Very interesting editorial. I think that maybe it does explain the GOPs intentions. It will be interesting to see if it works out: The Link
I wouldn't give much credence to a post by a" Libertarian" <wink wink> on an editorial written by a professed liberal who quotes another on what the GOP 's plans are.
The GOP is probably right, if they are making that gamble. There is just no easy way for GOP to turn anybody else away from the Obama coalition to the GOP side, unless the economy does really badly in the next 3 years (not much evidence now, on that) and a lot more independents switch sides. If GOP stands its ground and not let the tea party split away, the core 45% will be there with them. The questions are whether Rubio can lower the 71-29 latino vote for Obama to even 55-45, and whether the Obama-coalition will be as well-organized for the next Dem candidate. But those two factors are enough for a 4-5% swing. But both are not bad gambles, especially when there is NO other gamble available. The GOP has lost a lot of independents and others in recent years, and they are not coming back so soon whatever GOP tries. They can't afford to lose the core supporters they have now. Keeping the same game going, hoping for the economy not to go gangbusters and for enough things to go wrong with Obamacare and spending/deficit projections is pretty much all GOP can do now - with a Rubio hopefully doing some magic on on important demographic segment [Assuming that the next Dem candidate isn't a dud, which is when this is all needed!] So, it's not a big gamble. Really the only option. I think the GOP will fail trying, if I were to guess now, though. But what else can they do? R.J.
His is a liberal perspective and if you didn't already know that because it's in the Washington Post, he puts it right in his column title. The country already has a Democratic party, it doesn't need another one. Liberal predictions of the demise of republican party are greatly over blown. For instance, at the state level, 30 of 50 governors are Republicans. Mitt Romney failed to energize the conservative base and he pissed off a lot of retirees and the like with his "47% comment". Obama attacked Romney personally over and over and over and it worked. Your LIVs came to believe Obama's accusations were true. The Republicans don't need to change so much as they need to nominate a true conservative who can do a better job of getting the Republican message out to the voters.
uh Bi No my remark addressed the silliness in your OP. Unless you think being called a libertarian is an insult? No How silly it is to think a hostile opinion offered by am avowed liberal could really be a realistic explanation of the GOP's intentions. There is nothing in the least ad hominen about pointing out your link was just an opponent's ramblings based on their own ideology which is quite far from the GOP's. I am pretty sure you knew that when you posted it. At least i hope you did.
Wow, I really hammered the quote functionality, should have previewed my post. Apologies, but hope the gist of my argument came across.
Pretty typical piece from a liberal writer who is convinced that there's no way the GOP could possibly be resisting Obama policies because they genuinely believe they won't work. When he brings that up, he says it with such shock, such skepticism - could they REALLY be gambling that it won't work? He sees conservatives as people who don't really believe what they campaign on, and that sticking to their guns is a gamble that their opponent's plan will fail. That's an incredibly cynical viewpoint and quite frankly indicative of one who doesn't know many actual conservatives and doesn't really like the ones he does know.
Actually the standard of living in most Western Democracies isn't so bad and for folks who scientifically study "happiness" places like Denmark have people who are very happy. Depending upon your perspective, that may be even more important than maximizing wealth and per capita economic output. Is Canada more conservative than the US? It seems Canadians per capita wealth recently surpassed ours.
the economy took off under reagan because the saudis started pumping oil and busted opec-----that dropped the price of fuel dramatically. In his drive to destroy communism he got the dems to boost defense spending in return for a lot of their preferred goodies and together they blew the budget to hell. That was bad enough in itself but its worst result was that it convinced a generation of republican officeholders (not the base though) that deficits didn't matter, which led to unfunded wars and unfunded seniors drug benefits.
I'm more worried about the White House gamble to become the 536th member of Congress and establish a Monarchy. There are 435 members of the House, and 100 Senators. Obama has made himself a unique, and the most powerful, additional member, now raising the total to 536. This 536th member can offer a bill, rally national emotions to a fever pitch to back it, and then blame a faulty Congress for moving too slow or not moving at all. No member elected to Congress has the stage and unlimited press coverage of the Office of the President -- he can literally out rank and out maneuver any elected member of either House. This makes the President Obama the most powerful member of Congress, plus being the only member of 1/3 of the government, he now owns, then, two of the three branches, and since he can appoint members to the third branch -- the Supreme Court -- I guess he is now the whole government. Making him a Monarch. Is this a gamble to turn the US into a Monarchy?
So is Obama more effective in Congress than LBJ, Reagan or Clinton? I don't think he's even a comparable master of partisanship.
How is the GOP marginalized? For the love of God, I hope those running the party don't believe that tripe (sadly, they probably do). The GOP controls the majority of state houses and holds a majority of Governorships. They also control 1/3 of the Congress (by a very safe margin) that the Obama coalition, trumpeted in that article, barely put a dent in. Romney was a flawed candidate, much more so then I believed. Obama is still personally very popular and has a hold of an adoring press. This will all pass.....2016 is going to have a whole new set of players. This whole marginalization mime is advice the GOP needs to turn a blind eye too.
I do believe they are gambling with their acquiescence on the immigration issue. We will be sending yet another signal that all you have to do is cross the border and eventually somehow you'll be granted citizenship. They believe this will win them enough hispanic votes to keep Dems from winning the house in 2014. It is penny wise and pound foolish. What they have mostly lost, IMO, is middle america. Their economic policies that favor trickle down theory have lost them much of the center. The mass of immigrants that create new low to middle income folks will largely vote their wallet before they vote their social conscience. As seen in both the hispanic and black community that abhore gay marriage but vote dem anyway because they think it benefits them with jobs/education/income etc. the GOPs best bet is to quit defending the incomes of the upper 2% so stridently and began to do things that are seen as helping the other 98%....particularly the middle class.
