The end of the Republican party

[Saltheart]

I think yesterdays election marks the end of the "Republican" Party. The country no longer wants it. The party is no longer recognized for what it was 150 years ago. Its no longer a strongly conservative party.

The country no longer wants it This election made it clear that the USA is now a country of the 47% and that what the new demographics want is socialism. There is no denying that the Democratic Party is the party of socialism and the rdistribution of wealth. I'm not commenting at all about whats right or wrong. Just stating the fact that this country now has a very well defined socialistic party and that that is what the majority of Americans want now. I don't believe we will ever see a president win an election unless he is firmly on the side of promoting entitlements and raising taxes to pay for the shift of wealth to lower income Americans. We have reached the tipping point.

No longer recognized as the party it was 150 years ago The Republican Party's claim to fame is that it was the party that abolished the enslavement of Blacks in the USA. No one would argue that the current Republican Party has any significant support from Blacks , Hispanics and other monorities. I believe this is principly do to the Repubilican stand against illegal imigration and the democratic support of the redistribution of wealth in the form of entitlements. If the Party is no longer recognized as the party that risked everything , even a Civil War , to free black slaves , then it has no idealistic identity anymore. It really looks to most as a party of rich people or religious right wingers.

It is no longer a strongly conservative party The fact is that the Republican party is now best defined by what is now called Libertarians. Its core is not rich white men and religious fanatics. Its core is now people with liberal social beliefs and conservative fiscal policy beliefs. A new party has to emerge trhat clearly shows that it represents those with thoughts as liberal or even more liberal than the democratic party in the form of Libertarian beliefs but that is fiscally conservative and therefore in opposition to the socialist Democratic party on matters of tax and spending. No party will ever get a president elected again if he is pro life , does not support equal pay for woman , does not support looser immigration policies for Mexico and does not think that at all costs, in terms of a tax burden , that we must support elderly people with food , housing and medical subsidies.


It will be interesting to see what gets cobbled together as the face and identity of the Republican Party by 2016. The name will likely stay the same but I think after two drubbings in consecutive elections at the hands of a truly socialist Democratic Party , whatever opposition there is left in this country knows that they can no longer get elected by supporting anything except a big government role in the lives of the people and that that big government will have to subsidize the income of more than 1/2 the Americans in the future.

Now I'm thinking along the lines of a country like the socialist countries in Europe. England seems to be the most likely path we will follow until the money runs out and we slip more into the third world mold of Greece and Spain. However , it is the direction we will move in and somehow we need to find a way to keep some incentive to work in the minds of the ambitious young people. If everyone just gives up and decides to dip into the pork barrel , we will slide down quickly and deeply into third world status.

For the near term my own personal fear is a total collapse of the economic strength of the country and a collapse of the value of our currency. I don't want to see my lifes savings become worthless do to inflation driven by the collapse of the US dollar. I worked and saved for over 40 years. I'd hate to see it all evaporate into devalued dollars putting me in a position where I am driven into the growing ranks of the 47%.

[RIJIMMY]

Saltheart - did you see the enthusiastic support for Ron Paul?
I am independant but as you know generally lean republican. in this new 24 hr news cycle nutty repubs get all the press. They talk too much about religion, abortion, women, thats none of the govts business.
They need to rebrand.
Jeezus - Romneys debate responses were collections of sound bytes. We need a real person up there.
Seems silly but - Why is it I listen to bob marley, fishbone, rage against the machine, etc - i hear conservative values and ideals. I see freedom and opportunity? Repubs need to capitalize on that and change the perception.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Saltheart - did you see the enthusiastic support for Ron Paul?
I am independant but as you know generally lean republican. in this new 24 hr news cycle nutty repubs get all the press. They talk too much about religion, abortion, women, thats none of the govts business.
They need to rebrand.
Jeezus - Romneys debate responses were collections of sound bytes. We need a real person up there.
Seems silly but - Why is it I listen to bob marley, fishbone, rage against the machine, etc - i hear conservative values and ideals. I see freedom and opportunity? Repubs need to capitalize on that and change the perception.

I agree Imagine a guy like me 20 yrs ago chasing the Dead and phish around the country and now leaning right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

I agree Imagine a guy like me 20 yrs ago chasing the Dead and phish around the country and now leaning right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

exaclty, I had hair down past my shoulders, lived in San francisco for years, tie dies, etc.
My friends are mostly libs but so brainwashed by the media and so scared of extreme conservatives.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exaclty, I had hair down past my shoulders, lived in San francisco for years, tie dies, etc.
.

You had hair?

[Jim in CT]

Saltheart, everyone said the same exact thing in 2008, thatthe GOP was dead. we came roaring back 2 years later. People like to forget that, but that's what happened.

i feel the GOP will do fine in midterm elections (like 2010), but we will strugle in presidential elections, because th emedia spends 24/7 painting the GOP candidate as amonster.

Polls show that a small majority of Americans oppose abortion. Polls show that a large number of Americans don't think "borrow-and-spend-on liberal pet projects" is the way out of this mess.

In another thread, I said (and believe in my heart) that Americans aren't opposed to what Republicans believe. They are opposed to what the media claims we believe. And that misrepresentation is much easier to pull off when th emedia has one presidential candidate to worry about, then hundrdes of congressional candidates.

The GOP will struggle to lect a president until one of the following things happen...the economy collapses, we find more honest outlets to put forth what we believe (as opposed to what Sean Penn says we believe), or we get a spectacular candidate (could be Marco Rubio in 2016).

The GOP has a majority of governorships. And we maintained control over teh house of reps.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by striperman36

You had hair?

beautiful thick curly hair that women were always envious of. I think some ex-girlfriends got hold of a voodoo doll and took away my Samson-like asset

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

Polls show that a small majority of Americans oppose abortion. Polls show that a large number of Americans don't think "borrow-and-spend-on liberal pet projects" is the way out of this mess.

In another thread, I said (and believe in my heart) that Americans aren't opposed to what Republicans believe. They are opposed to what the media claims we believe. And that misrepresentation is much easier to pull off when th emedia has one presidential candidate to worry about, then hundrdes of congressional candidates.

The GOP will struggle to lect a president until one of the following things happen...the economy collapses, we find more honest outlets to put forth what we believe (as opposed to what Sean Penn says we believe), or we get a spectacular candidate (could be Marco Rubio in 2016).

The GOP has a majority of governorships. And we maintained control over teh house of reps.

wow, that was a very intelligent post

[wader-dad]

Romney would have won easily if he stayed the moderate Governor Mitt Romney from Mass. I don't understand why he felt the need to satisfy a certain extreme faction of the party. They are never going to vote democratic so why pander to them?

What is wrong with being a moderate republican? why can't that work?

I agree with this that i read:

This failure began with the spectacle of the extended primary season, which was dominated by candidates with views far outside the political mainstream. Rick Santorum rejected the separation of church and state. Newt Gingrich challenged the notion of judicial supremacy. Michele Bachmann claimed the government had been infiltrated by radical Muslims. Donald Trump refused to recognize the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. Rick Perry wanted to take down more parts of the federal government than he could successfully name. In the debates, the country saw the GOP talking to itself and sounding like a bizarre fringe party, not a responsible governing one.

Romney is not a right-wing extremist. To win the nomination, though, he had to feign being one, recasting himself as “severely conservative” and eschewing the reasonableness that made him a successful, moderate governor of the country’s most liberal state.

[buckman]

Obama had fewer votes then McCain !! 73% of Asians voted democratic. The GOP better figure out how th appeal to them . Get away from the religious right already
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by striperman36

You had hair?

Me too now I have the Merrill Steubing look
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[sburnsey931]

If and when the country votes the republicans out of office then it will be over....It didn't happen. ....
Like Boehner says.....We're still here and intend to do what we were elected to do. Stop the spending and get the economy going.
The beauty of our system of Government is if one party goes to far, "Obamacare"... 2 years later the balance of power shifts...(2010).
Yesterday it was a Status Quo Election. If the Republicans were so bad and obstructionist then why weren't they voted out of office. They are still there because enough of the electorate wanted them to keep doing it.
The won not because of performance or great legislation.. but because of the UAW bailout and the Dream Act. Great Political moves.
Hats off to Axelrod....

By the way .."I'm a wharf rat from Gloucester" 45 shows

[Jim in CT]

We all need to calm down and take a breath, and stop listening to what they say on MSNBC.

This election was not a widespread repudiation of the GOP. The popular vote split was 51-49. It just doesn't get a whole lot closer than that. This was not a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter smackdown. And even if it was, the Democratic Party survived that, and they did it by becoming way more radically liberal.

The GOP will do fine in midterm elections, when the media can't demonize every single Republican running for the house and the senate.

There are 2 economic high-speed trains on a collision course in this country. (1) Our national debt is $16T, and growing by $1.5T a year. (2) FAR MORE IMPOERANTLY, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, making them eligible for social security and Medicare. Ten thousand a day, and that will last for 15 years. When enough of those boomers are old, sick, and have dementia, that's when we run out of money. This issue will make the current national debt look like a hiccup in terms of magnitude. The lowest estimate I have seen, for the projected shortfalls for SS and Medicare, is $40 trillion. Probably closer to $60 trillion. Ponder that for a minute.

When those 2 things collide, liberals won't be able to demonize conservatives for saying we need fiscal responsibility.

In the meantime...I'm converting 100% of my 401(k) to cash, and I'm waiting it out. When the inevitable happens, the result will be a recession that makes 2008 look like the roaring 1920's, and that's a damn good time to get back in the stock market.

And Marco Rubio has a damn good shot at becoming the President in 2016.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We all need to calm down and take a breath, and stop listening to what they say on MSNBC.

I used to think that FOX was the worst, clearly MSNBC is the most biased media outlet for the past 6-8 years. I can no longer watch it and it was the one I watched the most. CNN runs circles around MSNBC in objectivity.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This election was not a widespread repudiation of the GOP. The popular vote split was 51-49. It just doesn't get a whole lot closer than that. This was not a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter smackdown. And even if it was, the Democratic Party survived that, and they did it by becoming way more radically liberal.

The GOP will do fine in midterm elections, when the media can't demonize every single Republican running for the house and the senate.

The election was close but until the GOP changes course on a few things they will continue to be close losses. At best it will be quick swings back and forth.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There are 2 economic high-speed trains on a collision course in this country. (1) Our national debt is $16T, and growing by $1.5T a year. (2) FAR MORE IMPOERANTLY, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, making them eligible for social security and Medicare. Ten thousand a day, and that will last for 15 years. When enough of those boomers are old, sick, and have dementia, that's when we run out of money. This issue will make the current national debt look like a hiccup in terms of magnitude. The lowest estimate I have seen, for the projected shortfalls for SS and Medicare, is $40 trillion. Probably closer to $60 trillion. Ponder that for a minute.

When those 2 things collide, liberals won't be able to demonize conservatives for saying we need fiscal responsibility.

In the meantime...I'm converting 100% of my 401(k) to cash, and I'm waiting it out. When the inevitable happens, the result will be a recession that makes 2008 look like the roaring 1920's, and that's a damn good time to get back in the stock market.

THESE TWO things are going to crush us but we keep kicking that down the road. Instead of acting like adults, our elected officials are refusing to deal with this. This is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And Marco Rubio has a damn good shot at becoming the President in 2016.

Don't know about that and 2016 is a little early to ponder.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=JohnR;968195until the GOP changes course on a few things they will continue to be close losses. At best it will be quick swings back and forth.



.[/QUOTE]

I'll respectfully disagree. At the national level, the democratic party embraces partial birth abortion, and literally no limits to spending, and persecution of the Catholic Church. Most Americans don't like those things. The problem is, only one network talks about those things,all the other networks are essentially 24/7 commercials for Obama. For example, none of them are doing any reporting on Benghazi. Unbelievable.

Marco Rubio has it all. As you said, we'll see.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

THESE TWO things are going to crush us but we keep kicking that down the road.



.

You can no longer say "we" keep kicking the can down the road. Rmoney/Ryan had a plan. It is now "they", meaning liberals, who keep kicking the can down the road. The conservative position on this is clear, that we need to fix entitlements. The liberal response is, "you hate poor people!!" Not exactly a solution, is it?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'll respectfully disagree. At the national level, the democratic party embraces partial birth abortion, and literally no limits to spending, and persecution of the Catholic Church. Most Americans don't like those things. The problem is, only one network talks about those things,all the other networks are essentially 24/7 commercials for Obama. For example, none of them are doing any reporting on Benghazi. Unbelievable.

Marco Rubio has it all. As you said, we'll see.

The last election might say otherwise.

And don't get me wrong, I like Rubio. I'm not convinced that he is the guy.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You can no longer say "we" keep kicking the can down the road. Rmoney/Ryan had a plan. It is now "they", meaning liberals, who keep kicking the can down the road. The conservative position on this is clear, that we need to fix entitlements. The liberal response is, "you hate poor people!!" Not exactly a solution, is it?

We - as in the US a we / us, not a they / them. WE keep kicking the can down the road. How is that for bipartisanship .

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The last election might say otherwise.

And don't get me wrong, I like Rubio. I'm not convinced that he is the guy.

The "guy" is a rare phenomenon in life, even more so in politics. Waiting for the guy is almost like Waiting for Godot. Again, as always, I refer back to the original constitutional system that was not dependent on "the guy." It was intended not to. It was largely a system of self-government with the guy in the White House being in charge of a few limited responsibilities. What we have now, of course, is a system where the guy (usually one of middling intellect and ability)in that House is somehow responsible for just about everything. No wonder that the guy is always making mistakes that have to be covered up or glossed over or excused by media accomplices--why he might not been on top of a Benghazi situation (which, ironically, would have been one of the few types of responsibilities that the Constitutiuon actually gives him). We have been suckered into a top down system of government that has grown too large to handle for those who run it. The dispersion of power and responsibility created in the Constitution, if followed, would go a very long way to alleviating the problem. No system of government or society will be problem free. But if freedom is the goal, and if freedom is the key to economic prosperity and the key to individual responsibility, then the original constitutional system of governance beats the crap out of the current tyrannical administrative system.

We - as in the US a we / us, not a they / them. WE keep kicking the can down the road. How is that for bipartisanship .

That is why waiting for the guy is no answer. And why treating the "can" as some entity that can willingly be kicked in various directions down various roads by the switch of some ballot buttons that only elect middling guys to govern our lives by a top down central system is no answer. They will keep kicking that can down the same road in basically the same direction because that is the road our current system has built for them. There are not other roads on which to kick it, unless they build new ones or find their way back to a good one--you know--the one that begins with a capital letter C.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We all need to calm down and take a breath, and stop listening to what they say on MSNBC.

This election was not a widespread repudiation of the GOP. The popular vote split was 51-49. It just doesn't get a whole lot closer than that. This was not a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter smackdown. And even if it was, the Democratic Party survived that, and they did it by becoming way more radically liberal.

The GOP will do fine in midterm elections, when the media can't demonize every single Republican running for the house and the senate.

There are 2 economic high-speed trains on a collision course in this country. (1) Our national debt is $16T, and growing by $1.5T a year. (2) FAR MORE IMPOERANTLY, 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, making them eligible for social security and Medicare. Ten thousand a day, and that will last for 15 years. When enough of those boomers are old, sick, and have dementia, that's when we run out of money. This issue will make the current national debt look like a hiccup in terms of magnitude. The lowest estimate I have seen, for the projected shortfalls for SS and Medicare, is $40 trillion. Probably closer to $60 trillion. Ponder that for a minute.

When those 2 things collide, liberals won't be able to demonize conservatives for saying we need fiscal responsibility.

In the meantime...I'm converting 100% of my 401(k) to cash, and I'm waiting it out. When the inevitable happens, the result will be a recession that makes 2008 look like the roaring 1920's, and that's a damn good time to get back in the stock market.

And Marco Rubio has a damn good shot at becoming the President in 2016.

Exactly

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The last election might say otherwise.

And don't get me wrong, I like Rubio. I'm not convinced that he is the guy.



We - as in the US a we / us, not a they / them. WE keep kicking the can down the road. How is that for bipartisanship .

"The last election might say otherwise."

Can you elaborate? I saw polls that say a small majority don't support abortion. I saw polls that said a huge majority thought the country was going in the wrong direction under Obama. I saw polls that said that huge majorities specifically didn't trust Obama to lead the economy. I saw polls that said huge majorities don't believe the Catholic Church should be forced to provide birth control. I saw polls that showed that a majority of Americans think the debt is a national security threat.

I saw nothing, anywhere, to suggest that a majority of Americans are more in tune with liberalism than conservatism. In my opinion (I could be wrong), we lost a very close race (51-49) because people don't know what conservatives stand for. They only know that all the networks except for one, are actively rooting for Obama. That, plus Romney is not a great campaigner, and the media/Obama machine spent a jillion dollars telling the lie that Romney is a real-life Mr Potter from "It's A Wonderful Life". That crap works, otherwise they wouldn't spend a billion dollars on smear ads. It couldn't be any more dishinest, but it's effective as hell.

We lost 51-49. When the economy collapses (not 'if', but 'when') we will get a whole lot more than 2% to switch sides. They'll flee liberalsim like rats off a sinking ship, Spence will be telling us how much he loves Newt Gingrich. It's inevitable. Absolutely inevitable.

I'd love to know what your reservations are with Rubio, other than he's inexperienced, but we were told in 2008 that experience isn't a qualifying attribute. Rubio is young, handsome, articulate, from Florida, Catholic, and Hispanic. I can't imagine a more attractive candidate, except for Condaleeza Rice.

I commend you on some serious bipartisanship!

Have a great holiday season John. At this time of year, I thank you for creating this site. Personally, I only went fishing once this year, which is pathetic. But that one trip was on Cape Cod with my 6 year-old, and this site, and the great folks here, helped make that vacation the best it could have been.

[buckman]

I think when Pres. Obama picks Kerry to be Secretary of State Brown still might get in on the special election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think when Pres. Obama picks Kerry to be Secretary of State Brown still might get in on the special election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless there's another Kennedy who shows up and decides that seat is his birthright.

[eelskimmer]

This election was an excellent of diversity at work.
After 30 years of diversity spending we have 90%
of blacks, 70% of latinos, 73% of Asians and 60+
percent of women voting for Obama. The most
despised demographic in America is the white male.
Better believe it!!

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Unless there's another Kennedy who shows up and decides that seat is his birthright.

True that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Unless there's another Kennedy who shows up and decides that seat is his birthright.

I heard Hilary is moving to MA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MAKAI]

Republicans are going to have to learn Spanish, I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[rphud]

Presidential elections seem to be very periodic, pendulums. When things swing one way they either swing back or keep swinging in the same direction for one more cycle. When they swing twice in one direction they have swung too far, and the reaction tends to be a very hard swing back in the other direction next time around. Probably start to see the hard swing the other way in the next mid-term election.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by MAKAI

Republicans are going to have to learn Spanish, I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe if they did they might have won the election...

[Saltheart]

I think they also got suckered into the extended Rep Primary battle with all the self defeating debates , etc. I don't know whay there isn't some more centralized leadership from the party to keep the primary relatively simple and civilized. By the time they chopped eachother up during the primaries , they all looked like bad candidates.

[detbuch]

Re the fiscal cliff and kicking the can down the road:

Originally Posted by detbuch

. . . They will keep kicking that can down the same road in basically the same direction because that is the road our current system has built for them. There are not other roads on which to kick it, unless they build new ones or find their way back to a good one--you know--the one that begins with a capital letter C.

Is that too radical to say? We know that they WILL kick the can down the road . . . the same road . . .debt ceiling will be raised . . . an agreement will be reached which both sides will claim as a compromise victory . . . it will be revisited in another 6 months or a year . . . the debt will continue to rise . . . and so on. But is that road irrevocably built into the system. Not in the same repeated manner, but, yes, in the same direction.

The can being kicked is not merely a budget, or tax reform, or even (though most importantly) reducing the national debt. It is the system itself, and the method of maintaining it, that progresses a trajectory or vector (as Spence might call it) down the same, irrevocable road to an unsustainable end which may finally force a change. Two facets of the system go hand-in-hand to drive us down that road.

The first is the type of system. It is a top-down authoritarian system that has no real legal restraints and is only restrained to a gradual pace by those who govern (to appease residual pretences of constitutional, legal, and beneficial niceties) toward an eventual openly unlimited but beneficent and efficient administration of the "needs" of the people. One might, to borrow another Spencism, see the process as a mega trend. And, of course, as Spence says, mega trends always trump partisan politics.

The second is the means of maintaining the power to drive us down this road. That would be the appearance of a democratic process of elections. Winning elections in a system whose objective is to administer to the needs of the people requires that you define those needs and convince the populace that you will attend favorably to them. Of course, various groups have different needs. So you cater to each with promises and legislation that claims to satisfy those needs. It is important that large or influential groups are identified and are made aware of what it is that they need. If you leave it up to individuals, for one, the diversity would be too great and contradictory to put forth a seemingly coherent policy. So, because most people are not expert enough to understand what is truly beneficial for them, you tell them, and then you deliver. Some outnumbered sectors will necessarily be left out of the government largesse, but they are usually the ones who would balk at the system, and, besides, they can take care of themselves. Until the end of the road is reached, and they too will need the system to provide.

Now once you have established this system and the means of maintaining power, you cannot reverse course or veer in a different direction. Not only do the people become dependent on the system, the system is dependant on their approval. So the system, and the road on which it travels cannot change. Or, as Spence might say, there are no do-overs.

It is a closed system that can only move in one direction. The promise of this system is an eventual fair and equitable distribution on Marxian or socialistic lines. I know we're not supposed to call it socialism, but obviously that's what it is. There is talk of "mixed" economy, and it certainly started that way. But there is that trajectory thing. Stasis is not the order of the universe. Change is inevitable. That is, more so, the order of the universe and life itself. The present central, top-down, system of government depends on a rigidity in the relation of the people to it. It doesn't lend itself to evolutionary change except toward greater centralized power and control. Experience to date informs that socialism evolves from moderation in government power to unlimited power. Milton Friedman said that everyone agrees that socialism "doesn't work" but that we keep drifting toward it. But maybe that's OK. If we keep going in that direction, people may consider it good. If it keeps giving us stuff with less effort on our part, that must be good. But, the Hegelian dielectic on which Marxism and our present administrative state are founded, does not end. Utopia cannot be a final never ending change. Hegel's process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis continues. This closed system which can only move in one direction will be blasted by the philosophy that brought it into being. If there is enough elasticity left to allow market forces to drive a vibrant economy, the system can go on. But for how long will the growing welfare aspect of the state be sustained by a shrinking free market that progressively becomes a command economy? If the system must become financially stable, can it survive the means to power--delivery of all the people's needs by government?

The system that was discarded, constitutionalism, provided for individuals to create the market to reflect their private needs and desires. It thrived through a high degree of personal motivation to survive and prosper. And, deriving its power from the diverse individual interactions, it was potentially more evolutionary, thus more capable of lasting. And it limited the central power's ability to dictate the needs of the people. And prohibited the ability of central government from taxing, borrowing, confiscating the wealth of the nation and driving it into unpayable debt.