The GOP Civil War: The Demise of a Party

[rj1]

rj, what we really need is to cut PAC off at the knees. They've reduced the clout of the parties by bringing big money to bear in elections. That has caused elected legislators to work more to please them than the party organization.

It's not enough to state what the solution to a problem is. Anyone can do that. I can fix structural issues in the world economy right now: all the leaders of the main economies come together, acknowledge that the Bretton Woods II financial system is broken and dead, and design a Bretton Woods III system whereby countries can't do competitive debasement or artificial currency pegs which harms everyone. But that's not going to happen because the leaders aren't going to get together and agree. How are you going to implement a law that cuts PACs off at the knees, with those people and their politicians fighting you all the way?

Any person that comes up with solutions to problems but is incapable of coming up with a way to do it that they can actually control or help is partaking in intellectual masturbation.

[rj1]

i do agree with JAD that this will not happen. the US electoral system is simply designed for a two party system. absent a complete revolution or overhaul, this will not change.

the stated goal of the Tea Party is NOT to found its own third party. its libertarian founders know that trying to go for a third party is a good way to be stuck in the political wilderness-- see how the Libertarians have performed in elections the last 50 years.

instead, they have a very clear goal: to take over the GOP from the inside and remake it into its own image.

I used to follow third party politics a bit when I was younger. When I did I was always an advocate for entryism. People will not vote for candidates they know will lose, period. So instead join the main party and get them to come toward your point of view.

I sometimes wish Perot won in '92. Perot was flawed but having our national politics not defined as side A vs. side B would be for the best for this country.

[rj1]

Asty, To paraphrase Jad, there is nothing new in politics. How much of the Democrat/progressive movement is new. IMHO the tea party is simply reiterating base principles of governance to argue against a movement that has been expanding since FDR. That's why they align with the GOP rather than the democrats because they are trying to remind the GOP that they supposedly represent conservatism, rather than the Dems who represent liberalism. They are simply the conservative version of the progressive movement or 'third way' as Blair et al would have had it.
I don't know enough of your system to understand why it automatically prevents a third party, I simply see the effects of a multi party system here and how it has prevented capture by extremists whilst also giving them some voice, making nearly every piece of new legislation open to negotiation. I think this would be good for the US given it's current apparent legislative logjam.

Parihaka, drawing back to FDR with this is technically incorrect. The cantankerous white populist Southerner in FDR's time was a Democrat for instance.

It does kind of remind me of Huey Long though who supposedly was going to rise up and face FDR in 1936 due to FDR not going far enough as a third-party politician before he was assassinated. (Willie Stark from All the King's Men is widely held to represent Long.)

[Parihaka]

Parihaka, drawing back to FDR with this is technically incorrect. The cantankerous white populist Southerner in FDR's time was a Democrat for instance.

It does kind of remind me of Huey Long though who supposedly was going to rise up and face FDR in 1936 due to FDR not going far enough as a third-party politician before he was assassinated. (Willie Stark from All the King's Men is widely held to represent Long.)

I think you're missing the point

[JAD_333]

Not sure how the midterms will go in 2014, but the presidency in 2016 will be Democrat. What Republican out there can unify the party in the primaries? Romney couldn't, he was the ultimate compromise candidate and as soon as he was nominated I knew he'd lose, but the fact of the matter was he was the best guy available out of everyone in the Republican primary, which is sad to me.

Who have the dems got? Biden could surprise. In any case, it's way too early to predict the dems will win. Lot's of issues could take a turn against them. Will the ACA look good by then or still look like a dog? There's Iran; the economy...possible rising inflation, etc. Or, the people just want a change and the GOP candidate looks good.

The GOP should have their act together after the 2012 demolition derby. The early running as of now includes Rubio, Paul, Perry, Cruz, Ryan, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Santorum, Cristie... Scratch Paul, Perry and Cruz as too conservative. Scratch Huckabee and Santorum as also rans. Rubio for the Hispanic vote? They see through him. The GOP bench has a solid roster of GOP governors: Mitch Daniels and Scott Walker come to mind. Jandel is another. I'm hoping the usual clowns stay out.

[rj1]

I think you're missing the point

You're treating both parties as though they're consistent solid groups that move through time and have not changed their point of view on things. That's beyond incorrect. The party you're talking about bringing up FDR died in 1968.

There were liberals that were Republicans from mostly the northeast until the 1980s. There were conservatives that were Demorats as well. Democrats have a lot of state legislatures in the South because they're the traditional party people vote for and they make sure to let their voters know they intentionally have very little to deal with the national party and are more conservative-minded.

[rj1]

Who have the dems got? Biden could surprise. In any case, it's way too early to predict the dems will win. Lot's of issues could take a turn against them. Will the ACA look good by then or still look like a dog? There's Iran; the economy...possible rising inflation, etc. Or, the people just want a change and the GOP candidate looks good.

The GOP should have their act together after the 2012 demolition derby. The early running as of now includes Rubio, Paul, Perry, Cruz, Ryan, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Santorum, Cristie... Scratch Paul, Perry and Cruz as too conservative. Scratch Huckabee and Santorum as also rans. Rubio for the Hispanic vote? They see through him. The GOP bench has a solid roster of GOP governors: Mitch Daniels and Scott Walker come to mind. Jandel is another. I'm hoping the usual clowns stay out.

Hillary unfortunately.

I don't think Biden would run. If he did, I don't think he'd win the primary unless there's a complete lack of quality candidates, which I'm not expecting. He's never really been able to leech on to Obama's personality and why people voted for Obama. Is Obama going to stump hard for him?

Jeb Bush might be best for the Republicans but I on principle am against any member of the Bush or Clinton families running for President at this point. Christie seems to have some supporters.

It is early though. Presidential race doesn't start til the day after midterms 2014.

[JAD_333]

I think you're missing the point

I think so too. This is where we see party names and political labels taking on too much importance. The real issue centers on the direction of politics. From FDR to present, with occasional lapses, we've seen a steady progression toward government nannyism. In the meantime parties fracture and pull right or left. The dem party fractured in the 1960s. FDR's coalition of eastern and southern Democrats fell apart after dems got serious about desegregation. But as the party of civil rights, the dems re-formed itself with civil rights supporters now in tow. That kept the progressives on the move. And to the point, we're in a pickle because they've gone too far and a reaction has set in. Hence the growing clout of disenchanted or conservatives. What in a name? :)

[JAD_333]

Hillary unfortunately.

Obviously. But she'd better watch her six. Some real talent on the ladies side is close behind. Liz Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand.

I don't think Biden would run. If he did, I don't think he'd win the primary unless there's a complete lack of quality candidates, which I'm not expecting. He's never really been able to leech on to Obama's personality and why people voted for Obama. Is Obama going to stump hard for him?

I said he could surprise. But I agree with your analysis.

Jeb Bush might be best for the Republicans but I on principle am against any member of the Bush or Clinton families running for President at this point.

Big on fed aid to education...that alone sinks him with far right. He could still get cross party support.

Christie seems to have some supporters.

Has a lot of support. He's blamed in some quarters for Romney's loss...or maybe they should blame hurricane Sandy.

[Parihaka]

I think so too. This is where we see party names and political labels taking on too much importance. The real issue centers on the direction of politics. From FDR to present, with occasional lapses, we've seen a steady progression toward government nannyism. In the meantime parties fracture and pull right or left. The dem party fractured in the 1960s. FDR's coalition of eastern and southern Democrats fell apart after dems got serious about desegregation. But as the party of civil rights, the dems re-formed itself with civil rights supporters now in tow. That kept the progressives on the move. And to the point, we're in a pickle because they've gone too far and a reaction has set in. Hence the growing clout of disenchanted or conservatives. What in a name? :)

Precisely. Rather than the current name calling and (mis) characterisation of the tea party by historical analogy, those of a conservative democrat nature would be better served actually understanding the reinvigoration of the Republican Party before the next elections.
There is nothing unusual about the current make up of the house and senate, yet the democrats have singularly failed to run either and have instead relied on presidential decree or edict. This will continue (Podesta? Really??)
If as Jad believes, and I agree with him, realists within the republican party can sway the roughly 25% of Americans who have some regard for the Tea Party movement to take a more measured approach rather than demanding everything now, those centrist/moderate/progressive democrats are going to find themselves very much in the cold within three years.
Dismissive name calling analogies aren't self serving right now. Realism is.

[zraver]

With the younger demographic abandoning the Left over Obamacare and the endless scandals the Dems are facing a very bad situation. The president is suppressing his own parties vote... The media isn;t helping, sure some sheeple will buy into the constant ragging against the Tea Party, but others will investigate for themselves and be converted by the populist message. Keeping the TP in the news just reinforces the old adage that all press is good press when your an under dog.

[JAD_333]

It's not enough to state what the solution to a problem is. Anyone can do that... How are you going to implement a law that cuts PACs off at the knees, with those people and their politicians fighting you all the way?

Any person that comes up with solutions to problems but is incapable of coming up with a way to do it that they can actually control or help is partaking in intellectual masturbation.

Are you accusing me of loping my mule intellectually?

Ok, let's go back to the issue. We were talking about PACs and how to control them. More specifically we're talking Super PACs, those that can spend all they want to support a candidate's election.

A sure way would be to reverse Citizen's United and its sister decision, SpeechNow.org. The rulings in these Supreme Court cases gave rise to Super PACs by allowing individuals and corporations to give unlimited amounts to outside political organization and removing spending limits on their efforts to help elect candidates of their choice, so long as they don't coordinate with the candidate's campaign. Contrast this to the limits on campaign contribution that candidates themselves must observe and we can understand why it is tempting for a candidate to align with the special interests of a Super PAC.

Little fixes in the FEC rules would help too. Super PACS have to disclose names of donors monthly or quarterly. By opting for quarterly reporting, they get a long window before an election in which they accept large donations without revealing the name of the donor. If voters knew who was paying for the negative ads, they might vote the other way.

In the absence of a legislative or judicial fix, the best way to counter a Super PAC is with an opposing Super PAC, hoping that at a minimum they cancel each other out. That raises the extraneous question, why spend so much money if the net result is zero? The directors and employees of the PACs have a good reason: It's their livelihood. Wealthy donors have a good reason: The sense of power they feel in believing they're influencing the direction of government.

The very best way to defend against the power of Super PACs and, for that matter, political parties is a free press, democratic elections and an educated electorate.

As for overcoming opposition to a change, the strategy is simple: Get more votes than the opposition.

[Bigfella]

Who have the dems got? Biden could surprise.

He could, but it seems unlikely. Would the party back him? Hilary has a machine that has been purring along for over 20 years. Unless some party heavy hitters back him early its hard to see him getting anywhere. he should probably just be thankful he got as close as one heartbeat away. Well above his level

Hilary isn't a great choice, though it depends what the field looks like. In addition to having been something of a hate figure when she was first lady (just wait for all the conspiracy theories from then to come racing back out into the light), but she is starting to look old. If the GOP goes with a younger candidate that may be another negative. People judge age differently in men & women, and her age could be a negative even if she was a guy.

In any case, it's way too early to predict the dems will win. Lot's of issues could take a turn against them. Will the ACA look good by then or still look like a dog? There's Iran; the economy...possible rising inflation, etc. Or, the people just want a change and the GOP candidate looks good.

It will be interesting to see just how Obama's legacy plays out in this election. Bush was so toxic that McCain didn't have much of a shot. Clinton's didn't help Gore much, though it looks a lot better in retrospect. Be interesting to see where Obama is by 2016.

The GOP should have their act together after the 2012 demolition derby. The early running as of now includes Rubio, Paul, Perry, Cruz, Ryan, Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Santorum, Cristie... Scratch Paul, Perry and Cruz as too conservative. Scratch Huckabee and Santorum as also rans. Rubio for the Hispanic vote? They see through him. The GOP bench has a solid roster of GOP governors: Mitch Daniels and Scott Walker come to mind. Jandel is another. I'm hoping the usual clowns stay out.

Did you say scratch Perry??

....sorry, couldn't miss an opportunity.

But seriously folks...interesting comments. Especially on Rubio. He might be a good VP pick for someone like Ryan. Youth, a bit of diversity. Is Jindal still a serious contender? I though he had some problems. What about Nikki Haley, at least for a VP spot? Is Jeb Bush a serious contender? I'm sure he has the machine, but is a third Bush really the right pick?

Christie looks like a strong contender. If he gets derailed by the 'blame him for 2012' crowd then you may be in for a re-run of the 2012 disaster, as it will indicate that the lunatics still have too much influence in the asylum. If people haven't worked out why a campaign that couldn't conduct or analyse polls properly lost an election then they are still living in the CEC bubble. There may be perfectly good reasons why Christie isn't the man, but that ain't it.

I'm looking forward to seeing who starts to come out of the woodwork after the mid-terms.

[Gun Grape]

With the younger demographic abandoning the Left over Obamacare and the endless scandals the Dems are facing a very bad situation. The president is suppressing his own parties vote... The media isn;t helping, sure some sheeple will buy into the constant ragging against the Tea Party, but others will investigate for themselves and be converted by the populist message. Keeping the TP in the news just reinforces the old adage that all press is good press when your an under dog.

They may vote Republican for 1 cycle but then the party will loose them. Most of the younger generation may have conservative fiscal values. They want to reduce the debt, curb this wild spending.

But, they will quickly part ways with the Tea Party when it comes to social values. When the Tea Party starts talking about not allowing Gay marriage,making abortions illegal,not supporting an increase to the min wage (no living wage) among other things. Then accusing anyone that doesn't agree with ALL of their policies of being RINOs they will walk away.

9 years ago, when I first started posting on the WAB (member of the great Stratgypage exodus) I was accused, by Bluesman, of trying to "Out conservative the conservatives" now I am considered either a sell out or a RINO by my party. I'm only holding on because I've been a Republican since 1981 and I'm hoping they will swing back soon. The younger demographics don't have than "Brand Loyalty"

[zraver]

But, they will quickly part ways with the Tea Party when it comes to social values. When the Tea Party starts talking about not allowing Gay marriage,making abortions illegal,not supporting an increase to the min wage (no living wage) among other things. Then accusing anyone that doesn't agree with ALL of their policies of being RINOs they will walk away.

Uhm social issues ain't TP issues, those belong to the religious right.