ext_306469 ([identity profile] paft.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2012-11-10 12:18 pm
Entry tags:

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

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.

*

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:11 pm (UTC)(link)
The Adeptus Astartes? Heresy. A Commissar would have shot them all for letting the obscenity happen in the first place with the evil Xenos. I think you mean Zapp Brannigan and General Failure. ;)

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:12 pm (UTC)(link)
By doing the same thing and having an element from the South very interested in doing that, when the GOP also had its McCarthys and its Bob Tafts. ;)

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:13 pm (UTC)(link)
At least there was no Organizing Mobilizing National Organization for Marriage of National Organizations for Marriage.

I can imagine that the acronym OM NOM NOM would be about as bad as those Terrorist guys going by MILF (I wonder if Stifler's Mom is a member?).

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:16 pm (UTC)(link)
And you know spends most of their time calling Abraham Lincoln a filthy statist traitor to the ideas of the American Republic? Republicans. From Mississippi. The same people, I might add, who would have lynched the first GOP members of Congress. And you realize that the Conscience of the Congress actually is most famous for voting against both world wars, which ended her career for good the second time? A contemporary GOP representative voting no against any war would be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. By this logic I could use the GOP's relying on Civil War veterans and the US Civil War to call it a grotesque abomination of a terrorist movement who happened to win its war.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Not to mention citing the only woman who ever voted against both world wars as a heroic example of American freedom. What's next, waving a battle flag of a bunch of disgruntled traitors butthurt about losing an election who ensured 720,000 people died as patri-oh, wait.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:17 pm (UTC)(link)
here's a story about Petraeus, talks a little bit about Benghazi.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/david-petraeus-scandal-explained

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:30 pm (UTC)(link)
You do realize that Jim Crow was not, legally speaking, ever a matter of white people banning black votes? You see it was always ensuring that literate citizens able to provide IDs with some basic civics familiarity were voting, not to mention able to pay poll taxes. On paper. When it came to enforcing those laws, OTOH.....

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:34 pm (UTC)(link)
and thus, simply banning it is, in your mind, therefore not extreme, which, while it puts you out of touch with the vast majority of the electorate, it also allows you to try move the window one what's extreme and what's not.

Depending on the poll, it's not out of the mainstream nor is it extreme. I need not move any windows - the window is fairly firmly in place.

And you claim you're a libertarian. Why don't you stick to entering the uteruses of women who actually want you there? I guarantee you, sir, it is a much smaller number.

I claim to lean libertarian, and while there are plenty of anti-abortion libertarians in the world, you have, as usual, confused me with something I am not.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 09:40 pm (UTC)(link)
So the 60% who don't think it's murder are what, chopped liver?

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-12 10:05 pm (UTC)(link)
So why did the base vote for 'moderate' GWB?

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 03:36 am (UTC)(link)
I picked a poll that differentiated between regulating against abortion on demand, as opposed to abortion with no exceptions. This is not cherry picking, this is discernment concerning the question at hand. Cherry piking would be looking at five polls that asked the same question, and taking the answer I liked while ignoring the rest.. cherry... PICKING. If I am cherry picking, present me with other polls that ask the same question in principle, but get different results.

> A fringe viewpoint might be, say ...

This says nothing. What percentage of people have to think a thing, before it stops being fringe? If you can't answer that, you have no meaningful definition of 'fringe', and presumably, none for 'extreme'. Therefor you have no plank on which to stand to say that something is NOT extreme, except to say that 'extreme' means nothing to you when discussing ideology.
Edited 2012-11-13 03:37 (UTC)

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 04:02 am (UTC)(link)
> If we want to play that game, the Democrats have only won a majority of the popular vote twice in the last 30 years.
> What is it about the Democrats that doesn't resonate with a majority, right?

" Not obtaining a majority popular vote" is a bit more, shall we say, refined than "Loosing the popular vote.". there are third parties and "other" categories to consider. 5 out of 6 times some other guy got more votes than the republican. That 5 out of 6 goes back to Clinton, but that's not an artificial line, drawn by my cunning to pump my stats. Before Clinton, we're talking Reagan era Republicans (as bush Sr. rode his coat tails) . Now, how is Reagan era Republicanism different than the current era? There are probably lots of ways, but the most evident to me is the reliance on social conservatives as a ground force.

> But consider this exit:

Source please?

[identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
I'd believe that of you if you didn't seem to care so much about the election's result.

[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 07:45 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, it basically is. Nationalism, patriotism, collectivism, etc., all the same thing, to different degrees.

[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 07:47 am (UTC)(link)
Not hoping. Expecting. I'd rather it didn't happen, but it looks to be the outcome that most people want to drive towards. People don't want help.

[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 07:48 am (UTC)(link)
many do care

None that I can see.

[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 07:51 am (UTC)(link)
Depends on the kind of ground it is.

[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 07:55 am (UTC)(link)
Sure thing. I'm sure I'll repeat it on the campaign trail. Love of country is not required to want to do the best job in helping run it.

[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 07:56 am (UTC)(link)
Love of country is not required to want the best for the people in it.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 02:44 pm (UTC)(link)
It should be obvious what the oversight is meant to achieve: no breadlines and no large revolutionary movements hellbent on destroying the established order.

The idea that modern liberalism is this is because contemporary Progressives in the USA have no term they use for themselves so they've co-opted terms that had nothing to do with what they advocate.

BTW, modern genocides have invariably been the products of Right/conservative regimes. Ask the Native Americans massacred by the USA and its 20th Century conservative allies, ask the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, and ask the people of Nanjing whether the people that slaughtered them were Leftists. Most of them would say no, actually, they weren't. Of course the Right has a fetish with dodging responsibility by attributing all that is wrong with the world to the treason of a Left that no longer exists here in the USA, so I'd love to see a conservative US argument that recognizes that the world has really, really changed since 1991. I'm not holding my breath.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 02:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Ironically we agree that nationalists are fools.

[identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 03:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Use better eyes.

[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com 2012-11-13 04:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Good luck with that.

Page 11 of 13