Is a New, Right Wing Party Being Born?

[Rohirrim]

Looks like the GOP is splintering. They have already driven the moderates out of the Party. Now it appears that the grass roots "conservatives" don't even like their existing party leadership, who also aren't "Right" enough for them.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B287C056-18FE-70B2-A88C6D5F0E6061E5

I sometimes wonder, how far Right do they intend to go?

[Smiling Assassin27]

None of the above, though the irony of the question is not insignificant as Progressives and Blue Dogs participate in a battle royale over health care.

The GOP isn't going anywhere. Even if every 'Conservative' left the GOP fold, it'd fill the vacuum with more of the same--Meghan McCain, Gingrich, W, Steele, et al. If anything, you'll likely see Independent registrations(and Independent candidates) rise dramatically as GOP leadership becomes Democrat-lite over time. The GOP will still exist but will have an even harder time outlining the difference between itself and the Democrat party. 'Conservatives'--a term that's so vague as to be useless--probably won't create a new political party, just go Independent and try to take votes from both mainline parties.

[TexanBob]

Nonsense. What you are seeing is the repeal of McCain's RINO revolution. What the Tea Parties and the 9/12 march were saying was "we're tired of watching a GOP that doesn't speak for us". Give us somebody - anybody - willing to stand up to the communist takeover of America instead of people who want to figure out how get along with them."

What NY-23 is doing is defining who in the GOP places values over party and who places party over values.

It's telling that when Scuzziwuzzi withdrew, she endorsed the Democrat. That shows where her true values are - with the Democrats - and that's how she would have voted in the House. What the voters in her district are saying is "we want someone who will stand opposed to the Democrats, not vote 'me too'".

It should also be noted that, because this is a special election, there was no primary. The Republican voters had Scuzziwuzzi forced on them and they're essentially saying to their party leaders "you made a bad choice".

I don't think it means conservatives will leave the GOP but what it does mean (and polls reflect this) is that conservatives are tired of their spineless leaders who don't have the courage to stand opposed to an extreme left administration. They want new voices willing to take a stand and it scares both the Democrats and the Beltway Republicans to death because the Dems count on a feckless, weak-kneed GOP to run roughshod over.

[Rohirrim]

If you think the current administration is "extreme left" I hate to think what would happen if a real lefty was elected. Obama, like Clinton, is Republican Lite.

[mhgaffney]

Probably no NEW party.

But I expect the Republicans will move farther to the right. Israel has already moved to out and out fascism -- and this may also happen here.

As disillusionment with Obama spreads -- a new wave of racism will come out of the closet in America.

Many will accuse Obama of undermining Capitalism -- and of being a communist -- without realizing that Obama has simply done the bidding of Wall Street.

The fact that so many Americans do not understand what is happening is very dangerous. The suffering of large numbers of people -- can be manipulated by extreme elements for their own nefarious ends. This is the biggest danger.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If you think the current administration is "extreme left" I hate to think what would happen if a real lefty was elected. Obama, like Clinton, is Republican Lite.

Ha!

Bush and Obama are more alike that Democrates would like to think, but its not for the reasons you think. Its for the same reasons that made Bush into a laughingstock as he left office. Obama wants more and more and more and more POWER. He's the emperor from Star Wars.

Obama may like Bush's Patriot Act solely for the reason that it further increases the fed's power over American citizens, but Obama is NOT conservative by any definition of the term. Bush and Obama were both interested in making the fundraiser rounds, but Obama comes off as almost obsessed with fundraising and campaigning.

From his socialist "czars" to his ridiculous boondoggle bailouts to his DOA albatross Obamacare...Obama is the farthest left president this nation has ever seen, and the scary part is that he still hasnt revealed just how much of a firnge whacko that he is. That part should be fun.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The funny part is that they think all they need to do to fix things is to keep attacking Obama. :laugh:

GOP victory Tuesday won't erase party's problems

By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti, Ap National Political Writer – Mon Nov 2, 9:32 pm ET

WASHINGTON – For Republicans, an election win of any size Tuesday would be a blessing. But victories in Virginia, New Jersey or elsewhere won't erase enormous obstacles the party faces heading into a 2010 midterm election year when control of Congress and statehouses from coast to coast will be up for grabs.

It's been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — abandoning the party.

So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.

The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.

In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans — the war within their base.

Not that the GOP would casually brush off even a small stack of victories on Tuesday.

One or more wins would give the Republicans a jolt, and a reason to rally in the coming months. Victories certainly would help with grass-roots fundraising and candidate recruiting. And they might just be enough to reinvigorate a party that controlled the White House and Congress through much of this decade, only to lose power in back-to-back national elections.

Viewed from the other side, a GOP sweep would be a setback for Democrats. It could be seen as a negative measure of President Barack Obama's standing and could signal trouble ahead as he seeks to get moderate Democratic lawmakers behind his legislative agenda and protect Democratic majorities in Congress next fall.

Still, with Democrats in control, the onus is on the GOP to get its act together. George W. Bush, the president many Republicans came to see as an election-day albatross, is gone, but the party troubles born under him linger.

Republican leaders in Washington certainly are mindful of the challenges.

"It's going to be a difficult road to walk, to work with relatively new entrants into the political system and to work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party who represents their interests," House Republican leader John Boehner told CNN on Sunday, arguing that there's "a political rebellion" taking place in the country.

Others are more blunt.

"Right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and there's no central Republican message," conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News on Sunday. "The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama."

A debate is waging over whether that's enough — or whether the party has to be for something, anything really, to be able to claw its way back to the top. Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America — and ended up taking control of Congress.

Heading into the 2010 elections, the GOP also faces a very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues — which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times — and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession.

Proof of a divide is in the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Potential 2012 presidential hopefuls trying to solidify their conservative credentials, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, a conservative third-party upstart, over the GOP-chosen candidate, moderate Dierdre Scozzafava. Badly trailing in polls, she ended up dropping out and — in a slap at the GOP — endorsing Democrat Bill Owens.

The White House is suggesting that those developments show that hard-liners are taking over the GOP and the trend will affect the 2010 elections. Predicted presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday: "This is a model for what you'll see throughout the country."

Indeed, there are similar tensions in Senate primaries in Florida, California and elsewhere, where conservatives are challenging establishment-backed candidates.

Adding to the party's woes: No one — or rather everyone — is speaking for the GOP.

Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party, filling a vacuum created by Bush's departure as the its standard-bearer and the lack of one single person to emerge as its next generation leader.

The 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, has all but disappeared from the Republican power structure. His running mate, Palin, refuses to disappear — much to the delight of tabloids and to the chagrin of elder party statesmen. And one of the most unpopular politicians in recent times, former Vice President Dick Cheney, keeps popping up to attack Obama — a reminder of the country's and the party's problems under Bush.

What's more, the GOP's ranks are thinning: Only 32 percent of respondents called themselves Republicans in a recent AP-GfK survey compared with 43 percent who called themselves Democrats.

Also, the party's power center is mostly limited to the South, the one region McCain dominated last fall; Obama won almost everywhere else — including making inroads in emerging powerhouse regions like the West, although Republicans still solidly control several lightly populated states in the area.

And demographic, cultural and, perhaps, economic changes in America tilt in the Democrats' favor. Consider that Hispanics, a part of the Democratic base, are the nation's fastest growing minority group. Consider that more states than ever are permitting same-sex unions; Maine will vote Tuesday on whether to allow gay marriage. Consider that the emerging new industry — so-called "green jobs" — is focused on the environment, a core Democratic issue.

Still, Republicans sense opportunity — at least in the short term.

The bloom is off the Obama rose, and the public is giving the Democratic-controlled Congress low ratings.

Economists say the recession is over but jobs aren't reappearing and unemployment is still expected to hit 10 percent. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the public is deeply divided over it. Obama's expansion of government and budget-busting spending isn't sitting well with most Americans. And independents are tilting away from Democrats.

All that raises this question: Can the GOP take advantage of such conditions — or are the problems the party faces too great? Stay tuned to 2010 for the answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091103/ap_on_el_ge/us_election_rdp

[Bob]

Looks like the GOP is splintering. They have already driven the moderates out of the Party. Now it appears that the grass roots "conservatives" don't even like their existing party leadership, who also aren't "Right" enough for them.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B287C056-18FE-70B2-A88C6D5F0E6061E5

I sometimes wonder, how far Right do they intend to go?

If "right" means getting back to low spending, and limited government -- pretty darn far -- I hope. But I hope it will be a government that lets people think what they want and gets out of their way -- for the left of center too.

I want the GOP tent to shatter -- if we have a big tent with no one in it, that does not make sense to me. If it is only about winning...and not small government, than it doesnt mean anything. Conservatives like me are leaving, as my "choice" for years has between progressive and progressive light -- to me that is intellectually inconsistant. If conservatives become more like the Dems, it becomes a race in giving out goodies, and spending that they cannot win, and should not want to win.

[Rohirrim]

Ha!

Bush and Obama are more alike that Democrates would like to think, but its not for the reasons you think. Its for the same reasons that made Bush into a laughingstock as he left office. Obama wants more and more and more and more POWER. He's the emperor from Star Wars.

Obama may like Bush's Patriot Act solely for the reason that it further increases the fed's power over American citizens, but Obama is NOT conservative by any definition of the term. Bush and Obama were both interested in making the fundraiser rounds, but Obama comes off as almost obsessed with fundraising and campaigning.

From his socialist "czars" to his ridiculous boondoggle bailouts to his DOA albatross Obamacare...Obama is the farthest left president this nation has ever seen, and the scary part is that he still hasnt revealed just how much of a firnge whacko that he is. That part should be fun.

Perhaps you could detail the "farthest left" legislation he has passed? After all, when it comes to government, that's all that counts.

[Bob]

I dont think I agree with the premise of the question.

The R's have been moving for 8+ years to bigger government -- its not as much a left/right issue. It is a fiscally responsbility vs spend too much issue.

Personally, I do not agree with the whole notion that has led to more "losses" for R's over the years -- become more like the D's and pick up more votes -- to me, that seems like the media has sold this idea to gutless politicans like Spector. I think that McCain was not a choice or a contrast. If he would have bankrupted America, just like Obama -- how is that a choice?

The media is spinning elections today as an ideological fight for the R's -- there is no fight, the gutless can be what they want, they can get endorsements from Acorn (like in NY) but if one wants progressive thinking, why go progressive light?

[Bob]

Ha!

Bush and Obama are more alike that Democrates would like to think, but its not for the reasons you think. Its for the same reasons that made Bush into a laughingstock as he left office. Obama wants more and more and more and more POWER. He's the emperor from Star Wars.

Obama may like Bush's Patriot Act solely for the reason that it further increases the fed's power over American citizens, but Obama is NOT conservative by any definition of the term. Bush and Obama were both interested in making the fundraiser rounds, but Obama comes off as almost obsessed with fundraising and campaigning.

From his socialist "czars" to his ridiculous boondoggle bailouts to his DOA albatross Obamacare...Obama is the farthest left president this nation has ever seen, and the scary part is that he still hasnt revealed just how much of a firnge whacko that he is. That part should be fun.

Obama will mock the notion that he has Marxist leanings, and is appointing Mao lovers, but he cannot deny it, as that is exactly what he has done -- next step will have to be use some crisis to shut down media that disagrees with him. When he does, those on the very far left, will make excuses for him, Americans though will wake up, but it may be too late at that point.

FCC Czar Mark Lyode spoke about how the fairness doctrine did not go far enough -- and how Chavez lead an incredible revolution -- which included shutting down radio stations, and media that opposed him.

[Rohirrim]

Obama will mock the notion that he has Marxist leanings, and is appointing Mao lovers, but he cannot deny it, as that is exactly what he has done -- next step will have to be use some crisis to shut down media that disagrees with him. When he does, those on the very far left, will make excuses for him, Americans though will wake up, but it may be too late at that point.

FCC Czar Mark Lyode spoke about how the fairness doctrine did not go far enough -- and how Chavez lead an incredible revolution -- which included shutting down radio stations, and media that opposed him.

The only thing that matters is the legislation passed. The rest is noise. Tell me about the radical, Marxist, socialist, Lefty legislation he has passed?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Perhaps you could detail the "farthest left" legislation he has passed? After all, when it comes to government, that's all that counts.

Chirp, chirp, chirp...

:D

[Bob]

The only thing that matters is the legislation passed. The rest is noise. Tell me about the radical, Marxist, socialist, Lefty legislation he has passed?

Sometimes change is made without legislation, but by making policies, bailouts and through fear. The media on the left do not fear, but know if they want to be bailed out -- later -- they better ignore unfavorable news. Having said that your point is well taken, so here are some examples of recent stuff:

1. GM, & Chrysler are now essentially owned by Big Brother and the unions. The teacher’s pension plan in Indiana, that was first in line in this government take over, were re-ordered in line after the unions, by the government, thus breaking a contract legally entered into – which is a violation of the Constitution.
2. Several banks have been given large amounts of cash through bailouts – (how many does the government actually own now?)
3. The US government has felt it can fire and hire who they want to in these corporations? No, legislation here – just dictates from above. Wells Fargo was strong armed into it – now they are dictating how much money they can pay folks there. (Bush started this crap….)

If healthcare passes there will be greater control of government as well, and it will squeeze out the private option – just like Obama said it would (over 10 – 15 years.)

Obama has indeed appointed many Marxists and Mao lovers to important posts – a few days ago reverend Wright was more explicit about his communist philosophy –

If Obama did not like many aspects of communism, he would not have appointed Anita Dunn, Mark Lyode, Van Jones, and Cass Sunstein

So although there have been more talk than actual legislation, the talk shows what these guys believe, in the kind of “incredible revolution” that Mark Lyode referred to in referencing Chavez take over they would like to have in America. Tyranny needs to be deflected before the knife penetrates the heart of the Republic – not afterward – pulling a knife out of a corpse is futile.

You think that 120% increase in the money supply is a good thing? I think it is only good if you are intentionally trying to collapse the system, so you can put another system in its place.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes


"Republican Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out of the race Saturday after right-wing Republican titans backed Doug Hoffman, has endorsed the Democrat in the race, Bill Owens...Scozzafava is just one more Republican woman who's seen her party reject her; Palin and her right-wing friends seem determined
to make sure the GOP is small enough to hold NaziCon 2012 in the Wasilla Sports Complex."

- Joan Walsh, Link (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2009/11/01/vacation/print.html)

"The GOP is telling every moderate Republican across the country is that it doesn’t matter if you’ve been a loyal Republican for decades, it doesn’t matter if you know the district and the people, it doesn’t matter if you fit the district, and it doesn’t matter that you have given decades to the party. It just doesn’t matter. If the teabagging wingnuts and the shrieking lunatics like Michelle Malkin don’t like you, high profile crackpots like Palin and Dick Armey are going to swoop in and back some clown who doesn’t even live in the district and then sh*t all over the area’s voters, telling them their interests are 'parochial.'"

- John Cole, Link (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29162)

"I have good mentors here. I’m talking about you, Glenn."

- Doug Hoffman, the birther handjob candidate in the NY-23 election, praising Glenn Beck as his mentor Link (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/02/hoffman-beck-candidate/)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The new GOP purity test: Who’d fail? (http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2009/11/24/the-new-gop-purity-test-whod-fail/)

<!-- Print the time the article was posted --> Excerpt:

<!-- The article content --> According to The New York Times, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has developed an ingenious method of determining the “purity’ of GOP politicians. Invoking the wisdom of Ronald Reagan whom, according to the resolution, once said “that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent,” the RNC is circulating a memo that provides a ten-point litmus test that can be applied to candidates in order to determine their eligibility for RNC support.

Any Republican candidate who breaks with the party on three or more of these issues in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

It is ironic to note some who would have failed the test. George W. Bush would have failed and been deemed ineligible for support from the Republican National Committee. He increased the size of government, ran enormous deficits, endorsed cap and trade, allowed North Korea and Iran to become more serious security threats, rejected the right’s line on immigration and had guns seized in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.

The most notable Republican that would fail, ironically, is Ronald Reagan. Reagan presided over the biggest increase in government spending and the deficit before Bush, he increased the size of government, he increased taxes, he supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, he withdrew troops from Beirut, he sold weapons to Iran, he opposed California’s anti-gay marriage proposition six, and he signed the Brady bill which placed restrictions on gun ownership.

As Keith Olbermann said on Countdown yesterday, “Welcome back to the Democratic party, sir.”

Read more here: http://www.examiner.com/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d24-The-new-GOP-purity-test-Whod-fail (http://www.examiner.com/x-23316-Madison-Independent-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d24-The-new-GOP-purity-test-Whod-fail)