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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nope. The organization's actual name was Citizens United Not Timid. They naturally figured the vulgar acronym would cost them sympathy and so they went with CU instead. Of course it's hard to defend a movement with an acronym like that as honest, God-Fearing conservatives as it is..........which is exactly why you'll never see the people who need desperately to believe in either the End of the World or the Obama-Communist meme mentioning this.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Like I said, not really into the side-show stuff. They chose a bad acronym. Bad on them. Don't really care either way. Never saw their movie. Don't want to. The case wasn't about how bad they screwed the name up, and what the case was about represents the limit of my interest in any of it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think that the attempts to portray that movement as some sort of pseudo-martyr to evil liberal censorship would be belied if the CUNT name were used instead of the CU. But of course let nobody accuse the Dems of knowing how to run a campaign.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I know I'be been tap dancing around my real feelings up to now, so I'll be blunt: I don't freaking care. And I have a low tolerance for hearing that word repeated to me.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Blame the people of Citizens United Not Timid for picking a name they were too cowardly to back in the name of Free Speech. I'm just repeating the truth, if that offends you or you have a low tolerance for it, it's hardly my doing.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

That's not how the LJ notification works. I'm not getting messages from them reminding me of their unfortunate name in my inbox.

I'm not trying to offend you, I would just like to end this thread.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Citizens United, the organization founded in the late 1980s and the group behind the Hillary movie and USSC case, is not the same as Citizens United Not Timid, a Roger Stone-backed 527 launched in 2008.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

it is an interesting side-note tho. Conservative groups have this problem consistently now. Look at the National Organization for Marriage -- NOM. Or the original name for the Tea Party -- Teabaggers.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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?).