An autopsy of liberal Republicans

[Landslide Lyndon]

So now we can't win the NE without liberal Republicans? Even moderates aren't good enough? Wow.

House delegation of New England:
22 Democrats
0 Republicans

Throw in New York and you get:
48 Democrats
3 Republicans

I know, I know. Every election cycle will be like 2006 and 2008.

Well, every cycle wasn't like 1994, but the Democrats still haven't recaptured the South.

[Landslide Lyndon]

And 2008 by the same scale for comparison:

The most interesting conclusion reached by looking those two maps is how polarized the nation has become.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another thing worth mentioning: after the supposedly disastrous 2004 elections, the Democratic party was still viewed positively by the voters. There was no great distrust or hate towards the Democrats. They just thought that Bush and the Republicans could handle better the issues of the day.

That's simply not the case with the Republicans now. The public hates them, period.
That alone makes their road out of the wilderness even more difficult. Because it's pretty hard to convince someone to vote for you when they have such a low opinion of you. And having divisive caricatures like Limbaugh, Cheney and Palin as your spokesmen isn't going to make things easier.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yeah, remember after Watergate? The GOP was still beloved then. I guess we ought to start worrying about extinction.

I can't see how your comparison works, unless there is another Reagan waiting in the wings AND Obama becomes a second Carter. Unless of course you think that Palin, Cantor and Sanford are going to fulfill the first condition.

And Watergate didn't damage the Republican party's core ideology. After all the Republicans were ready to vote for the impeachment of their fellow President.

What happened now is that both Bush and the congressional leaders screwed up things so much that the whole conservative ideology is discredited. And since they were so closely intertwined, the latter can't present themselves as a credible alternative to their Democratic counterparts.
  

[Landslide Lyndon]

There doesn't have to be a Reagan "waiting in the wings." Stars can appear at anytime.

Reagan was a two term governor governor of the largest state and had a coherent ideology and set of policies molded after years of governing and campaigning. He didn't exactly appear out of nowhere.
Usually when someone appears out of nowhere he/she becomes soon a disaster (see Sarah Palin, Dan Quale).

And the core ideology isn't damaged here either. It's grossly overstated by the media and people that want us to fail anyway.

Whether it was ideologically based or not, the GOP was in far worse shape in 1974 (and even through until probably 1978) than it is now.

The core ideology IS damaged. That's what the public says. After 30 years of tax-cutting and deregulation we have the biggest financial crisis since 1929 and you think the GOP can still go out there and promote the benefits of Reaganomics? Tell that to Alf Landon.

And of course the public has also little appetite for fearmongering, saber rattling and minority/gay bashing, the other tenets of the Republican ideology. Especially the younger generation.  

The Republicans were in bad shape after Watergate but that was a Nixon orchestrated scandal which had nothing to do with conservative ideology. The president broke the law. He didn't enact policies that damaged the nation at large.

And as I mentioned the Republican leaders like Goldwater and Baker abandoned Nixon when his guilt became obvious. That saved their credibility with the voters in the long term.
Compare their stance with the fealty McConnel, Bhoener, Hastert, DeLay and the rest of the gang showed to Bush, even at his most egregious excesses. Hell, even now they prefer to defend torture rather than denounce him and his policies. How they expect to convince the people that they are not the party of Bush?  

And, again, you point out how the Dems had massive gains in the House that were eventually corrected a couple cycles later. That's what some of us are saying will happen if two huge recent elections for the Dems!

No, they won't come back because there has been a realignment. The Republicans aren't going to win back their seats at the Northeast, just like the Democrats never took back the seats they lost in the South in 1994.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Usually? You gave two examples and Quayle was never a major party leader.

What you said didn't negate a word I said. I never said Reagan was new on the scene (you have a problem with logic. This has happened before); I said that just because Reagan wasn't new doesn't mean we need someone "not new" to lead us back.

Quale was Vice-President of the United States. Usually a steping stone to the presidency. If a sitting Vice-President isn't considered a major party leader then I don't know who is.

And no, politics ain't easy, so that a newcomer can come out of nowhere and lead a party back to power. If it was so simple then JFK, Reagan and Obama wouldn't be something special.

You're polling the public just months after something that was deemed a crisis. Show me similar polls two or three years from now and I'll say that the ideology itself is weak.

If you want to delude yourself, go ahead. Just think for how many years the Republicans were paying the price for the Great Depression and Democrats for Vietnam and Civil Rights.

Wow. Young people not liking conservative philosophy? Color me shocked!

The rhetoric in that quote is obviously hilarious and really not worthy of any further response.  

The young people liked it plenty in the 80's. Go figure.

And your non-response is pretty telling about your inability to defend the current Republican ideology.
Unless of course you think that cries about how ''Democrats are making us less safe'', ''Obama appeases Chavez'' and ''Gay marriage is going to destroy western civilization'' are more appropriate rhetoric than mine.

But it hurt a party. Nixon hurt the GOP more than Bush did. Whether it was based on ideology doesn't matter.

That's the most delusional and fact-free assesment I have seen at this board. Not to mention that you contradict yourself, because if Nixon had really damaged the GOP more than Bush, then how the hell did they manage to return to power after only four years?

Republicans didn't abandon Bush? Uh...

If they wanted to cut the chain and ball named Bush, then they could come out after the torture reports were publicized and say: ''We denounce these tactics which are in clear violation of national and international law and in direct contradiction with Republican ideals. The former President commited a serious error by authorizing  them''.

Instead they fully embraced Bush and Cheney and they passionately defended the virtues of torture and ...Jack Bauer. Not to mention that they demamded that no prosecution to be made even for non-political persons like Bybee and Yoo.

If that's abandoning Bush, then the Republicans have an even more serious perception problem than I anticipated. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Quale was Vice-President of the United States. Usually a steping stone to the presidency. If a sitting Vice-President isn't considered a major party leader then I don't know who is.

He was never looked to as a leader in the party or a major contender for the Presidency. Stop spinning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Uh...I never said it was simple. I said it was possible. You make it seem like some established power is needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that didn't last that long. The Dems paid for Vietnam and Civil Rights...while controlling Congress. The GOP paid for the Great Depression...while gaining back Congress not too long after FDR's ascension to power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One exception and I'd still say that the younger people preferred the Dems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like our messaging. That's a main reason why we're doing so poorly, in my opinion. Our ideology is fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

How did I contradict myself? My whole point is that even after much damage being done, a party can return to power! Since we're not four years after Bush, how the hell are you going to tell me that you can prove Bush did more damage? Are you that blind?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006 and 2008. Again, you focus on one issue (and you're being incredibly vague since I don't think most Republican leaders are exactly rallying around the torture issue) and applying it to everything.

1)A siting Vice President is automaticaly considered a party leader. That's a FACT. The spin I leave it to you.

2)It's possible but not probable. If we are going to take the road of ''anything can happen'' then I can tell you that it's possible aliens will conquer the earth and put one of their own at the presidency.

3)The Republicans retook control of congress in 1946, 16 years after they lost it and one year after FDR died.
And Democrats were still nominally controlling Congress, but in reality the conservative coalition of Dixiecrats and Republicans was in control, especially during the Reagan years. The liberals already lost control after the 1966 elections.

4)No, your problem isn't messaging (only). When your party fancies itself as the party of personal liberty and then comes out against gay rights in order to appease the Religious Right then what you have is a problem of ideology. Not to mention the Schiavo fiasco.

Ditto for a party that touted the principle of prudent foreign policy, only to be hijacked be neocon warmongers like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the architects of the Iraq disaster.

And of course you can't say with a straight face that you are the party of limited government after eight years of profligate spending, warrantless wiretaps and torturing people just because the president decided to label them enemy combatants, while denying them the opportunity to dispute that characterization in a court.

5)Of course the Republicans will return one day to power. Nobody disputes that except your strawman.
And we can judge the damage Bush has done and the effect it will have on his party based on historical precedence. The 1930's and 1968 are good examples.

6)Republicans run away from Bush during their campaigns, but those who survived stayed loyal to him to the bitter end. As Josh Marshall put it: ''On the eve of the 2006 elections, the NYTimes put Bush's job approval at just 34%. The conventional wisdom was that this represented an ebb tide for the GOP, and that the next election would put a fresh face on the party and allow it to recapture ground. So Republicans stuck to their guns, figuring it couldn't get any worse. As a tactical decision, it was hardly crazy. But a funny thing happened. Things got worse. Defying precedent and probability, Bush's approval numbers sank even further: this time around, to 22%.

...

I would also note that the reason President Bush's popularity managed to fall from 34% to the unbelievably low level of 22% was closely tied to his and his party's unwillingness to take any cognizance of the results of the 2006 election.''

I use the torture example because it's the most glaring. If the Republicans really wanted to distance themeselves from the Bush years the release of the torture memos was a golden opportunity. Denounce torture, demand accountability and agree into an independent investigation.
What they (McConnell, Bhoener, Cornyn, Romney, etc. ) did instead was arguing that waterboarding isn't torture, parroting Cheney's dubious assertions that it saved thousands of lives and demanding that no prosecutions be made against those who commited war crimes, according to IRC.
If that's ''taking cognizance'' of the results of the two last elections, then as I said the Republicans are in a much deeper hole than anyone thinks.   

[Landslide Lyndon]

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Are you sure? I mean half the Texas Republicans want their state to secede.

And if they aren't the majority then why is the official Republican party letting them hijack it's image?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Name the mainstream Republicans that have stood with Bachmann. Show me the polling that backs up the idea that mainstream Republicans feel that these "leaders" have been correct. Show me the polling that backs up the idea that mainstream Republicans thing the signs that a few teabaggers held during protests were appropriate (again, support for the Tea Parties in general does not translate to "LOL LOOK! THE GOP SUPPORTS THIS SIGN SAYING OBAMA IS USING WHITES AS SLAVES!"

They haven't stood with Bachmann and Foxxe, but they haven't exactly condemned or reprimanded them for their idiotic and sometimes subversive statements.
Would it be so hard for Bhoener or Cantor to apologize to Mathew Shepard's parents for Foxxe's insensitive remarks? But apparently apologizing to the parents of a ''fag'' might have displeased the ''base''.

And don't forget that besides Perry, the GOP-controled lagislatures of Oklahoma, Georgia and South Dakota passed resolutions outlining acts by the federal government that would be grounds for secession. At what point do they stop being considered a ''vocal minority''?
 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Just in case anyone had any doubts:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/10/729942/-Cheney:-Id-choose-Rush-over-Powell

SCHIEFFER: Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party would probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat. Colin Powell said Republicans would be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them. Where do you come down [on this]?

CHENEY: Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.

SCHIEFFER: So you think that he’s not a Republican?

CHENEY: I just noted he endorsed the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama. I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interest.

[Landslide Lyndon]

But but, Vice Presidents aren't party leaders! They're just extras!

Well, they're obviously always heavyweights within the part as we can see by the strong movements behind Quayle and Cheney's respective bids for the Presidency!

As if there is any doubt that had Cheney ran for the presidency, he would have a clear field for himself.

At what point do they stop being considered a ''vocal minority''?
 

When you produce something that suggests an actual majority supports what you're claiming. Sorry but the three or four groups/individuals that you cited don't count as even 25% of this party.

Are you joking? We are not talking about some think tank or megachurch here.
We are talking about the legislatures of three states.

[Landslide Lyndon]

But but, Vice Presidents aren't party leaders! They're just extras!

Well, they're obviously always heavyweights within the part as we can see by the strong movements behind Quayle and Cheney's respective bids for the Presidency!

As if there is any doubt that had Cheney ran for the presidency, he would have a clear field for himself.

LOL

That can't be serious. Can't be.

A man with the ratings he had (that were just as bad among Republicans, too!) would have the field cleared for him? Wow.

[quote

Are you joking? We are not talking about some think tank or megachurch here.
We are talking about the legislatures of three states.

Right. Legislatures in three states now speak for a majority (or near majority) of GOP voters across the country. Got it.

1)Cheney's ratings might be catastrophic but the base loves him. And as we have seen time and again, nobody dares to go against the base. Not to mention that as a sitting Vice President he would have had all the establishment support him.

2)In case you didn't know, similar resolutions were introduced by Republican lawmakers and passed at least one house in North Dakota, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Alaska, Indiana and Tennessee.

Are we getting close to that majority?

[Landslide Lyndon]

1)Cheney's ratings might be catastrophic but the base loves him. And as we have seen time and again, nobody dares to go against the base. Not to mention that as a sitting Vice President he would have all the establishment support him.

Haha, wrong, wrong and wrong. Cheney's ratings among the base - cite them, please.

Secondly, we have seen that the base always gets what they want. John McCain - the ideal candidate of the GOP base.

We all know how McCain took the nomination. And the fact is he knew it too. That's why he selected Palin to appease the base.

I know they were passed by Republican lawmakers. You're repeating yourself. That doesn't mean a handful of legislators speak for the millions of Republicans across my country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not even close...unless you think a few hundred people in these legislatures make up a majority of the GOP electorate...

And who elects these clowns? The Democrats?
They would never dare talk about secession if they didn't knew that their Republican constituents approved it. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Whatever...
Dude.

If you want to compare Cheney with Grandpa Fred go ahead, knock yourself out.

And if you think that these people who voted for secession did it just because they were bored and wanted to have a good laugh, more power to you.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Talking to Phil is like talking to an ostrich.
Which makes sense the moment you realise that for him Santorum is considered a mainstream conservative.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What's the point?

Marokai mentioned that the Republican House leadership rewarded Bachmann with a position in an Energy Task Force Group, after her idiotic statements, and you ignore this point and continue to say that no prominent Republican defended her.

 

[Landslide Lyndon]

What's the point?

Marokai mentioned that the Republican House leadership rewarded Bachmann with a position in an Energy Task Force Group, after her idiotic statements, and you ignore this point and continue to say that no prominent Republican defended her.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How do you say "wrong" in Greek? I'll say it that way if need be.

I said that the mainstream Republicans don't give a damn about Bachmann. We didn't reward her with anything. She hasn't won scores of praise from Republicans nationally.

I'm sorry but Republicans across the country don't get a say in who gets named to some "task force." When the party as a whole holds her up as some model of perfection, feel free to give me a call.

 

Republicans across the country vote for those who comprise the Republican leadership.
Just because they aren't elected nationwide or statewide that doesn't mean they are not the face of your party. After all, Cantor himself strives to become the top Republican spokesman.

How do you say "wrong" in Greek?

λάθος

Correct.

[Landslide Lyndon]

WTF are you talking about man?

The only one who is elected nationwide is the President.

Following your logic, NOBODY in the Republican party is approved by Republicans across the country.
Jesus! That's the most lame excuse I have ever heard.  

[Landslide Lyndon]

And, no, I'm not saying they have to be elected nationwide, toolbox. I'm asking for public opinion polls, surveying Republicans, as evidence of GOP approval of people like Bachmann. Being awarded by some stupid task force doesn't translate to "TEH GOP IS LOVIN THIS BITCH!"

That goes straight to the Comedy Goldmine.

[Landslide Lyndon]

And, no, I'm not saying they have to be elected nationwide, toolbox. I'm asking for public opinion polls, surveying Republicans, as evidence of GOP approval of people like Bachmann. Being awarded by some stupid task force doesn't translate to "TEH GOP IS LOVIN THIS BITCH!"

That goes straight to the Comedy Goldmine.

Thanks    but I'll note that you ignored my point. 

When there is out there a poll who asks Republicans nationwide if they approve or disapprove of Bachmann, I'll respond.

For the moment I know that they approved of W. and Cheney, and that's enough for me.