An autopsy of liberal Republicans

[ag]

A point to be made. The decline of the NE Republicans has not been due to the party running more Conservative candidates. The Party did everything its power to save Chafee who didn't even back their nominee, has made no real moves against Snowe and Collins until recently, and is running Rob Simmons in Connecticut. Furthermore I think the party would be grateful for a Ed Brooke.

The real problem is that the increasing regionalization of the national party is making liberal voters less willing to vote for any republican no matter how liberal. An article in Bay Windows(the Boston Gay and Lesbian Newspaper) endorsing the Democrat Steve Lynch in the 2001 special election for the 9th District in MA comes to mind. Though Lynch opposed even civil unions, while the Republican, State Senator Jo Ann Sprague supported them and had a 100% rating from gay rights groups, they endorsed the Democrat because it was important to have a democratic majority.

As long as people in New England care more about having a democratic majority than they do about the candidates and identity of their congressman and Senators, it doesn't matter who the GOP runs or how liberal they are. They will still lose.

In this sense I understand why Conservatives think it would be better to target places that want the  GOP in the majority but have Democratic representation rather than chase fool's gold in NE.

This is interesting, because it sounds as if you completely agree with Torie on the diagnosis but disagree on the cure.

I don't disagree necessarily with his cure. I just think it will be ineffective. There are larger forces at work, and if the defeats of Chaffee, Shays, and Smith reveal anything, its that individual candidates matter less than the national forces. I don't think Ed Brooke would win in MA today if he were to come back to life and run again.

However, there is a thing the local Reps could do. They could do their best to disassociate from the national party, to establish some sort of a clear "federal relationship" with it. Call themselves "Progressive Republican Party" or "New England Republican Party" - or perhaps, simply "New England Progressive Party".  Formally adopt a socially-liberal platform - make sure the national Republican leadership goes publically apoplectic about it. Make sure to say nasty things about the southern Republican politicians in public. Promise to be "conditional" in their support of the national party, once elected. In fact, run "against" the national Republicans. It could help.

[Keystone Phil]

Quale was Vice-President of the United States. Usually a steping stone to the presidency. If a sitting Vice-President isn't considered a major party leader then I don't know who is.

He was never looked to as a leader in the party or a major contender for the Presidency. Stop spinning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Uh...I never said it was simple. I said it was possible. You make it seem like some established power is needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that didn't last that long. The Dems paid for Vietnam and Civil Rights...while controlling Congress. The GOP paid for the Great Depression...while gaining back Congress not too long after FDR's ascension to power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One exception and I'd still say that the younger people preferred the Dems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like our messaging. That's a main reason why we're doing so poorly, in my opinion. Our ideology is fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

How did I contradict myself? My whole point is that even after much damage being done, a party can return to power! Since we're not four years after Bush, how the hell are you going to tell me that you can prove Bush did more damage? Are you that blind?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006 and 2008. Again, you focus on one issue (and you're being incredibly vague since I don't think most Republican leaders are exactly rallying around the torture issue) and applying it to everything.

[TeePee4Prez]

Quale was Vice-President of the United States. Usually a steping stone to the presidency. If a sitting Vice-President isn't considered a major party leader then I don't know who is.

He was never looked to as a leader in the party or a major contender for the Presidency. Stop spinning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Uh...I never said it was simple. I said it was possible. You make it seem like some established power is needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that didn't last that long. The Dems paid for Vietnam and Civil Rights...while controlling Congress. The GOP paid for the Great Depression...while gaining back Congress not too long after FDR's ascension to power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One exception and I'd still say that the younger people preferred the Dems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like our messaging. That's a main reason why we're doing so poorly, in my opinion. Our ideology is fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

How did I contradict myself? My whole point is that even after much damage being done, a party can return to power! Since we're not four years after Bush, how the hell are you going to tell me that you can prove Bush did more damage? Are you that blind?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006 and 2008. Again, you focus on one issue (and you're being incredibly vague since I don't think most Republican leaders are exactly rallying around the torture issue) and applying it to everything.

Phil, I don't think the issue as to why the GOP lost the past 2 years has anything to do with how the message was spread wrong or entirely the Iraq War.  Granted, I know the War helped us in some areas.  The Democrats have a big tent and yes I even let a few people have it, but I also know in parts of the country we need to elect more conservative people than I to win.  If it's a place we can get away with someone ideologically closer to me then.. well.. see my signature.  Take Gene Taylor-  I understand in his part of MS, hey it's the best we're gonna get, but here I'd say hey DINO, step aside.  And it goes beyond GW Bush.  Other than your Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, McCain, Crists, etc. your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

[Keystone Phil]

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

[Lunar]

But does the majority stand up to the idea of them being spokesmen for the party?

Kucinich doesn't make the daily news, even if he may be crazy.  Bachmann does.

[Keystone Phil]

But does the majority stand up to the idea of them being spokesmen for the party?

The majority of people in this party are too busy with other things.    I don't want either of those two as spokesmen for my party but this isn't something where we take to the streets.

In a few years, we'll pick our spokesperson and I guarantee that they'll be mainstream (at least compared to the people mentioned here).

[Lunar]

But does the majority stand up to the idea of them being spokesmen for the party?

this isn't something where we take to the streets.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html

somebody is taking it to the streets

[Keystone Phil]

Obviously the face of at least 51% of Republicans.

[Lunar]

Obviously the face of at least 51% of Republicans.

It's not an accurate face, but "faces" are never accurate.  This sort of publicly accessible vitriol is substantially less than ideal for the GOP to brand itself in a way that the majority finds appealing.

[Smash255]

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Then why does virtually every Republican who says something critical about Rush have to make the Rush Limbaugh apology tour??

[Lunar]

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Then why does virtually every Republican who says something critical about Rush have to make the Rush Limbaugh apology tour??

Not Colin Powell.

[Keystone Phil]

Obviously the face of at least 51% of Republicans.

It's not an accurate face, but "faces" are never accurate.  This sort of publicly accessible vitriol is substantially less than ideal for the GOP to brand itself in a way that the majority finds appealing.

Right and every side has it's nutcases.

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Then why does virtually every Republican who says something critical about Rush have to make the Rush Limbaugh apology tour??

LOL

So because Rush has a dedicated group of listeners that have nothing better to do than bombard said officials with calls/e-mails/whatever demanding an apology, they're the majority of the GOP?

Smash, please, put the hackery on hold for like one topic.

[Lunar]

Obviously the face of at least 51% of Republicans.

It's not an accurate face, but "faces" are never accurate.  This sort of publicly accessible vitriol is substantially less than ideal for the GOP to brand itself in a way that the majority finds appealing.

Right and every side has it's nutcases.

I 100% agree.  Yet the Democrats are FAR more adept at sister souljah'ing them.  Which is my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

[Smash255]

Obviously the face of at least 51% of Republicans.

It's not an accurate face, but "faces" are never accurate.  This sort of publicly accessible vitriol is substantially less than ideal for the GOP to brand itself in a way that the majority finds appealing.

Right and every side has it's nutcases.

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Then why does virtually every Republican who says something critical about Rush have to make the Rush Limbaugh apology tour??

LOL

So because Rush has a dedicated group of listeners that have nothing better to do than bombard said officials with calls/e-mails/whatever demanding an apology, they're the majority of the GOP?

Smash, please, put the hackery on hold for like one topic.

So because a bunch of right wing extremist ditto head hacks with nothing better to do demand an apology it means they have to apologize to Limaugh and his clown ass followers??

[Keystone Phil]

So because a bunch of right wing extremist ditto head hacks with nothing better to do demand an apology it means they have to apologize to Limaugh and his clown ass followers??

...

Uh...I never said they have to apologize. I gave a reason why the apologize (they get harassed and stuff until they realize it's worth the time to apologize. Not saying it's right but that's why they do it). That doesn't mean that those extremists are the majority.

Smash, you have difficulty following along with logic. Like, a serious difficulty. It's a shame.

[Smash255]

So because a bunch of right wing extremist ditto head hacks with nothing better to do demand an apology it means they have to apologize to Limaugh and his clown ass followers??

...

Uh...I never said they have to apologize. I gave a reason why the apologize (they get harassed and stuff until they realize it's worth the time to apologize. Not saying it's right but that's why they do it). That doesn't mean that those extremists are the majority.

Smash, you have difficulty following along with logic. Like, a serious difficulty. It's a shame.

I never stated you said they have to apologize, but the fact they feel they need to apologize every time they dare cross Rush really does show something.  For the record I wasn't saying they were the majority, my argument was more about where the current power lies within the GOP.  With that being said if moderates keep fleeing the GOP hey could become the majority within the Party.

[Keystone Phil]

So because a bunch of right wing extremist ditto head hacks with nothing better to do demand an apology it means they have to apologize to Limaugh and his clown ass followers??

...

Uh...I never said they have to apologize. I gave a reason why the apologize (they get harassed and stuff until they realize it's worth the time to apologize. Not saying it's right but that's why they do it). That doesn't mean that those extremists are the majority.

Smash, you have difficulty following along with logic. Like, a serious difficulty. It's a shame.

I never stated you said they have to apologize, but the fact they feel they need to apologize every time they dare cross Rush really does show something.  For the record I wasn't saying they were the majority, my argument was more about where the current power lies within the GOP.  With that being said if moderates keep fleeing the GOP hey could become the majority within the Party.

Ah so the party is made up of either moderates or Rush fanatics. Great. I guess people like myself don't exist (even though most would say we're the majority). Love the way your mind words, Smash.

[Smash255]

So because a bunch of right wing extremist ditto head hacks with nothing better to do demand an apology it means they have to apologize to Limaugh and his clown ass followers??

...

Uh...I never said they have to apologize. I gave a reason why the apologize (they get harassed and stuff until they realize it's worth the time to apologize. Not saying it's right but that's why they do it). That doesn't mean that those extremists are the majority.

Smash, you have difficulty following along with logic. Like, a serious difficulty. It's a shame.

I never stated you said they have to apologize, but the fact they feel they need to apologize every time they dare cross Rush really does show something.  For the record I wasn't saying they were the majority, my argument was more about where the current power lies within the GOP.  With that being said if moderates keep fleeing the GOP hey could become the majority within the Party.

Ah so the party is made up of either moderates or Rush fanatics. Great. I guess people like myself don't exist (even though most would say we're the majority). Love the way your mind words, Smash.

I said it a bit tongue and cheek smartass, but the way the party conducts themselves it certainly seems like they are the majority.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If Phil wants to pretend that the GOP is doing fine in swing areas, that America hasn't shifted to more liberal positions on several issues, that the Republican Party isn't losing fast growing minority groups or young people in landslides, and that they aren't losing hundreds of thousands of voters in old battleground states, I say let him.

[Keystone Phil]

k thnx

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Something Phil should take into account is the mass GOP retirements we saw in 2008. Something tells me that if most Congressional Republicans believed the GOP had a bright future and great shot at the majority soon, more would've stuck around...

[Torie]

Something Phil should take into account is the mass GOP retirements we saw in 2008. Something tells me that if most Congressional Republicans believed the GOP had a bright future and great shot at the majority soon, more would've stuck around...

I find that the loss of folks of talent from politics if they can't be part of a majority says a lot of the type of folks attracted to the profession, and what it says at least to me is more than a little disturbing. I could expand on this if anyone cares.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Quale was Vice-President of the United States. Usually a steping stone to the presidency. If a sitting Vice-President isn't considered a major party leader then I don't know who is.

He was never looked to as a leader in the party or a major contender for the Presidency. Stop spinning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Uh...I never said it was simple. I said it was possible. You make it seem like some established power is needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that didn't last that long. The Dems paid for Vietnam and Civil Rights...while controlling Congress. The GOP paid for the Great Depression...while gaining back Congress not too long after FDR's ascension to power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One exception and I'd still say that the younger people preferred the Dems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like our messaging. That's a main reason why we're doing so poorly, in my opinion. Our ideology is fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

How did I contradict myself? My whole point is that even after much damage being done, a party can return to power! Since we're not four years after Bush, how the hell are you going to tell me that you can prove Bush did more damage? Are you that blind?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006 and 2008. Again, you focus on one issue (and you're being incredibly vague since I don't think most Republican leaders are exactly rallying around the torture issue) and applying it to everything.

1)A siting Vice President is automaticaly considered a party leader. That's a FACT. The spin I leave it to you.

2)It's possible but not probable. If we are going to take the road of ''anything can happen'' then I can tell you that it's possible aliens will conquer the earth and put one of their own at the presidency.

3)The Republicans retook control of congress in 1946, 16 years after they lost it and one year after FDR died.
And Democrats were still nominally controlling Congress, but in reality the conservative coalition of Dixiecrats and Republicans was in control, especially during the Reagan years. The liberals already lost control after the 1966 elections.

4)No, your problem isn't messaging (only). When your party fancies itself as the party of personal liberty and then comes out against gay rights in order to appease the Religious Right then what you have is a problem of ideology. Not to mention the Schiavo fiasco.

Ditto for a party that touted the principle of prudent foreign policy, only to be hijacked be neocon warmongers like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the architects of the Iraq disaster.

And of course you can't say with a straight face that you are the party of limited government after eight years of profligate spending, warrantless wiretaps and torturing people just because the president decided to label them enemy combatants, while denying them the opportunity to dispute that characterization in a court.

5)Of course the Republicans will return one day to power. Nobody disputes that except your strawman.
And we can judge the damage Bush has done and the effect it will have on his party based on historical precedence. The 1930's and 1968 are good examples.

6)Republicans run away from Bush during their campaigns, but those who survived stayed loyal to him to the bitter end. As Josh Marshall put it: ''On the eve of the 2006 elections, the NYTimes put Bush's job approval at just 34%. The conventional wisdom was that this represented an ebb tide for the GOP, and that the next election would put a fresh face on the party and allow it to recapture ground. So Republicans stuck to their guns, figuring it couldn't get any worse. As a tactical decision, it was hardly crazy. But a funny thing happened. Things got worse. Defying precedent and probability, Bush's approval numbers sank even further: this time around, to 22%.

...

I would also note that the reason President Bush's popularity managed to fall from 34% to the unbelievably low level of 22% was closely tied to his and his party's unwillingness to take any cognizance of the results of the 2006 election.''

I use the torture example because it's the most glaring. If the Republicans really wanted to distance themeselves from the Bush years the release of the torture memos was a golden opportunity. Denounce torture, demand accountability and agree into an independent investigation.
What they (McConnell, Bhoener, Cornyn, Romney, etc. ) did instead was arguing that waterboarding isn't torture, parroting Cheney's dubious assertions that it saved thousands of lives and demanding that no prosecutions be made against those who commited war crimes, according to IRC.
If that's ''taking cognizance'' of the results of the two last elections, then as I said the Republicans are in a much deeper hole than anyone thinks.   

[Landslide Lyndon]

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Are you sure? I mean half the Texas Republicans want their state to secede.

And if they aren't the majority then why is the official Republican party letting them hijack it's image?

[Keystone Phil]

1)A siting Vice President is automaticaly considered a party leader. That's a FACT. The spin I leave it to you.

That has nothing to do with the type of leader you made him out to be. He was not a relevant, big leaguer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the possibility I mentioned is obviously a lot more probable. In fact, you have yet to demonstrate why a newcomer leading my party is so improbable. You don't know the conditions a month from now, let alone three years from now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the latter point have to do with anything? We're not talking about what ideology was in control. You keep moving the goal posts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, people were going to the polls in droves because of Schiavo in 2006, not the war. Ask people why they dislike the GOP right now and I guarantee very, very, very few swing/moderate voters list social issues as a top reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said we didn't stray from our principles. That's the exact opposite of arguing that we've been too conservative though. If anything, you're feeding into my argument that our traditional messages were not rejected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But what you do dispute is the timing and most of you possess an arrogance that is unbearable. You think you're all top notch analysts and fail to realize that even they get it wrong. You can't accurately predict the next wave. You didn't see 2006 coming in late 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you keep using one issue. One.

your party looks off the deep end with the Limbaughs and Bachmanns wanting the stage.  .

And they're not the majority.

Are you sure? I mean half the Texas Republicans want their state to secede.

And if they aren't the majority then why is the official Republican party letting them hijack it's image?

Ah, yes. The TX GOP (using one poll, I believe, as your basis) is the face of millions of Republicans across the nation. 

I've explained why these people have a voice (haven't hijacked) in this party. Very passionate, vocal minorities seem to be majorities sometimes.