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

[badlydrawnjeff.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.

I saw two go down because of circumstances (one due to stupidity about rape, one due to people being stupid about religion). Allan West and a handful of the House reps, sure. The House stayed Republican, most who won in 2010 stayed around.

"Extremism" certainly wasn't repudiated. Most don't consider what you're discussing as "extremism" anyway.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

people being stupid about religion

Women voted Mourdock down, and it isn't because they are "stupid about religion".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In a sense it was, because far too many people - and media outlets - took the comment as something along the lines of God approving of rape, or Mourdock being pro-rape. It's incredibly stupid, and those who bought it should be considered as such.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Its because women dont like being forced to carry rape babies to term. I have confirmed this by speaking to women IRL, can you find many women who think as you claim?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I know some, yes. But "carry rape babies to term" is not the same as "God approves of rape" or "Mourdock is a pro-rape Republican."

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't you be more upset about the assault on your autonomy versus a misunderstood omnipresence?

Wouldn't a woman feel the same way?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If there was an assault on my autonomy to be upset about, sure.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

So, being forced to carry a rape pregnancy to term is that assault.

[iron-valkyrie.livejournal.com]

Ousting a rape apologist is stupid? Okay then.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Thanks for being illustrative of my point. Mourdock at no time showed any "rape apologist" tendencies.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Mourdock believes that women should not be able to choose an abortion even if they have been impregnated by their rapist. Whether or not Mourock technically apologized for rape is not the issue. That he is so unconcerned about his fellow human beings, however, served as a stark reason for his getting the boot.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In fact, his position is one of deep concern for the fellow human beings he believes exist inside the womb.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

In fact, you have no idea. You cannot measure his concern, you can only measure his actions, and his actions show that he is unconcerned for women who are raped and become pregnant.

But hey. Keep putting those candidates out there, Jeff. It'll only serve to continue to confuse you.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

His actions actually show significant concern both for rape victims and for the children conceived by no fault of their own, but I understand that it's a confusing point of view to have to fit into your current perception.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no, buddy, they don't. Forcing a woman to give birth to the baby she conceived while being raped is NOT showing significant concern for rape victims. I get that you can't make your brain fit the facts, but that does not make them not facts.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's your opinion, of course. You're judging the man's concern not on his deeds, but how you perceive his words.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

oh, Jeff.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

If rape apology isn't extremism I don't know what is frankly.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If rape apology occurred, you might have a point.