My New Rules
- Republicans can no longer absolve themselves of the economic crisis when they were in power, and then simultaneously state that now that Dems are in control there’s no excuse for not solving everything.
- Republicans cannot support patriotism and respect for the Office of the President only when a Republican is housed in that office.
- Republicans can no longer frighten us with the prediction of another 9/11 should Democrats hold power without acknowledging that 9/11 happened on President Bush’s watch.
- Republicans can no longer be pro-life unless they expand that concept to include those welfare mothers who keep pushing out babies.
- Republicans can no longer accuse anyone of being a socialist until they rip up their Social Security and Medicare cards.
- Republicans can no longer run on the Sanctity of Marriage until they show that Republican marriages are immune to divorce and adultery.
- Republicans can no longer be called Fiscal Conservatives because… well.. they aren’t.
- Republicans can no longer call themselves the Party of Small Government because… see #7
- Republicans have to stop pretending the reason women, gays, and minorities don’t vote for them is merely a communication problem and accept the fact that their message is coming through loud and clear.
- And finally… Republicans have to stop pretending that the reason they lost was because they weren’t conservative enough.
I’m sure I missed some. Have at it.
Tags: Republicans
You all seem very angry and bitter for people who just swept the entire government in Delaware and Washington. You should take a little time to enjoy it.
Also, read #7, #8 and #10 separate from the rest and tell me what comes of it.
Ah… perhaps I should have said “socially” conservative enough – which is the message “real” conservatives are pushing, and pushing hard. Hey, it wasn’t liberals who came up with the term RINO.
As far as being fiscally conservative and the party of small government, well… those strike me as washed up talking points that nobody believes anymore.
“As far as being fiscally conservative and the party of small government, well… those strike me as washed up talking points that nobody believes anymore”
And therein lies the problem for the GOP. The DC GOP blew it for the rest of us, but not because they put our principles into practice. They did just the opposite.
I agree with you on the first part, too. The truth is that the DC GOP wasn’t conservative enough, but the social faction wants that to mean that they weren’t culturally conservative enough when the fact is that it was fiscal and economic conservatism that got tossed.
Okay Dave, fair enough. But how do you solve it? Despite my snark I actually miss a viable Republican Party, but, then again, I enjoy a good debate.
Let’s start closer to home. How do you unite yourself and Smitty with David Anderson and Frank Knotts? Solve that, and you might have your answer.
New Revelation:
Our government AS A WHOLE has and continues to fail us. It’s not one party or the other; it’s both of them. The more bitter partisans assign sweeping ridiculous statements of blame to the other side, the less things will improve.
New Rule:
Everybody shuts up about parties and blame and starts talking about our country. Isn’t it time we start looking forward instead of backwards?
Oh, and the local Republicans might try staying in touch with reality instead of spouting whatever spin is coming out of D.C. and blaming Dems for everything that is wrong. I’m not naming names but you know who you are.
“Oh, and the local Republicans might try staying in touch with reality instead of spouting whatever spin is coming out of D.C. and blaming Dems for everything that is wrong.”
Nobody’s blaming Democrats for everything that’s wrong with our national situation, though they contributed significantly.
Now, in Delaware, it’s a different story…
To Pandora: The reason the Dems have assumed power is because they captured the middle. However, they were defined in this election not by any ideology or issue position, but because they weren’t George Bush.
In order for the Democrats to maintain power, they will have to adopt policies. Those policies will define them, and allow the GOP to provide contrast.
That contrast will come from successful governorships. It’s the same scenario that brought California’s governor into office in 1980 and Texas’ governor in 2000.
Fortunately, I expect the resurgence will come from sound policy ideas and not cultural wedge ideology.
Agreed Dave, but you sidestepped my main point. How do you achieve consensus between you, Smitty, David, and Frank? Seems to me that DelawarePolitics is a microcosm for what ails the National Republican Party.
Recently, you wrote a post comparing the Republican Party to a three-legged stool. Seems to me one of those legs has grown to the point where the stool is both out of balance and unusable.
FSP,
In order for the Democrats to maintain power, they will have to adopt policies. Those policies will define them, and allow the GOP to provide contrast.
Save your advice for your repub brethren. Dem’s don’t need any advice from wingnut repub failures.
Contrast the 90’s with the 00’s: Dems=Success, Repubs=Failure
Ouch Anonone!
The way I see it is that it’s in everyone’s interest for Republicans to get their act together and get rid of the Far Right. Sarah Palin came a little too close to the White House for my peace of mind. One destructive world event could cause the pendulum to swing to the Right again and I’m frightened by who’s waiting in the wings.
The republican party has always pandered to mental midgets, one issue voters, and people who don’t question authority. They suck in the xenophonbes and the jingoistic. There are no intelligent people in the republican party, only animals with a killer instinct.
Pandora,
I’d like to see the Democrats become a middle left party challenged by a viable emergent far left party. Stuff like “[Dems] were defined in this election not by any ideology or issue position, but because they weren’t George Bush” is nonsense. Repubs can’t govern; Dems can.
The repubs are going to wear Bush/Cheney around their necks for decades. Let them splinter into oblivion. Hopefully, it is the last repub administration that the world will ever see.
“Save your advice for your repub brethren. Dem’s don’t need any advice from wingnut repub failures.”
It’s not advice, asshat. Unless you think the Democrats will not adopt any policies.
By the way, the successes in the 90s were as much due to the Republican congress as they were to the president.
By the way, the successes in the 90s were as much due to the Republican congress as they were to the president.
You wish. The successes in the 90s were in spite of the Repub congress. Not a single repub voted for Clinton’s economic policies. Not a single one.
Of course the Dems will have to adopt policies. Repubs won’t win simply by contrasting themselves against Dems – repubs can’t govern and have no vision.
Ahh, the return of anonone’s pleasant, sweeping generalizations!
A post without profanity – good job, Mike!
Of course, we all know that you never make sweeping generalizations. At least not pleasant ones. 🙂
“You wish. The successes in the 90s were in spite of the Repub congress. Not a single repub voted for Clinton’s economic policies. Not a single one.”
Family & Medical Leave Act: 16 R Senate yeas; 40 R House yeas
NAFTA: 34 R Senate Yeas; 132 R House Yeas
Balanced Budget Act of 1997: 42 R Senate Yeas; 153 R House Yeas
Welfare Reform: 52 R Senate Yeas; 230 R House Yeas
And while we’re at it, we could have had a legitimate balanced budget amendment in 1995, if it didn’t fall two votes short in the Senate (with 34 Dems voting no). Imagine where we’d be now with that in place.
How nice. Anonone again ignores the points being made in his effort to point the spotlight on either my profanity or my lack therein.
Hey Dave! Weren’t we having a discussion here?
I thought so, until the invasion of the ignorant started.
Let’s try again with comment #10…
Agreed Dave, but you sidestepped my main point. How do you achieve consensus between you, Smitty, David, and Frank? Seems to me that DelawarePolitics is a microcosm for what ails the National Republican Party.
Recently, you wrote a post comparing the Republican Party to a three-legged stool. Seems to me one of those legs has grown to the point where the stool is both out of balance and unusable.
I don’t think we need consensus today. Consensus for consensus’ sake is not a good idea. It’s time to figure out what we’re gonna be.
I agree on the stool. The social conservatives have been fed too much during the Rove/Bush years and now expect to lead, except that cultural conservatism as a politics is a divisive turnoff to a large swath of voters in the middle, even those who are largely pro-life, pro-gun, etc.
That said, the GOP did a better job of sticking to the cultural conservative positions than they did of upholding their end of the deal on matters of fiscal conservatism. So it’s probably natural for the SoCons to think they’re all we have left.
So… what are you going to do about them? Aren’t they the Republican base? Can you afford to lose them? If not, how do reach a compromise with people who cite God in every argument?
Abortion and gays are the big issues this group has fed on. How do you stop feeding them while keeping them as a voting block? Is it possible to put the genie back in the bottle?
Not sure. Actually, there is a movement afoot in religious circles to withdraw from politics as a means to change. The suggestion is that winning hearts and minds on abortion is more effective than trying to overturn Roe v. Wade (which, let’s be honest, is as distant a possibility now as ever with Obama looking at 1-3 new justices.)
So, who knows?
Without sounding too much like a concern troll, the problems inside the Democratic Party will be more acute in the near future than the GOP. In order to regain power, the Dems took on anybody — pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, whatever. And the purging has already begun as the netroots target moderate Dems.
I see the reverse of the early 2000s happening inside the Democratic Party very soon as litmus tests begin to be applied to elected officeholders. I don’t think they learned our lesson. Hopefully, we did.
Will do. HA HA HA! We’re gonna get all LIBERAL on your ass now! HA HA HA! We rule the country now, nyah nyah nyah!
Ahem. No, that actually wasn’t very enjoyable. We need some gay marriage in this state, or at least civil unions. Then I’ll kick back and celebrate Democratic control. And please note, certain Democrats I could name are definitely part of the problem on that front.
Until gays can enjoy the same marriage benefits I enjoy, I won’t be able to enjoy them as much as I could. I feel like my marriage is less sacred knowing that gay Unitarian Universalists are denied the freedom their religion grants them to marry. OK, off the soapbox for me.
Well,
I think Republicans can try to become the party of small government but I think the problem with that is that Americans don’t really like small government. Americans like social security and medicare and they’ll like universal medicare if we get that. If Republicans really want to become the party of small government are they willing to give up empire? Will Republicans start talking about walking back our military adventures?
I agree with FSP that there will be tension with the Democratic party between the Blue Dogs and the more progressive types. There always is in a coalition. What keeps a coalition together is a common goal. Right now there a lot of things that Democrats agree on, so it will hold for now.
I would also add the #4
You can’t call yourself pro-life if you don’t care about the lives of the already born including the already born in places like Iraq.
“What keeps a coalition together is a common goal.”
Unfortunately, this batch of Dems, like the GOP that preceded them, share one common goal — attaining (and retaining) power.
Agreed again – Dems will have to tread carefully. They will have to bring the country along with them. Geez, just look at all this common ground! 😉
First step is to stop all our obligatory hand wringing. Next, make sure Reid and Pelosi understand Obama set the tone.
UI, you’re right. Policy is on the Dems side.
Repuks should mean what they say which they don’t. Like keeping government out of our lives
Mike:
I agree with you. I do make sweeping generalizations about repubs. And they generally sweepingly accurate.
FSP: What part of “Clinton’s economic policies” don’t you understand? I wasn’t talking about all the things you listed. I was talking about ’92 when all the repubs said he was going to cause a recession or depression. What followed, of course, were some of the best economic times in our history.
Compare and contrast:
Dems: good economic times
Repubs: Bad economic times
By the way, a balanced budget amendment for the federal government is a terrible idea. Borrowing money to increase GDP over and above the cost of capital is a good idea. Borrowing money and spending it in ways that does not increase GDP over and above the cost of capital is not.
“I wasn’t talking about all the things you listed.”
No, you were just flat wrong. That’s all.
By the way, genius, NAFTA was enacted in Clinton’s first year in office. Are you saying that NAFTA was not an economic policy?
Serious question, Pandora: At what point, with an incoming Democratic president, and Democratic control of both Houses of Congress, do the Democrats as a whole become responsible for anything?
By the way, you’ll like this. 🙂
Before you say I am wrong, why don’t you do just a little research:
“In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget [in 1993] that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans. It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.
Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill.”
Now, what part of “every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal” don’t you understand?
NAFTA was a trade policy. Budgets are the main drivers of economic policy.
#3? The 9/11 fear mongering came from Joe Biden, not the Republicans this time.
You’re talking about OBRA. One bill. But that’s not what you said. You said “not a single repub voted for Clinton’s economic policies.”
And you want me to believe that trade, the balanced budget act and welfare reform weren’t economic policies?
Yes, the one single bill that led to the great economic boom that ALL the repubs voted against and said would lead to disaster.
The other bills you mentioned paled in importance relative to impact to the GDP.
“Yes, the one single bill that led to the great economic boom that ALL the repubs voted against and said would lead to disaster.”
Your great economic boom was also known as the tech bubble. By 2000-01, we were in a recession.
Also, total public debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in every year from 1992-2000 than it was in any year from 2000-2007.
9. Republicans have to stop pretending the reason women, gays, and minorities don’t vote for them is merely a communication problem and accept the fact that their message is coming through loud and clear.
I love that one. But…
And finally… Republicans have to stop pretending that the reason they lost was because they weren’t conservative enough.
NO! I want them to keep pretending for the next 30 years.
We had a balanced budget at the end of Clinton’s term. The recession started after Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS.
The great economic boom was not just the tech bubble. Much of the job growth that happened under Clinton was not tech related. And even after the market tech bubble popped, the indexes were much higher then they are today.
And your point about public debt as % of GDP is…?
“We had a balanced budget at the end of Clinton’s term. The recession started after Bush was appointed by the SCOTUS.”
That is so intellectually dishonest it disqualifies you from this entire conversation. Go talk to someone who buys your crap.
And Pandora, perhaps we can continue this conversation on the air sometime.
Hmmm… I am in Fenwick the week of Thanksgiving.
And Dana, Dems will be responsible beginning day one. Not for the past messes, but for how they deal with these messes. I don’t expect instant miracles. I do expect sound policy and movement towards results.
Let’s do it. Email me at dave@delawaretalkradio.com.
That is so intellectually dishonest it disqualifies you from this entire conversation.
The Bush recession was entirely on Bush’s watch as it started in March 2001 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). So it was not a recession that started in “2000-2001” as you stated. It was a 2001 – 2003 recession.
Calling somebody “intellectually dishonest” while you try to make up your own facts is such a convenient dodge. Typical repub. Just like they’re trying to pin the current economic mess on Obama.
Is Dave ready to bask in Pandora’s hotness, though?! I still believe I’m not worthy.
Mike first it was none other than Senator Phil Gram who predicted that Clinton’s tax bill of the early nineties would lead to a depression. So much for the economic adviser for John McCain. and besides leading us Thur the 90’s with growth Clinton also balanced the budget and left bush a surplus. If one bothers to check history with the exception of Jimmy Carter the country has always done better with the Dem’s in charge of the white house than the Repub’s
TT,
Good point on Phil “Americans are whiners” Gram. The “party of responsibility” hates taking any. Like most repubs, FSP can’t stand a reality that doesn’t let him make up his own set of facts.
Hey. Obama did pretty well tonight on 60 Minutes. He’s very smart and very human. Let’s all hope for the best, eh?
I think you are all wrong… the reason Democrats won a landslide victory over Republicans…. is because they did not smoke crack… Republicans did…
Prove it otherwise.
Hey Pandora,
Did you really agree with FSP when he wrote (post 31):
Unfortunately, this batch of Dems, like the GOP that preceded them, share one common goal — attaining (and retaining) power.
Your response in post 32 implied that you did.
11. No filibusters on Obama’s judicial nominees – “up or down” votes on every single one.
Are you really that hung up about it, anonone (re: comment 55)? You are quite pathological. You really do have some diagnosable hatred of Republicans. Get thee to a psychiatrist…and quick!
Thanks for your concern, Mike. I appreciate it. Had you been around in the late 1700’s, I am sure that you would have told Washington, Franklin, Jefferson et. al. to get over their hatred of the British Monarchy, too.
For crissakes, I’m a liberal, left-wing, damn-near Commie Democrat and I think the crap that comes out of your mouth is ridiculous. It’s just that you cede all logic and rationale when discussing Republicans. You’re as awful as those on the right who are strictly anti-Dem one-trick ponies. Take a pill. Or two. Or a dozen. You need a prescription to calm the psychosis.
Mike,
A “liberal, left-wing, damn-near Commie Democrat” wouldn’t feature the vapid writings of a clueless repub like Duminique or a lost navel-gazer like Leo on their blog. And you think I need help?
Each to his own.
Diversity, my dear anonymous thug, is more than simply skin color, gender, or sexuality. Real liberals understand that diversity of thought, no matter how appalling to you, is what it’s all about.
Reality, my naive friend, is about dealing with facts and searching for truth through reason. I listen to many voices across the political spectrum, including many that I disagree with. It isn’t hard to develop a disgust for all things repub when you actually listen to and read the ideas of their leaders and promoters.
If you think that diversity means promoting those who would support racism, sexism, homophobia, torture, environmental destruction, endless and needless wars, politicized justice, imprisonment without trial, and theocracy (etc., etc.), then go for it. You may find that appealing; I find it appalling.
And I think you’re wrong.
Get a room you two!
“You’re as awful as those on the right who are strictly anti-Dem one-trick ponies.”
Truth. He is to liberals, as idiots like Dan Gaffney and Bill Rogers@WGMD are to conservatives, an utter embarrassment. ( I still think Jared Morris is a closet liberal)
What I agree with, A1, is that Democrats have to be careful not to get too cocky that they stop listening to the people. The fact the Republican Party is in shambles means we will have to police ourselves. And we had better do just that.
What was that saying again about absolute power…
And while I trust Obama’s vision, Pelosi and Reid give me pause.
Pandora,
I agree with you, although Obama gives me some pause, too (e.g. FISA, faith-based spending, etc.). I’d rather see the Dems held to the fire by the progressive base than the repub right.
The statement by FSA that the one common goal of dems is “attaining (and retaining) power” is one of those memes that the repubs are trying so desperately to spread because they have no ideas and the only way that they think that they can get ahead is to lie and denigrate Democrats.
FSA was doing some pretty classic concern tolling yesterday.
Pelosi and Reid give me pause
Why? Reid has a so-so record in leading the Senate to date and is a relatively centrist Dem from Nevada — a state that until recently has not been all that blue. Pelosi’s personal politics are certainly more left, she certainly is not Dennis Kucinich. She’s been more effective as a leader — mostly in keeping the caucus together to capitalize on R mistakes.
This is something that I’ve heard some TV punditry on and frankly this makes little sense. While seats picked up in both houses have made Blue states bluer, the Red State pickups basically mean that the overall caucus lean is going to be abit more conservative, not less. And both Reid and Pelosi have demonstrated an understanding of how their members from Red states need to be viable for re-election.
This is the classic Dem problem (which Rs basically don’t have to live with — a real Big Tent means that it is alot harder to maintain, much less keep happy a coalition. Conservatives are accustomed to putting away their concerns to follow the leader. That kind of discipline — for better or worse — is going to always be more rare on the D side.