Erick Erickson Predicts GOP Split, 3rd Party Coming
Via TPM:
Incensed that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) are reportedly abandoning the effort to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act, RedState.com editor Erick Erickson predicted Thursday that Republican leadership is providing fertile ground for the rise of a “real third party movement” that will split the GOP.
[…]
Erickson wrote that those leaders “will ensure that Obamacare is fully funded and give the American public no delay like businesses have.”
“In doing so, they will sow the seeds of a real third party movement that will fully divide the Republican Party,” he added.
He also insists, (despite the polls), that Republicans are winning!
I’m torn on the idea of the Republican Party splitting in two – mainly because the Tea Party has already taken over, and deep down Republicans (95% of them) actually agree with the Tea Party agenda. Jason wrote a post the other day, in which he said, “I don’t use “Tea Party” any more because the fact is the Republican Party is staffed and run by members of what was once called the Tea Party.”
Jason’s correct. Go ahead and try to put today’s Republican politicians into column A (RINOs) and column B (Tea Partiers). You won’t end up with a balanced list. Column A is pretty empty.
So… I’m having trouble seeing a split. What I am seeing is more primary challengers from the right, because the truth is, the Tea Party has already taken over the Republican Party. Seriously, how can you have a divorce if their are no assets (human, in this case) to split?
Tags: National Republicans, Tea Party
Good point – why leave the house when the spouse has been so thoroughly cowed that they spend 24/7 hiding in a dark corner of the basement? But then again, the TeaPatriots act only on their bloody howling instincts.
BTW – A split would be doing Chris Christie a big favor. He pretends to be moderate in commercials and could actually trick a large number of sane people into voting for him, but he’d never get through a GOP primary system owned and run by Teapublicans.
So Christie pretends to be a moderate, but is really right wing and the Tea Party hates him because they believe him to be a moderate, which he really isn’t? So he is fooling both the moderates and the Tea Party?
I suppose you could be accurate and he is fooling everyone, but I wonder if he isn’t just someone who does and says what he thinks is right even if it pisses off everyone? Perhaps moderation is in the eyes of the beholder. To me, he seems to be more of a pragmatist without an ideological bias and if he has to hug Obama to get federal aid for his state because of Sandy, then by God, he’ll give him a good squeeze. If anything I would call him a pragmatic conservative. He has beliefs and principles, but it doesn’t mean he took a stupid pill (i.e. Ted Cruz, et al).
*sigh* Christie did not have to hug Obama to get federal aid. You’re smarter than this sentence.
“To me, he seems to be more of a pragmatist without an ideological bias…”
Close, but flawed. Christie has made a pragmatic decision to keep his ideological biases in the background. His debt peacockery (while at the same time blowing millions on a casino), his hostility to women’s rights, his opposition to Marriage Equality, and hostile to public employees, especially teachers, don’t seem to be mentioned in any of the “I’m such a great champion of bi-partisanship” commercials I’ve seen.
You know, I remember having this conversation about Jon Huntsman being a “moderate”. Seriously, too many people buy this schitick without learning about these guys actual, you know, policies.
The truth is that, conservative as he is, most Teapublicans consider him too moderate.
I love when the guys that are a minority (and shrinking) try to divide up what they have.
@Pandora,
“*sigh* Christie did not have to hug Obama to get federal aid. You’re smarter than this sentence.”
Yes, I am. And *sigh* you are also smart and should have recognized intentional hyperbole. :).
Re: Huntsman. I suppose it depends on one’s definition of “moderate.” In my view, I’m a moderate but someone else might define me as a conservative. I literally hate RWNJs. But I have the same disdain for LWNJs.
Omnis enim, quae a ratione suscipitur de aliqua re institutio, debet a definitione proficisci, ut intellegatur, quid sit id de quo disputetur
M. TVLLI CICERONIS DE OFFICIIS LIBER PRIMVS
Every systematic development of any subject ought to begin with a definition, so that everyone may understand what the discussion is about.
Marcus Tulius Cicero. De Officiis, Book 1, Moral Goodness
I wonder if there is a common definition of moderate that everyone would agree with?
A political moderate is one who wants the best outcomes for the most political shareholders and is willing to pursue that goal by give thoughtful consideration to a wide range of political solutions without being bound by factional ideology and dogma.
wait a minute. what is your definition of a moderate in 2013 if not jon huntsman?
huntsman supports or has supported cap and trade, civil unions, increased spending, increased minimum wage, the western climate initiative, increased understanding of china, immigration reform, stopped a bill from being signed that would repeal in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, and said he was comfortable with a healthcare requirement in 2007. that’s just from a quick scan of his wikipedia page; not to mention, HE SERVED IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
look, i buy that republican moderates are few and far between, but you can’t have it both ways. you can’t continously bash carper and carney for being too conservative and willing to be bi-partisan while at the same time grouping everyone who’s ever self-identified as a fiscal conservative into the tea party, and admonishing the disappearing moderate republican.
what you guys want is a democratic party made up of ted kennedys and a republican party made up of tom carpers. that’s not going to happen, so i’ll take the mike castles, the dick lugars, the jon huntsmans, and even the john mccains and lindsay grahams (on glass-steagall and climate legislation, at least), and hope that more people who agree with those republicans see a split in the republican party as an excuse to come out of the woodwork and run on restoring the idea of loyal opposition to government. and this is coming from someone who counts ralph nader as a political hero, so i am no conservative by any means.
“what you guys want is a democratic party made up of ted kennedys”
The work goes on, the cause endures, and the dream will never die.
“what you guys want is a democratic party made up of ted kennedys”
What was so bad about our broad based economic expansion that stretched from 1945 to the early 1970s? Why wouldn’t everyone want a democratic party made up of ted kennedys and a republican party made up of tom carpers?
“what you guys want is a democratic party made up of ted kennedys”
“The work goes on, the cause endures, and the dream will never die.”
i should mention i also love ted kennedy, but he had the best constituency in america to be a progressive liberal. i don’t think joe manchin and mark pryor really have that luxury, which is something that on the other side, republicans in this state failed to understand when they nominated christine o’donnell.
“What was so bad about our broad based economic expansion that stretched from 1945 to the early 1970s? Why wouldn’t everyone want is a democratic party made up of ted kennedys and a republican party made up of tom carpers?”
great, but you’re preaching to the choir, and not to the large contingency of people in this country who have an “individualist” streak (i guess that’s what you call people who read the fountainhead), who also happened to be anti-communist, anti-tax rates of the 40s-70s, and pro-ronald reagan. those people exist because we don’t live in a liberal utopia, and in order for democrats to get things done, they need some of those people to come back into the mainstream of the republican party rather than the religious zealots who will shut down the government over conservative health reform and the mere mention of raising taxes in order to deal with the deficit. the idea that jon huntsman is almost as bad as a member of the tea party is demonstrably false; the guy ran as THE moderate republican when mitt romney decided that being the republican nominee was more important than having some semblance of values.
“the idea that jon huntsman is almost as bad as a member of the tea party is demonstrably false;”
Huntsman is a private citizen with the luxury to be an outlier. Name a moderate member of the GOP house caucus, (or a candidate for the GOP nomination) who isn’t cowed by the Heritage Foundation and I’ll be impressed.
well, to start, the 15-20 republicans who publicly came out in support of a clean debt limit increase. in the senate (i can’t find the house vote numbers, can someone point me to those) – mccain, collins, toomey, and mark kirk voted for the background checks bill.
but that’s really my point. if the republican party splits, the heritage/freedomworks republicans will become the tea party, and the republicans who just kind of identify as a reagan conservatives and not much else will be freed in a way by the restraints of the NRA and all of these radical conservative think tanks that will primary them. either that, or they’ll just join the democratic party.
Mr 330 wrote:
Ronald Reagan once said that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left him. The Democrats went from the party of the working man to the party of the nonworking man, from the party of labor to the party of welfare.
The Democrats of Harry Truman and John Kennedy stood for American values and American exceptionalism and a broad commitment to liberty and democracy, and strong opposition to socialism and communism, exactly the kind of party I could and would support. Y’all left that.
Harry Truman was the first person to enroll in Medicare.
harry truman also proposed universal healthcare as early as 1945.
“The Democrats went from the party of the working man to the party of the nonworking man, from the party of labor to the party of welfare.”
I’m sure it is soothing for Republicans to wrap their racism up in pretty parallel sentences. Ronald Reagan’s mythical welfare queen driving Cadillac a means we can’t have health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. It makes perfect sense to the wingnut.
Ever notice how the non-working plutocrats never come in for any of the criticism conservatives reserve for the poor?
Brave people punch up. Shit-heels punch down.
Mr Geezer wrote:
And what is a “non-working plutocrat?” If you are trying to complain about people who are employed or are business leaders, but who aren’t doing manual labor, then you’ll have to include the President in that. If you are complaining about the idle rich, I have no complaint with them, as long as they are supporting themselves rather than leeching off the taxpayers.
the idea that only democrats and people on welfare use government services is the dumbest shit i’ve ever heard in my life.
Mr 330 wrote:
So, which is racist: to praise people who will work and excoriate those who don’t, irrespective of race, or to assume that people who won’t work are black?
It’s pretty simple: most black Americans work, as do most white Americans and most Asian Americans and most whatever Americans. As far as I am concerned, the black man who works every day in the most menial job is far more valuable than the Harvard educated white guy who will find every excuse not to work and suck up on welfare. But, to liberals, when people who won’t work are mentioned, the immediate image which comes to their minds is that of a black person. Why is that?
the idea that only democrats and people on welfare use government services is the dumbest shit i’ve ever heard in my life.
You must be new here. Stick around.
because the black guy working the most menial, minimum wage job every day is the one that’s still forced to collect welfare in order to feed his family, yet conservatives tend to equate “welfare” with “non-working”?
the Harvard educated white guy who will find every excuse not to work
You mean like Mitt Romney?
Republican 3rd Party- could be a Liberitarian Canidate like R. Paul
Democratic 3rd Party- Green Party, Socialist Alternative Party, K. Sawant
I would also consider also Charlie Copeland/Tom Kovach, as strong Moderate conservatives (fiscally sound)here in DE-like Mike Castle, Marc Rubio & Chris Kristie
3rd party Canidates are not just splitting away from the Republican party they are also splitting away from the Democratic Party. Interesting to see what the 2014 elections will bring. Let the Games Begin!
Prior to this thread being hijacked by some idiot:
The Teaparty would come out of the gate as one of the largest 3rd parities in American history – but our system isn’t parliamentary, so they’d have to overtake the GOP or fade into the history books as a bout of temporary insanity.
“A political moderate is one who wants the best outcomes for the most political shareholders and is willing to pursue that goal by give(ing) thoughtful consideration to a wide range of political solutions without being bound by factional ideology and dogma.”
I like that definition. I might tweak it a bit by replacing “political shareholders” with “citizens” or “the people” or something like that and maybe replace “political solutions” with “practical solutions.” Still, overall, I think it comes close to the mark especially the part about not being bound by ideology and dogma.
Stakeholders was a nod to the fact that Tom Carper’s constituents are non-human banks and insurance companies.
Anyway…So the open source definition is…
“A political moderate is one who works for the best outcomes for the most citizens and is willing to pursue that goal by giving thoughtful consideration to a wide range of political solutions without being bound by factional ideology and dogma.”
A moderate is someone in between the center-right and the far right.
“A political moderate is one who works for the best outcomes for the most citizens and is willing to pursue that goal by giving thoughtful consideration to a wide range of political solutions without being bound by factional ideology and dogma.”
Except that political moderates are mostly interested in the world perceiving them as moderates — with lots of split the baby BS that has little to do with best outcomes for the most citizens. There are few exceptions, but political moderates don’t do policy — they do moderation.
I agree 100%. That definition is wishful thinking. It is probably what Michael Castle thinks about himself, but if you look at his record of shitheadedness in congress – it isn’t borne out in his votes.
That’s really the problem. If you can’t bring yourself to vote your own interests when it counts, then you aren’t really a moderate.
So if the teajhadis split off — who are their funders? The Koch-heads are disavowing all knowledge of them over the debt limit at least.
News coming in that the President said no to just the debt ceiling – must open government, too.
Thanks to the Koch brothers for blinking. 🙂