So, Republicans -- What's the Next Step?

[paft.livejournal.com]

There's been some discussion here about the right wing response to the shocking, I tell you, SHOCKING re-election of President Obama and the over-the-top reaction we've been seeing. A lot of it has involved personal idiocies from Freeper vowing everything from cutting off disabled Obama supporting relatives from support (I kid you not) divorcing spouses, spitting on neighbors, moving into bunkers, etc.

And there have been some hints of payback from people actually in a position to hurt either Obama supporters or perceived Obama supporters. The CEO of the same coal company that forced employees to spend a day without pay listening to a Romney speech laid off over a hundred employees on November 9th after publicly reading an unctuous and insulting "prayer," and on Thursday a man claiming to be a business owner in Georgia called C-Span and boasted about cutting employee hours and laying off two people because of the election. “I tried to make sure the people I laid off voted for Obama,” he said.

The fact remains -- Obama won.

Attempts at limiting the franchise and making it hard to vote didn't help Republicans. It just pissed off a lot of voters to the point where they were willing to stand in line for seven hours to vote for a Democrat. Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment. Attacking blacks, women, gays, and hispanics didn't work. It just galvanized a large portion of black, gay, female, hispanic, etc. voters into fighting Republicans.

So my question is, Republicans, what's the next step?

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

Is that what's going to happen, Republicans? Because I have to tell you, you've been marching to the right for so many years you're on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff. Are you going to openly embrace the genteel racism of Charles Murray? Are you going to openly work to limit the vote only to people of a certain income level? Is the aim going to be disenfranchising large portions of the public and telling the rest, "vote for us or we'll fire you?"

Just curious.

*

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I've heard a lot of imaginary company lay-offs on the radio that turn out to just be butthurt conservatives. Or planned layoffs from prior to the elction. And if real ones want to deep-six their businesses because the White Guy didn't get in, good riddance to bad trash. And I hope they disqualify themselves from any government aid.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

2008: Moderate McCain nominated, Republicans lose.
2010: Conservatives run for office, Republicans win.
2012: Moderate Romney nominated, conservative House members up for reelection, Republicans lose presidency and retain most of the wins from 2010.

Please, continue to tell us more how our "march to the right" is hurting the party.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Really? I saw a bunch of extremist republicans go down in flames - the rape philosophers, Alan West, despite republican-friendly redistricting, Michelle Bachmann barely kept her seat.

But you know what? I encourage the doubling-down of the crowd that thinks more extremism is the way to go because that should lead to even more losses in 2014.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Your "march to the right" is hurting you because the voting demographics have changed dramatically. Black voters, in particular, are less easily discouraged from voting, in spite of all your efforts. Women and racial minorities aren't responding to racist and sexist dogwhistles the way a predominantly white, male voting bloc would.

So do tell, what's next? Is your party going to openly advocate cutting back on the franchise, limiting the vote only to citizens with a certain level of income? Do you think employers should start firing Obama supporters and only hiring people who agree politically with the boss? Are the white supremacist leanings of the current GOP going to go from covert to overt?

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay. So what you're saying is that moderate Republicans don't win because they can't carry the political center in this country. If they want to salvage their hopes as a viable political party, they've got to pull right and inspire their hard core supporters to become more active and involved.

Do you think that the 2010 state elections, and their subsequent redistricting, had anything to do with Republican resilience in the most recent national election?

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

It's a tricky thing. A conservative from a red state can afford to be as conservative as he wants to be. But if that person runs for President, he has to appeal to the swing states, which could flip either way. And if his positions differ too much, he's a flip-flopper. Just like how Romney had more liberal positions earlier in his career, but tried to be more of a conservative this year, and no one really trusted that they knew where he stood.

Don't leave off 2006, Republicans lose. In some ways, I think 2006 and 2008 were reactive against Bush, and 2010 was reactive against Obama/the dem majority in Congress due to the bailouts and Obamacare. 2012 maintained the status quo.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Republican's made the tactical decision to run a candidate who was more moderate (comparatively) for reasons of electability.

Were they wrong?
Did their tactics backfire? If so, why were they so stupid?

Had the republicans nominated Santorum, or Perry, or Bachman, do you really think the numbers would have been different? I do, but I think the difference would have been a larger margin for Obama.

The decision to run Romney was not stupid, Monday quarterbacking aside. He was the best candidate in the field, with the best chance of winning versus Obama, after other moderats like Huntsman were eliminated so very, VERY quickly. Looking back, a moderate in 2008 was absolutely necessary given the horrendous damage to the brand for Republicans done by Bush and Iraq and the recession.

2010 is different, #1 because we are talking about local races rather than national ones, and #2 Republicans figured out a short term method to avoid institutional responsibility for 2008, and were thus able to capitalize on voter anger without being the target of it.

The bottom line is, extreme social conservatism can no longer ride the coat tails of fiscal conservatism. The Republican party needs to abrogate the deal with the devil it made with evangelicals in the 80's. Playing to that peanut gallery demeans and damages any candidate they want to put into a national race.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Well, let's be honest here: Republicans have always been, as a group, incredibly vindictive against anyone they feel has "transgressed" or who doesn't agree with their positions. It's obvious when you look at how they treat people of color, LGBT people, women and other minorities. Or when you look at things like how they target people on welfare and try to turn the public against them (the sad part is, that's worked). It's even more obvious when you look at the targeted voter disenfranchisement they attempted this election. I wasn't surprised in the least to hear of Republicans laying off workers and otherwise pulling nasty, vindictive bullshit in the wake of Obama's reelection - there were messages going around that night and the next day for women and, particularly, people of color to stay indoors because angry Republicans might hurt or harass them, for fuck's sake.

So yeah, you say the Republicans are "on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff." I'd argue they've already fallen, but they haven't figured it out yet. They run on a platform of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, and murder. It doesn't get much plainer than that.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Republicans have always been, as a group, incredibly vindictive against anyone they feel has
> "transgressed" or who doesn't agree with their positions.

I don't think this has always been the case, or at least, has not been so strongly the case, until the absorption by the republican party of the Evangelical contingent. That is a huge source of their current intransigence, inability to compromise in order to govern, and predilection for apocalyptic silliness.

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, that is not nearly on the same scale as firing people, and so it's irrelevant. Yes, there are assholes on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is denying that. It's the Republican side, however, which seems to have veered increasingly into a higher level of personal vindictiveness.

You obviously aren't old enough to remember the 2000 "election" because the Democrats most certainly DID behave differently. I heard no significant calls to "shun" relatives, neighbors, and friends who voted Republican, and I heard of no movement among Democratic bosses to fire Republican employees.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment.

Citizens United had to do with not being able to suppress speech (in that case, a movie), political or otherwise, based around an arbitrary time frame around an election. That's a mighty long road to hoe if the claim is: "Corporate backed movie, ergo employees fired, QED" At least, it's not obvious to me. If it is to you, and you don't mind humoring my poor understanding, please illuminate further.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Citizens United had to do with equating massive political donations from corporations with free speech. It has emboldened some employers into believing that it gives them the right to campaign at the workplace for their own chosen candidate. This version of "free speech" endangers the free speech of employees, who may very well, and with good reason, find themselves reluctant to argue with the boss and thus reveal their own political viewpoints.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

How about getting some presidential candidates that voters can take seriously, like a more popular version of Huntsman or Pawlenty? I think it hurt the party when the frontrunner for nominee was "anyone but Mitt" until he was the only choice left. Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich - each was a joke of a candidate, yet each was a frontrunner at one point or another during the nomination process. And let's not with Santorum, please. I don't think Rubio or Ryan will appeal to moderate voters (though I don't like them, so I could be biased). It won't be Boehner. The Republicans need a candidate who can compromise, who can work with people who don't agree with him or her, who is smart and educated and who doesn't put ideology above pragmatism.

Well actually, the frontrunner in 2016 will probably be Chris Christie, as long as Mitt's loss isn't blamed on him. Conservative from a blue region might just work.

I think the Republicans need to realize that while they might be appealing to specific demographics, their government needs to have room for all Americans. You can't just say, "They have welfare, so I won't worry about them." It was clear from Romney's comments during his campaign that he couldn't empathize with poor people, that he's never lived paycheck to paycheck, or wondered where his next meal was going to come from. On that scale, he's lived a limited life.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

It's unclear what you call "to the right" in this context, but how do you explain the U.S. House results?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Republican state houses were in charge of the redistricting as a result of the 2010 elections, and the census. The districts were redrawn in such a way that favored Republican candidates. Had the 2008 districts been used, Democrats would have easily taken the House back. That's how you explain it.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you caught David Frum on Morning Joe Friday morning, but he has new E-book out on why Romney lost the election. Frum goes to great statistical lengths to demonstrate the shrinking ability of the GOP to win votes over the last few cycles, Video won't embed, but you can watch it here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#49757420)

Republicans have been fleeced, exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex...there are too many to name. Because the followers, the donors and the activists are so mistaken about the nature of the problems the country faces...just a simple question, and I went to Tea Party rallies and asked this question, have taxes gone up or down in recent years? They can't answer this question. He continues, " What happened to Mitt Romney: he was twisted into pretzels. And the people who put the cement shoes on Romney's feet are now blaming him for sinking."

Frum also really discounts the idea if Romney was a real conservative, he'd won the election. (http://i.imgur.com/bm0QA.png)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

Of course they do. Did loosing the elections in 04 or 2010 make you want to shift your political stance any? Or did you just rant and rave about the stupidy/lack-of-moral-fiber prevalent in the general electorate?

As for "What's the Next Step?" it's hard to say.

The old guard establishment wing Republicans have lost a lot of face both within the party and with the nation. Whether or not they reassert themselves or are replaced by others remains to be seen

[paft.livejournal.com]

The Democrats as a political party have not been steadily veering to the left as the Republicans have been steadily veering to the right for the past 30 years.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The eating popcorn on the couch side of me wants the GOP to imitate the British Labor party in the 70s and go so off the all that they're irrelevant for a generation just to see how far these assclowns can push Right-Wing rhetoric before they wake up. The realist realizes that this would give the Dems a virtual monopoly on power and nothing would really change. The realist usually shuts up.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I'm all for letting the Democrats run the country into the ground so I can say that I told you so.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Is that motto for your proposed campaign run? You'll travel far with that.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

The next Step....

After loosing in Ohio, and loosing among women by 11%....

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-4158-republican_anti_abor.html

Cooperation between competing right to life groups revived controversial legislation to restrict abortions that now looks like it will be considered in the legislative lame duck session, which begins next week. [...] Called the heartbeat bill because it would prevent an abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected, sometimes as early as six weeks before women may know they’re pregnant, HB 125 split the Ohio right to life movement because of differing philosophies about the measure.

Double Down, baby. Double down.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

mother

fucking

uncanny

valley

horror

*hides*

[papasha-mueller.livejournal.com]

Look on the bright side of life (c)

Leaving aside all the electoral costs - at least, now we know: Mr. Obama loves Michael.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I hope they continue down this death spiral. Maybe one day we'll actually have a real choice of who to elect in this country. The Republican party is the laughingstock of the world.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it getting so it is hard to tell what is an Onion story, and what a republican actually said.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

The next step? When you start seeing Trump 2016 stickers, you'll have your answer.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

And they'll get theirs once they see Georgia turn into a blue state.

It'll happen, one day.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This probably merits its own post, but I'm too lazy so I'll just paste the relevant info regarding this Benghazi thing that certain members of our community are terribly misinformed about:

"Bit late, but it should be noted that there are actually several right-wing conspiracies about Benghazi that have been pushed since the tragic incident occurred (all of which have been or can be pretty well debunked):

1. Obama's administration apologized to the attackers even as the attacks were going on. This is not true; a message of this sort was sent from (I believe) the Egyptian embassy, but it was from the people actually inside the embassy during the attacks. It was not approved, dictated by, or sent by the Obama administration.

2. The administration's rationalization for the attacks was that they were prompted by a Youtube video that was designed to stir up anti-American sentiment. This was disproved in a couple of ways. First, the only actual Obama administration member to offer this opinion was Susan Rice (the fallout from which might well cost her any future promotions within the administration); and second, intelligence reports indicated that the video likely had nothing to do with the actual protests or attacks, as most of the people in Egypt and Libya likely never even saw it prior to the incidents.

3. Obama waited two weeks before he even branded the attacks as terrorism. Mitt Romney learned quite the painful lesson on that, when he tried to use this argument (likely gleaned from some right-wing blog or other) during the debates, and was publicly humiliated by both Obama and Candy Crowley for his patently false statement. A similar argument relies on being particularly pedantic and claiming that "acts of terror" is not the same as "terrorist acts".

4. Navy SEALs/Marines/GI Joe strikeforce/various chapters of the Adeptus Astartes/the Justice League were nearby, ready and waiting to go into action and could have been inside Libya in the blink of an eye, but Obama refused to let them enter Libya, and instead watched via drone camera from his throne of skulls as the ambassador and his staff were brutally murdered, sipping the blood of decent American folk from his silver chalice as he did so. Again, this is patently false; while there were military units in nearby countries, they were hours away from mobilizing and reaching anything inside Libya (to say nothing of the fact that sending in forces into a situation with zero intelligence on the ground would have resulted in far more needless deaths). Another problem with this theory is that it presumes most military units are just SWAT teams with bigger guns; anyone who's spent any amount of time in the service knows it takes quite a bit of time, resources, and logistics to mount any kind of serious military operation. Related to this is the theory that a couple of high-ranking military officers (General Carter Ham and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette) were fired/arrested/resigned because they refused to obey Obama's order to stand down. This is ridiculous because A)if they refused such an order, why weren't the troops sent in, then; and B)a high-ranking military officer being fired or arrested is MAJOR, MAJOR news (in reality, both officers were reassigned to other duties).

5. Obama was afraid of Petraeus going in front of Congress next week and spilling the beans about the whole cover-up, so he had the FBI blackmail him with their knowledge of Petraeus' affair. Petraeus is a Real American Hero, so rather than lie for the Gay Nazi Muslim Commie Kenyan Socialist Athiest, he resigned instead. This story just broke, so this theory, while insane, hasn't been debunked just yet; however, it takes some rather acrobatic leaps of logic to arrive at its' conclusions. Unless something quite astonishing happens, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this theory is just as insane and untrue as the others. "

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Was it the JLA with Guy Gardner? Because that GL would NEVER have gone in to Benghazi. Bastard.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Thought I'd share an interesting series of graphs (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with). Essentially, the whiners of the most recent election are bemoaning the fact that the country doesn't look like it once did. If you go progressively back through our nation's history, you find that Romney would have easily won. All you need to do is reverse the franchise extensions that made other elements of our population able to vote.

Which, now that I think about it, is exactly what many Republicans have suggested.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Those graphs don't make much sense. How did Dems manage to win all the elections before 2012? :D

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Return of 2008 Candidate Obama™? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/obama-to-boehner-higher-taxes-on-the-wealthy-or-the-bush-tax-cuts-expire.php

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Next Step - make sure that the 400,000 people in 4 states that didn't vote this time will vote in 2016.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And how to do that? Why did those 400,000 people not vote?