Question 10/07
Has John McCain destroyed the Republican Party?
(Serious question, and if you have a problem with the word destroyed feel free to substitute your own.)
Bonus Prediction: I predict the McCain/Palin personal attacks against Obama end up doing more damage to McCain/Palin and Republicans running down ticket.
Tags: John McCain
That prediction could be spot on. The attack ads are only working on people who liked McCain/Palin to being with. The independents are fleeing that trainwreck.
hmmm…
I don’t think so. I think he is dealing with the mess that the Religious Right created. He is so screwed with having to bow to not only big business but the bible thumpers he can’t please anyone.
Brownback, Delay, Bush, Cheney they fucked this party (lobbyist too) now, just like the rest of the country has to deal with the economic mess
Mccain has to deal with the party mess. Granted though, he is a mess himself.
He has no control over what is happening right now. Proof by the palin pick. We know he didn’t want her. But he had to take her.
ah, ah, ah, ahhh
answer the questions posited to you little boy.
daddy didn’t forget. you can’t play outside until you do your homework….
McCain’s bowing and scraping doesn’t strike me as mavericky. He may not be solely responsible, but he’s driving the stake through the party’s heart – sometimes I actually wonder if it’s deliberate.
“Has John McCain destroyed the Republican Party?”
No! The party is destroying themselves more on local basis then national. If anything Bush has destroyed it and Minner fractured the Delaware Democratic Party.
“ Bonus Prediction”
I agree! The Obama the terrorist BS is way over the top and was not a tactful move. The white gloves will be coming off because Palin wants to be treated like a lady but talks like a man! She is no Suzy Homemaker or your average soccer mon!
We can only hope. Actually, I think Bush did it.
Next up – elect better Dems. Primaries are the answer to those concerned about single party rule.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/07/announcing-the-accountability-now-2010-primary-project/
The question that interests me about McCain this time around is why he didn’t try to remake the brand rather than double down on it? In 2000, he famously took to task the religious right part of his party (but was likely attached to the neocons, but tried to distance himself some in 2005 or 2006), and I really wonder about taking the path of looking like GWB (but with better press notices). Someone who is truly a maverick and a risk taker would probably have taken a path that would try to ditch the portions of the party that are dragging it down.
The question that interests me about McCain this time around is why he didn’t try to remake the brand rather than double down on it?
Because he needed to get nominated first.
answer answer
now now little boy….
I think “winning” came to mean everything. McCain sold his “maverick” image because his handlers told him it’s what he had to do… to win.
When the republicans picked McCain out of the group this year, I was nervous. At that time he had huge crossover appeal. He’s squandered it since.
Take that for what it’s worth, but liberals lived through the same thing with Al Gore.
if you have a problem with the word destroyed feel free to substitute your own.
Exposed.
The question that interests me about McCain this time around is why he didn’t try to remake the brand rather than double down on it?
Cass I think b/c he doesn’t run the show in the party is why. he made a deal with the devil and has no power in his own campaign. The lobbyists do and the executive office does too.
He is a lame duck candidate and he knows it.
Are you all part of one big circle jerk?
Good choice, anon.
I asked the question because I discovered I was talking to myself – which is never a good sign!
What in the world is McCain doing? Making matters worse? That’s the way it looks to me. And the way he (and Palin) is slinging mud is starting to make me extremely uncomfortable. Not because it’s sticking – it’s not – but because he’s inflaming the base in what I consider a dangerous way. Yeah, I’m becoming very uneasy.
That’s true, DV, but he had the same two years as did the rest to make a case to remake that coalition. It may have been a more certain thing to live with the current coalition and destroy any honor he had in doing it. Just handing over strategy and tactics to the BushCo crowd seems like such a wasted opportunity.
I think the brand was pretty much destroyed before McCain. McCain was nominated really because he was running against the Republican party. That’s why I thought he was the only Republican that could actually win. McCain routinely polls better than generic Republicans because he is seen somewhat outside of them. He certainly brought the destruction out in public, and the repudiation of McCain by his own party (the House Republicans voted against the bailout despite McCain’s efforts) haven’t gotten enough play.
He is destroying his own brand by tying himself so tightly to the establishment and by adopting the tactics that everyone hates about them. I guess there were still some pockets of Republicans that believe Rove is a genius.
Out of destruction comes renewal. My question is – what way will the Republicans decide to go? Will they become the homophobic, racist party led by Palin or will they become something else?
“test // Oct 7, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Are you all part of one big circle jerk?”
Yes, and you’re right in the middle of it with mouth wide open…..just where you’d want to be, I gather.
Watch your blood pressure Von CRACKer. My point is all you seem to do all day with your blog is kiss each others asses. It is refreshing when someone comes on and provides another point of view. When that happens you all jump and attack and type vulgar comebacks.
Yeah, I’ll stick around for a while and comment when I feel it is necessary. I love a good circle jerk.
a different point of view is fine….but not when it is entirely wrong, has been proven wrong and you still repeat it over and over and over again.
TESTes? One…two… TESTes?
I can play with CAPS too! Oh joy!
Fuck off, Francis.
i have moved on mike. which is something you are incapable of. no one here cares anymore. get over it.
Now…on to your fascism definition.
you just don’t get it mike. Do you?
do you have any idea what annoys people about you? Any?
Test is another example of a troll. Let’s look at his/her comments thus far…
“Are you all part of one big circle jerk?”
“Watch your blood pressure Von CRACKer. My point is all you seem to do all day with your blog is kiss each others asses. It is refreshing when someone comes on and provides another point of view. When that happens you all jump and attack and type vulgar comebacks.
Yeah, I’ll stick around for a while and comment when I feel it is necessary. I love a good circle jerk.”
Brilliant commentary. Just brilliant. Try answering the question, Test. Agree or disagree. Tell us what you think about McCain and the republican party.
Sorry, but I’ll take a stab at that….
The GOP needs to dump the social issues and christianista rhetoric. Mass media has destroyed the ‘aura’ of not knowing about the damned dirty hippies and latte drinkers on the coasts. Same on the Dems side in regard to hillbillies and rednecks. The country is way too ‘small’ now to get away with labeling groups of voters as this or as that.
Shorter: It’s too easy to discredit the smears of ‘differences’. Just be serious; it’s one reason why Obama’s doing well.
You do mean the Religious Right leadership, right?
Because, I don’t think the Bible Thumper followers who voted the Bushies in deserve blame exactly…they were baited with false promises that were put out there cynically to lure them. Those who constructed that manipulative, demeaning and corrupt strategy are (one hopes) now reaping what they have sown by alienating…everyone but the horribly calculating and the easily led/frightened.
Because to be honest and fair to the sheepier Republicans, if you saw an opportunity for your most dearly held beliefs to be represented on a national stage, wouldn’t you jump at the chance? Even if it is to the detriment of everything else and the wrong place to handle those issues? (I’m looking at YOU abortion and gay marriage.) I am sure I would when it comes to something like my ideas about racial harmony. I’d be all “OMG! Force people by law to appreciate and love one another?! YES, PLEASE!” Even though that’s completely naive.
I hope the Republican Party fractures into more than one party. To be quite honest, I hope the Democrats do too.
sorry mike, we are still working on one post at a time little buddy. no moving on until we try to figure out what you mean by ideology, fascism, attitude and not understanding Con Law.
I don’t mind the circle jerk, test, because our money shot is right on your fucking face, you creep. Go wipe my come out of your hair you fucking loser.
How is that for a vulgar comeback?
NWL – I see the point with the Thumpers believing that it’s their turn. But it’s a losing proposition since the moderates are appearing to jump ship.
Even some of the thumpers are second-guessing their allegiance to the GOP, and recognizing what you just said – played buyers in a massive bait-and-switch. But that’s their fault for trusting Oil Men and Wall Street, and I have no sympathy for them.
The poor whites who knowingly vote against their own economic interests better wake the eff up!
That sounds like a regular ‘ol weekend at the DG party forum.
😀
Late, but better maybe than never:
As a structure the GOP is significantly different from the Dems in ways that lead to wide cycles of behavior that have a tendency to alienate large parts of the voter base.
The Democrats understand that they are a coalition of diverse interests sharing a common general sort-of viewpoint, and who shamble rather than lockstep toward their goal with maximum amounts of infighting along the way. But there is never a serious threat that any of the constituencies will desert the overall effort.
The GOP is a tripod of about three distinct ideological groups (social cons, fiscal cons, libertarian-leaning) that are all vying for supremacy within the party structure, and willing to trash the others in order to attain it. What they suffer from is the ideologically based delusion that once they are in power everyone will suddenly convert to their ideology.
The GOP does best when the three tripod legs are at roughly equal strength (the Reagan years) because…
The Democrats are a liberal-leaning political party, while the Republican “Party” is a vehicle for ideology rather than politics.
Both groups do better when they remember to be political rather than ideological.
Steve, would the Party be stronger without the social con leg? Can the Party survive an amputation? Unfortunately, I don’t see how you pull the social cons into line now that they’ve been allowed to become so powerful.
How do you tell them not to “believe” so strongly? Especially when moderate republicans have “bought” into their platform – for purely political reasons. Hey, a guaranteed 30% in the polls just for paying lip service to the pro-lifers? No contest.
Also, social conservative leaders can’t lead without ideology. Quite a conundrum.
“The Democrats understand that they are a coalition of diverse interests sharing a common general sort-of viewpoint”
I disagree. They are more accurately defined by their demographics than anything. I hate to agree with Dick Morris on anything but he’s correct that the D’s are based on demography and the R’s are based on policy.
McCain didn’t destroy the party, Bush did. He made it the party of religion. McCain cannot reinvent the brand overnight and expect to win. He must change by degrees. If he’s elected look for him to appeal more toward the other two legs of the party.
The social cons have nowhere else to go. It’s not that they’ll defect so much as they just won’t show up. In the end, many of them will just vote R out of fear of whomever is the D at the moment. They know the next pres. is making at least one and possibly two USSC appointments and that scares them.
I think neither party every wants the abortion question settled. They both rely on a significant percentage of the base to stand on either side of that bright line.
Yes, I think the social conservatives are the ones hurting the brand the most.
The fiscal cons, in my opinion, are the ones that desperately need renewal. They are caught up in an ideology that doesn’t work (trickle down, tax cuts always work, deregulate everything). They are also in a very uneasy relationship with the social cons.
My opinion is the fiscal cons need new ideas, they basically need a brand-new ideology. The libertarian wing should get stronger, we desperately need them to roll back the abuses of the Bush years and Democrats don’t seem strong enough to do it themselves. The social cons will leave on their own, I think, and I agree that many of them are of an older generation.
pandora (remembering that I’d rather see the GOP disappear and be replaced by a Libertarian party, I’ll try to answer the question you asked)
The social conservatives were melded to the libertarians by Buckley and his followers in the late 50s and early 60s, with the idea that libertarianism and less government would descend into hedonism without a strong values base to drive decision-making in the absence of regulation. At the time, most of those social cons came over to the GOPers from southern Yellow Dog Dem parties.
But at least through the middle of the Reagan years the social cons were decidedly the junior partner, with the fiscal cons and libs in control of the party and the agenda.
It was Newt who used the social cons to vault back into power in 94 and upset the balance.
The problem now is that the social cons have no home if they leave the GOP [they certainly can’t go back to a very changed Democratic Party], so they have to stay and fight.
Both the libertarians and fiscal conservatives are beginning to realize that they could do without the social cons, but creating a new party or movement is a problem given the way we’ve constructed the exclusivist two-party system. So a lot of them see themselves stuck in the GOP with the social cons, who don’t understand the word compromise.
Unfortunately for the GOP, social conservatives seem constitute a hard 12-15% of the total voting population, which is a percentage that the GOP can’t do without in purely demographic terms, because right now the GOP [having lost many of its libertarians] is only tracking 28-30% total even with the social cons].
The other problem, quite frankly, is that the social cons are better political organizers than the libertarians or the fiscal cons [or even the Dems] because they do lock-step really well.
Problem is: most of the social cons are generally really good people, politics aside, who I am proud to have as neighbors but cringe when I think about them in a voting booth.
duffy,
e D’s are based on demography and the R’s are based on policy.
REALLY? I mean really on paper that sounds all swell. Can we agree that both parties act like they are based on these things? But are hardly representative of what they say they are based on.
“McCain didn’t destroy the party, Bush did. He made it the party of religion. McCain cannot reinvent the brand overnight and expect to win. He must change by degrees. If he’s elected look for him to appeal more toward the other two legs of the party.”
Duffy, are you serious, or is this just wishful thinking? The Palin pick tells me he’s not interested in reinventing the “brand”. And if he is… who’s going to believe it?
Thanks, Steve.
Truth is… both parties are stuck with their extremes. Luckily, the far left is disorganized, but fun to party with! 😉
I agree with much of what Duffy said, but if the Dems are demographically based, what’s the demographic exactly? If this were the case wouldn’t Democrats be easier to organize that the GOP? Republicans would be busy arguing over esoteric policy points and the homogeneous nature of the Ds would aid in rallying them.
But in the real world it is exactly the other way round.
homework mike w…get too it
no. I have moved on. you on the other hand have some homework little fella.
now, come on, get those definitions and answer those questions
DV:
“Can we agree that both parties act like they are based on these things? But are hardly representative of what they say they are based on.”
These things = demography or policy? I’m not following you.
Pandora:
“Duffy, are you serious, or is this just wishful thinking? The Palin pick tells me he’s not interested in reinventing the “brand”. And if he is… who’s going to believe it?”
No, I’m serious. McCain has never been well liked in the GOP for his tendency to stray. The Palin pick was probably more tactical than strategic. She does help him with the social cons but I don’t think she’s beholden to them. “In” but not “Of”.
DG:
“I agree with much of what Duffy said, but if the Dems are demographically based, what’s the demographic exactly?”
Strong with women, minorities and urbanites, Union members.
“If this were the case wouldn’t Democrats be easier to organize that the GOP?”
Indeed. I think they are.
“Republicans would be busy arguing over esoteric policy points and the homogeneous nature of the Ds would aid in rallying them.”
Not esoteric policy points but wresting control of the platform. Bush invented the oxymoronical “Big government conservatism”. It’s socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Exactly the opposite of what the GOP needs to be.
“But in the real world it is exactly the other way round.”
Agree to disagree.
I guess the left owns social liberalism and fiscal responsibility then.
You know…since they were the last to achieve it.
Steve is so right in #37 w/ Newt being the overall change agent. Dems got a taste of implosion last round w/ Kerry, who once going national becomes more a “product”, than a principle. Too much handling, scripting, manipulating etc. yields our worst fear–they are all the same at the top of the ticket…know your local scene, and vote accordingly. All you get is packaging at the top.
that isn’t your choice…
No Sarah has