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

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The only reason the march rightward is working involves the media bending over backwards to portray the rightward march as centrist, if not practical, while portraying any left-leaning behavior as questionable at best.

A functional media would stop this nonsense in its tracks.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd love the media you describe.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You should watch television. Or read the major papers. Or listen to the mainstream radio. It's there for all to see and hear.

Sadly, we've had this conversation before. Since you will deny the veracity or integrity of any source I might cite on this topic, and since you will further deny every element of evidence I present—perhaps taking the time to twist the actual meaning into an ironic one devoid of humorous irony—I see no reason to rehash.

Your selective blindness to fact is known to be epic. Just ask most anyone here, including fellow conservatives. On that, I say Good Day.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yah, I'm familiar with the media you speak of. They don't sound like that.

Sadly, we've had this conversation before. Since you will deny the veracity or integrity of any source I might cite on this topic

Not true, but par for the course.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

This time, the dismissal of my source came from your keyboard. I named a source, you dismissed it as "partisan." So, true.

Par for the Jeff course, yes, that too.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm sure you used a partisan source at that time. Far from "any source."

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Since it's the same source, the result would be the same. No matter how well researched and documented the story, you have reserved the right to reject the source outright. (Outleft?)

I'm sure, though, that your misgivings about this particular source would change once they decided to find facts supporting your position. It's not partisan, then; it's just "objective."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

My position remains the same - if you can stick of objective, mainstream sources, I'm glad to consider it.