Why the Death of the GOP May Not be a Good Thing

Blogger, Teddy Williams, in his effort Left of College Station explains the simple reasons for the GOP’s problems.  He further asserts a very weak GOP may not be in this country’s political best interests.

Iggy Donnelly

11 Comments

Filed under Elections, Political Reform, Republicans, Wingnuts!

11 responses to “Why the Death of the GOP May Not be a Good Thing

  1. From the blogger Iggy linked to speaking about the recent tea bag protests: “The only central idea or theme that the protest have in common is that they are angry, and that they feel that their views are not being represented. The problem is that their views are being represented, and they are angry because their views are no longer in the majority.”

    They are displeased and angry, but so fragmented about why they are in the minority, they are also stymied in devising any ideas. Don’t you first have to identify the problem in order to find the solution?

    I agree that we need two (at least!) strong political parties representing philosophies that create an atmosphere of controversy. Without controversy you get complacency and there is no motivation to find compromise. In finding that place where compromise is possible one must closely examine, and defend their positions. That close examination is where you get to the details — and the devil is always in the details.

    We had that authoritarian form of government under bush the lesser — he and his were so positive of their ideas they didn’t listen to dissent. And look where they got us! There are politicians on the Democratic side of the fence just as capable of causing great harm, perhaps as great as bush the lesser’s group caused.

    We need checks and balances, we need dissent and compromise!

  2. This from one of the comments at the blog Iggy linked: “It seems the main reason Republicans are now out of office is their unwillingness to balance a budget, or make government smaller. I would think that those who are now in power would be more cognizant of that fact; the opposite appears to be true.”

    If this is where Republicans are putting the blame for being in the minority, they won’t fix their problems. Because the Republicans who think ‘conservative’ still means fiscal responsibility and smaller government aren’t paying close enough attention! The Republican Party in office today doesn’t put fiscal responsibility first! Fiscal responsibility comes way down their list of priorities, after the stupidity of attempting to make abortion illegal, keeping adult people from being married, and making America into a theology where Christianity is to be law and all other flavors of religious belief be relegated to morally repugnant customs.

    And on the smaller government philosophy — Republicans have been excellent in thinking government is the problem and making that assertion come true. They haven’t recognized the importance of making government work for us, making government more efficient. After all, we are the government and eliminating us seems to be counter productive.

  3. Well, tstb, I remember very well what put the grand in the grand ole party. I’ve said it many times — I didn’t leave the party, it left me.

    I’m glad in many ways that the Republican Party left me! There is much to love about the Democratic Party! In fact, I think when the Republican Party began their stubborn exclusionary ways me and others who went looking for something that made sense actually made the Democratic Party stronger! Anyway, that’s my opinion and I’ll stick to it until proven wrong. 😉

  4. g-stir

    I can remember when there were statesmen in the Congress, that put the country ahead of party, or feathering one’s own nest. Now it’s a politicalized “me first” game that doesn’t appear to be able to ,or interested in, getting out of that rut and getting things done.

    A one party government is not the answer .

  5. lilacluvr

    g-ster – But that is how the Republicans are spinning the Arlen Specter defection story.

    It goes like this – Specter is a self-serving traitor that knew he was going to lose the Republican primary so he went to the other side just to further his own career.

    First of all, Specter could retire quite wealthy and would not need to continue working. But I believe the man when he says he wants to work to bring health care reform to the country. And if he can do at least help with that monumental task, then I say why not have him at least try.

    Perhaps the real problem with the Republicans is that they KNOW this is the year of real health care reform and they are trying with all their might to derail it. They would not want to go back empty handed to their Corporate Gods, now would they?

  6. wicked

    lilac,

    I, too, believe Specter’s change was motivated more by helping than for his own political gain. I do think there’s some political gain in there, though, as none of us are completely UNselfish.

    The CONS are po’d at Specter because it makes their party look bad, so they’re going to badmouth him and anyone else. That may be the only reason why others (Olympia Snowe, included) are trying to hold on, hoping to make the party see reason.

    And this is what happens when power corrupts.

  7. Some of the better known Republicans have announced a new strategy this morning. They’re going to hold town-hall meetings around the country to get Republican ideas. About time they decided counter ideas are necessary!

    “Republicans will announce today the creation of the “National Council for a New America,” a group led by congressional party leaders that includes Jeb Bush, McCain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as its “national panel of experts.”

    Wonder how Sarah Palin feels about having been left off the list of experts? 😉

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/04/30/gops_big_names_try_to_forge_ne.html?wprss=44

  8. wicked

    ::snort::

    Notice the key words in the title of the new group: “National” “America” They missed a couple. “Freedom”, for one.

    And what a charming bunch of liars they’ve included in their leaders!

  9. Wonder how long it will take them to come to a compromise? Is it possible they can even do that? Maybe they’ll each just stand their ground and keep arguing about what the problem is. Gonna be more difficult to find a solution without identifying the problem.

    ———

    G.O.P. Debate: A Broader Party or a Purer One?

    — snips —

    We strayed from our principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic freedom,” said Chris Chocola, a former Indiana congressman who is head of Club for Growth, a group that has financed primary challenges against Republicans it considers insufficiently conservative. “We have to adhere to those principles to rebuild the party. Those are the brand of the Republican Party, and people feel that we betrayed the brand.”

    Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: “We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing.”

    Saying that their party should do more to draw economic contrasts with the Democrats, several Republicans said Mr. Specter’s departure was in effect a purification rite for the party that would make it better able to make its case to the public.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/us/politics/30repubs.html?em

  10. Zippy

    Hmm. . . interesting. I didn’t think about Specter’s battle with Hodgkin’s disease. That sure as hell might have been an influence.

    Personally, I’m glad to see the Democratic party finally standing for things again, and having the clout to do something about it. I’m not too concerned about one-party-rule (not yet anyway), because to the extent that’s been a concern in the past, the issue has been more one of the Dems trying to be more Republican.

    And the truth be told, while consensus is being forged on a number of important issues, I don’t believe there any sort of monolithic groupthink in the Dems. I am reminded of Jerry Voorhis’comment, that even at the height of the New Deal, a full one-third of the Dems were conservatives (and probably racist as well, but that wasn’t a subject you openly broached in 1947!).

    The Dem-o-graphics are a bit different now, but I don’t forsee a rigid, monolithic Dem machine just yet. However the retreat of the Republican party to little more than old Dixie is something we haven’t seen since Reconstruction–only in reverse!

    “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” — Will Rogers