth-era rightards, your "history" comes to an abrupt end with the Civil Rights Act.

[Obushma]

Because Ayn Rand crowd is just a fanatical about that fiction religion like beliefs as the those believe in Scientology and L Ron Hubbard's bull****

What the **** are you talking about polock, maybe in english next time? You just don't want to loose that lush State Dept job, you haven't had enough fun killing enough Arabs yet. I wouldn't want a libertarian in if I was in your position either, but look at the bright side, you can go home and eat lotsa porogis

[TonyR]

Right, because everyone knows that Bull Connor was a Republican.

Oith to libs, can you hear us now?

LOL Well, well, well! Look who's emerged from their post election respite in the cocoon!

[TonyR]

...We could reach a point someday, of enlightenment and prospierty, where society looks back at killing unborn babies as barbaric.

A good read on this subject.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/index.html

...If you're serious about reducing abortion, the most important issue is not which abortions to ban. The most important issue is how will you support women to have the babies they want.

As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions...

[nyuk nyuk]

Where does the GOP go from here? (assuming Mitt loses)

Hopefully the way of the Dodo and the Pterodactyl. :thumbs:

I think a one-party Socialist system is pretty much what the hard core Democratic constituency really wants. Always nice to see some candor from you all.

[nyuk nyuk]

LOL Well, well, well! Look who's emerged from their post election respite in the cocoon!

I had a 2 week ban. Refer to the Harry Reid thread.

[nyuk nyuk]

So It Begins – GOP Civil War

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/herman-cain-flickr.jpg (http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/herman-cain-flickr.jpg)

Within 24 hours of the Romney defeat, Herman Cain was calling for the Tea Party to leave the Republican Party, as you can hear on “Focal Point” here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0Q3xghOTckM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ha!

That's Cain trying to pretend to be relevant. Sour grapes is about all you can expect from him, even if he dug his own grave. Of course, liberals latch onto it hungrily for obvious reasons.

I'd like to see the Democrats expel their Socialists. Socialist handiwork is all over Democratic domestic policy. Contrast it to anything from any Red party: Workers World Party, Socialist International, etc... The ideological overlap is astounding. The only real difference is that they're anti-capitalist and Democrats aren't.

[baja]

With the power of the emerging minorities it will be hard to defeat the party of big government with lots of entitlement programs.

This goes against the basic principles of the Republican Party thus without taking this trend into account they will go the way of the albatross.

The country can not afford entitlements and a insanely bloated military so the only hope is to reign in the industrial military complex.

[TonyR]

I had a 2 week ban. Refer to the Harry Reid thread.

So, are you still immersing yourself in the same media cesspool that got the electorate and election so spectacularly wrong? (see link below for lots of good examples) Or are you considering stepping out into the real world? The first step is always the hardest!

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/dick-morris-awardgasm.html

[baja]

That's Cain trying to pretend to be relevant. Sour grapes is about all you can expect from him, even if he dug his own grave. Of course, liberals latch onto it hungrily for obvious reasons.

I'd like to see the Democrats expel their Socialists. Socialist handiwork is all over Democratic domestic policy. Contrast it to anything from any Red party: Workers World Party, Socialist International, etc... The ideological overlap is astounding. The only real difference is that they're anti-capitalist and Democrats aren't.

He's right about the Tea Party though. They should have called themselves the Frozen Tea Party because that's what they they have done to government.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, are you still immersing yourself in the same media cesspool that got the electorate and election so spectacularly wrong?

Of course.

He/she made that clear right from his/her first post back from exile.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I had a 2 week ban. Refer to the Harry Reid thread.

You've wasted no time in showing you learned absolutely nothing from this election.....which bodes well for Democrats in 2016. :welcome:

[Taco John]

right-Libertarians think civil liberties are nice, but unrestrained capitalism is far more important.


Is the ability to buy and sell goods a civil liberty? I don't know how you can separate them.

[cutthemdown]

They're not unborn babies.

They're collections of cells.

But otherwise, good luck with all that "someday women won't want to have control of their own healthcare decisions" stuff.

BS they are underdeveloped humans with a soul. You watch someday we reach a point as humans where things like abortion don't exist anymore. maybe we wont live to see it but it will happen.

[nyuk nyuk]

The ACLU, for comparison, takes on 6,000 civil liberties cases a year free of charge.

Look at their activism side and you'll see why so many view them as subversive. Judging an organization worthwhile based on face-value glances such as uses of nice words like "civil liberties" is about as retard level as you can get.

And voter suppression? Apparently that's another issue that's not as important as privatized roads. Democracy, after all, is a rather touchy subject for right-libertarians.

Prove it before bashing others for not going along. If voter ID is voter suppression an racism, then so is Obama asking for photo ID before issuing food stamps. The shoe DOES fit on the other foot.


Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises each coddled up to fascist dictators.

Guilt by association? I won't even ask who these dictators are, but using this standard, Obama is a Marxist. Again, the shoe DOES fit on the other foot. :strong:


I think houghtam is right - right-Libertarians think civil liberties are nice, but unrestrained capitalism is far more important.

Libertards are border busters, you should like them.

[cutthemdown]

Amazing that liberals dont see the barbarism of abortions.

[nyuk nyuk]

You've wasted no time in showing you learned absolutely nothing from this election.....which bodes well for Democrats in 2016. :welcome:

Obama lost 7 million votes from 08 to now. He got his ass kicked in between. What's next? Not bad news for the GOP, methinks. Obama bled votes and barely got out alive, and the media are hiding by making up garbage about the mighty Latino amnesty vote (even though Latino polls continually show that amnesty isn't a big issue with them).

Dream on, dude. :wave:

[nyuk nyuk]

Amazing that liberals dont see the barbarism of abortions.

Feminists are a key identity bloc and it is a routine effort every election to try to manipulate women to vote for them by making fear-mercials about their uteruses. Every single cycle they do it, and they do it because it works. There are way too many idiotic, selfish voters out there and these types of commercials prey on the idiotic and selfish as well as those who don't think the issue through.

They depend on people gullible enough to react in fear and horror and vote for the Democrat based on what Democrats say about Republicans. One thing they DON'T want is people listening to what the GOP says about itself, and above all, DON'T READ THE GOP PLATFORM!

:clown:

I for one am a woman no longer in the manipulative clutches of the left and I am hated for it, here and elsewhere. AND IT IS AWESOME.

[houghtam]

I for one am a woman no longer

Well we knew that already.

But you never were to begin with.

[nyuk nyuk]

Well we knew that already.

But you never were to begin with.

Genius post of the day. Issues of this thread are addressed so well in this post of yours, that I feel we can now end this conversation.

/closethread

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obama lost 7 million votes from 08 to now. He got his ass kicked in between. What's next? Not bad news for the GOP, methinks. Obama bled votes and barely got out alive, and the media are hiding by making up garbage about the mighty Latino amnesty vote (even though Latino polls continually show that amnesty isn't a big issue with them).

Dream on, dude. :wave:

You call coming a hair's breadth from sweeping the battleground states on the way to 332 electoral votes "barely getting out alive?"

L0L! Ha!

Your denial and delusions are pure comedy. :clown:

And, BTW, where are these "Latino polls" of yours?

[nyuk nyuk]

With the power of the emerging minorities it will be hard to defeat the party of big government with lots of entitlement programs.

Whites were 72% of the electorate here. It was them that gave Obama the victory, regardless of the manufactured Latino-hype the MSM decided to engage in. There are other angles to consider, if one wishes to take an off-the-beaten-path viewpoint: secular vote, elderly vote, etc. The media have been hyping gays and Latinos, so it goes without saying they'd hype one of their pet causes.


This goes against the basic principles of the Republican Party thus without taking this trend into account they will go the way of the albatross.

As I said, the media are heavily and unduly hyping the Latino angle. But yes, statistically, blacks and Latinos are disproportionately more likely to get on welfare. However, if one reads the GOP platform, you'll see it has nothing about cutting welfare. It said they want to get people off of welfare by creating jobs, and nothing more. Thus the I'm-skerred-of-losing-welfare meme is entirely of liberal manufacture. Consider also it was the Democrats that signed off on welfare reform, booting millions off the rolls. Not the evil, cold-hearted GOP.


The country can not afford entitlements and a insanely bloated military so the only hope is to reign in the industrial military complex.

No we cannot, but both parties need to stop using them as a carrot to dangle for votes. It gets them votes in the short term but costs the country in the long term. The military is not "insanely bloated," I don't know where you get that from. I also think those who claim this fail to understand the responsibility America has in maintaining world stability.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

BS they are underdeveloped humans with a soul. You watch someday we reach a point as humans where things like abortion don't exist anymore. maybe we wont live to see it but it will happen.

You're wrong.

Scientifically prove that "they have a soul." That's ****ing moronic.

Also, it won't happen. Not ever. Maybe in other countries, but in America? With the movement toward MORE personal freedom? Yeah, no. Not going to happen.

[W*GS]

The military is not "insanely bloated," I don't know where you get that from.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-11-29-Presentation1-thumb.jpg

I also think those who claim this fail to understand the responsibility America has in maintaining world stability.

According to whom? Oh yeah - imperialists such as yourself.

[nyuk nyuk]

You call coming a hair's breadth from sweeping the battleground states on the way to 332 electoral votes "barely getting out alive?"

L0L! Ha!

Your denial and delusions are pure comedy. :clown:

And, BTW, where are these "Latino polls" of yours?

Well I guess if you can't add votes, I don't know what to tell you.

In 2010: (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/hispanic-voters-staunchly-democratic-vote-pew-study-finds/story?id=11803142)

Latinos rank education, jobs and health care as the top three voting issues this election cycle, according to the survey. Immigration ranks as the fifth most important issue to registered Latino voters.


And (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/latino-voters_n_2082768.html?utm_hp_ref=election-2012-blog)

They found that 53 percent of Latino voters surveyed listed job creation and the economy as their top issue, while 35 percent said immigration reform was their major concern. Education and health care came in next as the top priorities.

Even in this biased poll by a Latino lobbying group, immigration STILL wasn't tops.


Why did you ask me about where I get the Latino voting issue thing? Because you never bothered to get off your duff and read about it yourself. You let the media and Democratic Party leadership pull you by the chain. They intentionally put forth the false idea that the Latino vote not only hinges on immigration, but also that wooing this amnesty-driven vote is so key it overrides the interests of the American worker by legalizing those taking millions of jobs from unemployed Americans. You cannot cater to the former without shooting the other. You simply cannot.

And why would Democrats spit in the face of the American worker and let illegal aliens take American jobs by the millions if they were so "pro-worker" to begin with? I grew up hearing how "pro-worker" the Democrats were, and it wasn't that long into adulthood that I realized all their "pro-poor person" stuff was a total sham. Disillusioned by Clinton, I quit the Democratic party circa 2004 and went Independent.

Demographics projections for this country are based on illegals who are here staying here and millions more coming for decades with those staying here staying for the most part. You do know this, right? THIS is the excuse that the political and economic elites in this country are using to justify kicking working Americans in the ass and giving jobs away to people who will do those jobs for far less money. We do not "need" to cater to these people, especially when it is detrimental to Americans to do so both in terms of unemployment rates and losses from the tax base.

[W*GS]

Disillusioned by Clinton, I quit the Democratic party circa 2004 and went Independent.

Was that when you got your dick cut off, too?

[nyuk nyuk]

According to whom? Oh yeah - imperialists such as yourself.

Be decent and intelligent enough to shrink your ridiciulously bloated graphics. I already know about military expenditures per percentage compared to other nations. Who doesn't after all, when it is trumpeted all over the place by pinkos and libnuts screaming fire at every opportunity, as if party X spending more than party Y means that party X is necessarily evil?

I've had the discussion with you already about 'imperialism,' yet instead of conceding that you have little to no position to grapple over (lifting bull**** lists off of leftist websites and pretending that the US had no right to help stop Syria from invading and butchering the Jews), you act as if nothing was said and you keep parroting the same rote leftist debunked drivel, attacking Americans for what you give the sovereign right of other nations to do: invade other people. Needless to say, you do this without explanation and instead go back to parroting rote one-liners about 'imperialist pigs.'

And then you recoil in wonder why you're suspected of being a Marxist. Ha!

Somewhere along the line when one gets enough information to show that his previous viewpoints were wrong, he reconsiders his positions. Instead of digesting this information and altering your view of the things in light of that, you dismiss it all (even though you have no ability to debunk it) and cling rigidly to what you believed what you did when you were first exposed to new information, as if you received no new information.

At the worst this blind, dismissive clinging makes you a bigot (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot), and at best, it means you're ineducably stupid. Take your pick.

[nyuk nyuk]

Was that when you got your dick cut off, too?

Ouch, the wounded animal lashes out.

[nyuk nyuk]

Scientifically prove that "they have a soul." That's ****ing moronic.

Such nonsensical standards could also be used to justify killing already born humans.

I'm not an anti-abortion stalwart by any means, but to argue for it by citing the limits of science is simply stupid.

[W*GS]

Ouch, the wounded animal lashes out.

You're the one missing parts, epicDramaFail. 'Course, all it took was a pair of tweezers.

[nyuk nyuk]

You're the one missing parts, epicDramaFail. 'Course, all it took was a pair of tweezers.

Yet again you're reduced to one-liner insinuations. My point made.

[W*GS]

Be decent and intelligent enough to shrink your ridiciulously bloated graphics. I already know about military expenditures per percentage compared to other nations. Who doesn't after all, when it is trumpeted all over the place by pinkos and libnuts screaming fire at every opportunity, as if party X spending more than party Y means that party X is necessarily evil?

You claimed that the US military is not "insanely bloated". I showed that it is. All your blather doesn't obscure the fact that you're wrong, I showed that you're wrong, and you're a blowhard dickhead.

I've had the discussion with you already about 'imperialism,' yet instead of conceding that you have little to no position to grapple over (lifting bull**** lists off of leftist websites and pretending that the US had no right to help stop Syria from invading and butchering the Jews),

The Assad regime in Syria is the Syrian people's problem, not ours. And if Syria invades Israel, that's Israel's problem, not ours. Israel can defend itself - why do you believe that they cannot?

You merely want the world "stable" (i.e., favorable to US interests) and have no interest in democracy, liberty, freedom, individual rights, etc. for anyone.

In other words, an imperialist.

Your own words prove me right, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue with reams of bull****.

PS - Go ahead, keep calling me a Marxist. That just shows what a ****ing moron you are. It's 2012, not 1952, and your lame-ass red-baiting is generations out of style.

[TonyR]

Of course.

He/she made that clear right from his/her first post back from exile.

Yep, reading drama llamas subsequent posts it's rather clear he's learned nothing. Righty fever is tough to cure.

[TonyR]

Obama lost 7 million votes from 08 to now. He got his ass kicked in between. What's next? Not bad news for the GOP, methinks. Obama bled votes and barely got out alive, and the media are hiding by making up garbage about the mighty Latino amnesty vote (even though Latino polls continually show that amnesty isn't a big issue with them).

Dream on, dude. :wave:

LOL Obama kicked Romney's ass despite near 8% unemployment and you're going to talk about him losing votes from 08 to 12? Sad, desperate, and pathetic.

[W*GS]

Sad, desperate, and pathetic.

Those terms are "nyuk, nyuk" in a nutshell.

[Bronco Yoda]

The truth of the future is that libertarianism is the new centrism - fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

Who are these mythical creatures? Where do they reside?

I made a list of friends, acquaintances & relatives from all over the country that consider themselves Libertarians. Not just people who relate to the TeaParty but Libertarian. NOT ONE could be remotely considered neutral on most social issues let alone liberal.

What gives here? What am I missing?

What is your definition of socially liberal?

[W*GS]

Who are these mythical creatures? Where do they reside?

TJ is believing the LP mantra - that most Americans are really Libertarians, they just don't know it.

It's bull****.

[Taco John]

TJ is believing the LP mantra - that most Americans are really Libertarians, they just don't know it.

It's bull****.

I've never said that. I think most people are trying to get something for nothing, and expect to have someone else pay for it - and calling such entitlement a human right.

[peacepipe]

I've never said that. I think most people are trying to get something for nothing, and expect to have someone else pay for it - and calling such entitlement a human right.

considring we all pay taxes in one form or another,there is no way of getting something for nothing.

[Bronco Yoda]

I've never said that. I think most people are trying to get something for nothing, and expect to have someone else pay for it - and calling such entitlement a human right.

Thanks for answering my question. It says a lot.

[baja]

Thanks for answering my question. It says a lot.


What does it say to you?

There are many shades of gray.

TJ is more a humanist that his political views seem to indicate.

He's no Garcia or W*GS

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Such nonsensical standards could also be used to justify killing already born humans.

I'm not an anti-abortion stalwart by any means, but to argue for it by citing the limits of science is simply stupid.

Are born humans a collection of cells? No? Then you're wrong.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've never said that. I think most people are trying to get something for nothing, and expect to have someone else pay for it - and calling such entitlement a human right.

That was Romney's exact sentiment.

We just saw how that turned out for him.

[baja]

That was Romney's exact sentiment.

We just saw how that turned out for him.

Romney is the embodiment of David Icke's archetype, the Reptilian Blood Line.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well I guess if you can't add votes, I don't know what to tell you.

In 2010: (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/hispanic-voters-staunchly-democratic-vote-pew-study-finds/story?id=11803142)

Latinos rank education, jobs and health care as the top three voting issues this election cycle, according to the survey. Immigration ranks as the fifth most important issue to registered Latino voters.



So, your "argument" is: If Latinos rank education and jobs ahead of immigration, then immigration "isn't a big issue" for them (your words.)

If I thought it would help, I'd recommend that you take a course in elementary logic at your local community college, but I realize your need to maintain your denial re: the ass whooping your party just experienced trumps all other priorities at the moment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Romney is the embodiment of David Icke's archetype, the Reptilian Blood Line.

And libertarian economic philosophy is an even more extreme form of "I got mine - screw everybody else."

[Odysseus]

I've never said that. I think most people are trying to get something for nothing, and expect to have someone else pay for it - and calling such entitlement a human right.

Henry Ford and many of the industrial giants created a world where this kind of welfare promise was initiated. "What is good for GM is good for the nation".

What do you call it when you promise to take care of people the remainder of their lives and then change your mind about it?

I agree with your position that there are a lot of people who think the world owes them something but where most people fail is remembering where this core value, or lack of, comes from.

The best way to change something isn't to destroy the basic trusts that were established but to re-negotiate which requires something our current political environment is too childish to do. Find a solution that meets the wider concern instead taking the winner versus victim approach.

I believe most Americans WOULD be Libertarian if they knew what it really meant.

[baja]

And libertarian economic philosophy is an even more extreme form of "I got mine - screw everybody else."

Libertarian is a enigma of sorts. One the one hand it's a fierce protector of individual rights, on the other it is cruel and void of compassion of others circumstance.

The first part is what appeals to the TJs of the world while the second part defines the Romneys of the world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Libertarian is a enigma of sorts. One the one hand it's a fierce protector of individual rights, on the other is cruel and void of compassion of others circumstance.

The first part is what appeals to the TJs of the world while the second part defines to the Romneys of the world.

TJ's posts make it quite clear that he subscribes to both positions.

It's obvious that, just like Romney, he regards those less fortunate than himself as a bunch of parasites.

His labeling of benefits like SS that people have worked all their lives to pay for as "entitlements" tells you all you need to know.

[baja]

TJ's posts make it quite clear that he subscribes to both positions.

It's obvious that, just like Romney, he regards those less fortunate than himself as a bunch of parasites.

His labeling of benefits like SS that people have worked all their lives to pay for as "entitlements" tells you all you need to know.

We have both been reading his posts for over ten years. Taking that into account causes me to believe he is not the psychopath that a Romney is. He has thousands of posts indicating to the contrary. I suspect he does believe there is enough abundance for all and a safety net is good and necessary for a well functioning society.

[Play2win]

The Uber-rich has benefitted immensely from America. The uber-rich has made an absolute ton of money because of the great economical environment that American has provided them with. It is right for the uber-rich to pay a fair price for the incredible service America has provided them.

I look at it somewhat like student loans. Student loans provide a vehicle to increase you income, worth and success through education. When you start making a lot of money, it is right to pay a fair price for the service that educational loans provided you.

Now, how fair the current price for student loans and education is– is very debatable, but the point still remains.

[Taco John]

Don't talk to me about compassion if you voted for a guy who drone bombs children. I'm not vulgar enough to post the images of Obama's atrocities here, but they're available for anyone who wants to see them. It turns out dead kids are just as dead under Obama as they were under Bush.

[Taco John]

TJ is more a humanist that his political views seem to indicate.



A humanist is exactly what I am - and that especially includes where economics are concerned (http://books.google.com/books/about/Human_Action.html?id=uhBlPwAACAAJ).

[Meck77]

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/8062/droneu.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/844/droneu.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

I've never said that. I think most people are trying to get something for nothing, and expect to have someone else pay for it - and calling such entitlement a human right.

You really think "most people" believe that? Really?

I'm sure some people do, just like some people inherit money, sit on their asses and demand tax cuts, and some people put their money in tax shelters overseas instead of spending that money in the economy. But MOST? You have a very low opinion of your fellow Americans.

[Rohirrim]

Theory is nice. It's like a game where you take the values you learned and believe in and adapt human society to an imaginary matrix which you find comfortable. Once you've worked out all the kinks in your little imaginary creation, you can then began to debate how wonderful it will all work when your little theory gets applied to the real world. Unfortunately, the real world does not adapt itself to your dream world.

For one thing, there are a lot of dumb people. That's just a fact. If you have a matrix where you think everybody is going to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and apply personal entrepreneurship and intelligence to pursue their own ends and create their own destiny, you're wrong. Many people are just not smart enough to do that, even if you try to educate them. They need to make a living too. And obviously, depending on the price of housing, goods and services, it's questionable whether they can make enough in the real economy to sustain themselves. Especially if your first world economy decides to send all the manufacturing offshore and not give these people employment opportunities. Certainly, there is a whole swath of Americans who can't hope to earn enough to save and plan for a time in their life when they can no longer work. Their only plan is to work til they drop.

So, you're going to get rid of all the "entitlement" programs, cut them out of your health care solution, cut education, allow a laissez faire economy where corporations are free to seek their highest profit margins (which might include sending all of their manufacturing facilities offshore), and then you are going to expect the entire population to thrive in this new, libertarian environment of self reliance? Sure, the smart ones will. They'll adapt. Go into retraining. Pick new, more profitable paths presented by the changing world. Just like in nature, those who have the capacity to adapt will find new niches and survive, and those who won't, or more importantly, can't, will not.

So then we must ask ourselves, is there any humanity in our imaginary matrix? Or is it just a reflection of our technological minds? Machine like? Devoid of imperfection? Ignoring human reality? Or no more involved than the jungle law of survival that we (supposedly) left behind us a million years ago?

The truth is, we are all just like Romney. When we create our perfect little imaginary utopian matrix we have already, in our minds, eliminated 47% of the world's people out of our plan. What happens to them? The dumb? The ignorant? The handicapped? The sick? The illiterate? The elderly? The ones your brave new technological world leave behind?

Nature is imperfect. In the old Victorian era, the Rousseauians saw nature as perfect, and if man would just return to his natural state, all would be well. But nature is chaos. Nature is a nice sunset and a babbling brook, but it is also a hurricane, a lion ripping the guts out of an impala, and a baby chick falling from the nest to be devoured alive by ants. Modeling our world after nature might be a neat, and attractive solution, but it is not humane.

Perhaps, when we consider creating our little imaginary utopian matrices, we should not allow ourselves to be so influenced by nature, or even the machined techological grid we have created to support us? Perhaps we should reach higher than that? Apply our consciousness? Apply our heart? And like Hippocrates said, "First, do no harm."

[Odysseus]

Don't talk to me about compassion if you voted for a guy who drone bombs children. I'm not vulgar enough to post the images of Obama's atrocities here, but they're available for anyone who wants to see them. It turns out dead kids are just as dead under Obama as they were under Bush.

Oddly enough war isn't as neat and tidy as we would like it to be. Our soldiers are hamstrung by all types of "rules of engagement". Why have a war when the only thing we are allowed to kill are our own resources?

How we got here and how we are leaving have changed but oddly enough we forget that.

[Odysseus]

A humanist is exactly what I am - and that especially includes where economics are concerned (http://books.google.com/books/about/Human_Action.html?id=uhBlPwAACAAJ).

I wish that an Eisenhower Republican would run. Compassion towards people framed in smart business politics.

Why is Mises not more widely practiced? Why are Chinese using Keynes theory?

[Odysseus]

The Uber-rich has benefitted immensely from America. The uber-rich has made an absolute ton of money because of the great economical environment that American has provided them with. It is right for the uber-rich to pay a fair price for the incredible service America has provided them.

I look at it somewhat like student loans. Student loans provide a vehicle to increase you income, worth and success through education. When you start making a lot of money, it is right to pay a fair price for the service that educational loans provided you.

Now, how fair the current price for student loans and education is– is very debatable, but the point still remains.

We need to raise education standards because we have become a nation of impatient retards. We do not have the capacity to think, retain a thought, or create much more than illogical fragmented statements. We are impatient with real research and the garbage statistics that people assume as real information should be insulting but most people do not realize they are being played. The reward of an educated population is honest politics instead of name calling.

[Play2win]

We need to raise education standards because we have become a nation of impatient retards. We do not have the capacity to think, retain a thought, or create much more than illogical fragmented statements. We are impatient with real research and the garbage statistics that people assume as real information should be insulting but most people do not realize they are being played. The reward of an educated population is honest politics instead of name calling.

Good points.

The internet definitely feeds into this, that is for sure.

There is something to be said for reading good, quality edited and published real hardcopy books. LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526337_10151244171199255_1063611809_n.jpg

[El Minion]

We need to raise education standards because we have become a nation of impatient retards. We do not have the capacity to think, retain a thought, or create much more than illogical fragmented statements. We are impatient with real research and the garbage statistics that people assume as real information should be insulting but most people do not realize they are being played. The reward of an educated population is honest politics instead of name calling.

Delayed gratification and immaturity are not only for children anymore. This has been coming on for a couple generations now, teens and pre-teens acting grown-up (Honey Boo Boo latest iteration) and 30 years old is the new teens with 60 years old as the new birth mothers.

[TonyR]

"We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything. We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys... It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that. It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters." -- governor Bobby Jindal.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83743.html?hp=f3

[Rohirrim]

-- governor Bobby Jindal.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83743.html?hp=f3

Sounds like Bobby just got his ass kicked out of the Party. :rofl:

[cutthemdown]

Not Disneyland thats for sure.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like they're continuing down the road to extinction... :thumbs:

In their world, President Obama only won because Mitt Romney sucked as a campaigner. If Republicans had just nominated someone who was a better salesman, everything would have been fine for the GOP.

Republicans decide their ideas aren't the problem (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162278/-Republicans-decide-their-ideas-aren-t-the-problem)

Their attempts to demonize President Obama and undercut him by obstructing his agenda didn’t work. Their assumption that the conservative side would vote in larger numbers than Democrats was wrong. The tea party was less the wave of the future than a remnant of the past. Blocking immigration reform and standing by silently while nativist voices offered nasty thoughts about newcomers were bad ideas. Latino voters heard it all and drew the sensible electoral conclusion.

The Inconvenient Truths of 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-the-inconvenient-truths-of-2012/2012/11/14/c3c1d452-2e96-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_story.html?hpid=z3

[Bronco Yoda]

We have both been reading his posts for over ten years. Taking that into account causes me to believe he is not the psychopath that a Romney is. He has thousands of posts indicating to the contrary. I suspect he does believe there is enough abundance for all and a safety net is good and necessary for a well functioning society.

I don't doubt TJ may believe this. Good on him. But I don't see that many OTHER Libertarians that believe this (and that's my point). Actually I know of NONE besides TJ. It's fashionable to say social liberal to balance out the fiscally conservatism... but it's just a misnomer IMO for the vast majority of Libertarians.

[Odysseus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU-XN5kuoKE&feature=related

Bill O'Reilly versus Donahue -- retrospective

[W*GS]

Now, to which OMer does this car belong?

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/12/TTtKOpvmRUOOMrwpMwPg1Q2.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

I'd say Nyuk, but the car doesn't have Texas plates. Ha!

[houghtam]

I don't doubt TJ may believe this. Good on him. But I don't see that many OTHER Libertarians that believe this (and that's my point). Actually I know of NONE besides TJ. It's fashionable to say social liberal to balance out the fiscally conservatism... but it's just a misnomer IMO for the vast majority of Libertarians.

My sentiments exactly.

Yoda, will you be my Star Wars bride?

[Rohirrim]

Now, to which OMer does this car belong?

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/12/TTtKOpvmRUOOMrwpMwPg1Q2.jpg

I'm guessing this guy did not take the election returns well. Hilarious!

[elsid13]

Now, to which OMer does this car belong?

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/12/TTtKOpvmRUOOMrwpMwPg1Q2.jpg

So much for the resale value of that SUV

[Odysseus]

Delayed gratification and immaturity are not only for children anymore. This has been coming on for a couple generations now, teens and pre-teens acting grown-up (Honey Boo Boo latest iteration) and 30 years old is the new teens with 60 years old as the new birth mothers.

If you include the infantile million bumper sticker guy...Wow.

Our country has become a Wal*Mart, Faux news bubble, nightmare of trailer trash tossing around psycho babble about literally nothing.

[Arkie]

Now, to which OMer does this car belong?

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/11/12/TTtKOpvmRUOOMrwpMwPg1Q2.jpg

LOL Most of the time it's the liberals that cover their cars with bumper stickers. The funniest part is that it's a big gas-guzzling Lincoln, the Republican version of the Hippie van.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/546791_10151326670071125_1262028058_n.jpg

[elsid13]

Guess this answer the question:

http://news.yahoo.com/creationism-controversies-norm-among-potential-republican-2016-contenders-180354094--politics.html


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raised eyebrows Monday when he told GQ he couldn't answer a question about the age of the earth because "I'm not a scientist, man (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rubio-declines-to-say-how-old-earth-is)."



Having a top prospect for the 2016 presidential nomination say the age of the planet is "one of the great mysteries" comes at an awkward time for a party attempting to rebuild from its Nov. 6 drubbing at the hands of voters turned off by the GOP's embrace of social conservatives. But Rubio is hardly alone among potential Republican presidential contenders. Other big names for 2016 have weighed in publicly at various times over the years to position themselves as supportive of creationism proponents.


To science education advocates, these public statements fall into two categories: craven political panders to the conservative base and expressions of actual doubt in basic scientific principles. Both are disconcerting, the advocates say, and whether or not a president stands up for science has a broader impact than the education battles where creationism most often comes up.

[nyuk nyuk]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526337_10151244171199255_1063611809_n.jpg

Hiarious fallacies of the DNC and their media toadies:

1) Disproportionate appeal to the Democratic Party is by identity voting blocs, yet the Democratic party claims to cater to the majority, most of whom voted GOP. The DNC's sole claim of upcoming future dominance via demographics are demographics projections (admittedly tentative) that are based solely on continued lack of border control and the obvious intent of Democrats in legalizing these people and wooing them with more dangled carrot goodies.

2) The false but continued claim that amnesty will woo the Latino vote, when Reagan granted amnesty in 1986, it did no such thing. Amnesty is here being used not only as a carrot on a stick for the Latinos, but one for the Republican Party, also, for the interests of the DNC, and certainly not the American worker.

[W*GS]

[Y]et the Democratic party claims to cater to the majority, most of whom voted GOP.

Based on what data? Show us the numbers.

[nyuk nyuk]

Looks like they're continuing down the road to extinction... :thumbs:

In their world, President Obama only won because Mitt Romney sucked as a campaigner. If Republicans had just nominated someone who was a better salesman, everything would have been fine for the GOP.

Republicans decide their ideas aren't the problem (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162278/-Republicans-decide-their-ideas-aren-t-the-problem)

Shocker: They aren't taking seriously the bellyaching and ideological spin of the loud, whining core of the Democratic base, isn't that shocking?

DailyKos - now THAT is a source we should all be turning our eager ears to. What are these people thinking?

Hilarious!

Yes, Romney wasn't the best candidate and clearly he wasn't the best campaigner, either. Obama lost over 6 million votes from 2008 and the GOP failed the pick them up. This election was about poor strategizing and poor candiacy, not some great prowess from the libs with their amazing shining path of amnesty carrots and hopes of one-party dominance.

Dream on.

[nyuk nyuk]

Based on what data? Show us the numbers.

You know the numbers, but the DNC chooses to spin it: "Party of the white people." Who are the demographic majority here and who make up more of the GOP's core than the Democrats? This is obvious, silly.

The "you can't woo the minority" spin is a reversal of what is really going on: The Democratic Party has a white people problem. They're having issues wooing many whites, especially on a regular basis. Their politics are alienating to the majority.

Perhaps less race baiting and confiscatory economics may help remedy this situation? Radicalization of hostile identity voter blocs is undoubtedly partly why Obama bled votes this time around. You can't claim to be a "post-racial uniter" and pull that kind of political game, trotting out a bunch of identity voters onto the stage at the DNC. Ridiculous.

[W*GS]

You know the numbers, but the DNC chooses to spin it: "Party of the white people." Who are the demographic majority here and who make up more of the GOP's core than the Democrats? This is obvious, silly.

Damn, you're a bad bull****ter.

You said, and I quote:

[Y]et the Democratic party claims to cater to the majority, most of whom voted GOP.

Where's the data that shows that "most" of "the majority" voted GOP?

You're just pissed that wealthy straight white Protestant men don't call all the shots anymore. Tough ****.