What is the republican party's next move?

[Schöneboom]

Getting back on topic... I'm an independent and lately have taken Mercutio's position to heart: "A pox on both their houses!" :p

We now live in a corrupt, end-stage republic, devolving rapidly into tyranny. This seems to be the fate of all republics. Assuming that conditions do not deteriorate to the point that revolution becomes the only option, electoral victory will depend on cobbling together a different coalition from what worked for Republicans in the 20th C.

Getting back to first principles would be helpful. The GOP made a big mistake pandering to evangelicals, who really don't mix well with fiscal conservatives, who tend to be libertarian and firmly believe in separation of church & state. It is high time to kick the Christian Taliban out of the GOP's big tent, to make room for people who might otherwise find a small-government, anti-socialist platform appealing.

Believe it or not, a lot of Americans vote Democratic because they view the GOP as the greater threat to peace and liberty. A lot of other people (myself included) don't fall for that "lesser of two evils" scam. I fully expect the Chosen One to stab his gullible anti-war, pro-freedom supporters in the back, like a typical Democrat.

Now, if the GOP kicks out the neo-cons & the Jesus freaks, and remakes itself as the stauch supporter of the Constitution, the party could draw new supporters from every part of society, including the "solid blue" East & West coasts. Such major shifts are possible: older Americans remember the "Solid South" was a Democratic stronghold for nearly a century after the Civil War.

There is one hot-button issue that could split any new coalition, and that is Immigration. Right now, it looks like the Democrats have the Latino vote locked up. If that bloc continues to grow, as I expect, the GOP will have to lure Latinos away from the Democrats (not with anti-abortion as the wedge, I hope). Make no mistake, the Demos hope to regain the South over the next several years. If they succeed, for ex., Texas turns blue, buh-bye GOP!

[subchaser12]

Good post Schoneboom. I thought the Jesus freaks made up 95% of the GOP though? I mean who else is voting for republicans besides those with big business interests?

[CaptainHaplo]

There is no doubt that the republican party has lost its way. That is not due to the "religious right", the "second ammendment" crowd, the "constitutionalists" or "fiscal conservatives". To say that we should "toss" a group out means that we become MORE like the democrats - telling people what they must believe or accept to be part of the "club". While the left says they are all about inclusion - its inclusion only if you agree with them.

Renoldus Magnus talked about how the strength of the republican party was its diversity. By that he meant that we hold a mutual respect for the views we differ on - and find a common ground on which to push forward those ideals that we all share. This allows for open debate, true discourse, and a combined group that has a clear understanding on what fights they will fight, and why. That is NOT the republican party of today.

The reason you see the "in power" republicans within the party trying to tear down the "reformers" is because they - like so many before them - prefer power over progress. Take my state for example. Our state constitution says senatorial districts are not to divide counties. Yet the legislature (with much republican assistance) defined the districts in a way that insured a certain amount of "red" and "blue" sure thing districts - and to do that they had to divide counties. But when the matter was pursued by citizens who just want the right thing done - both parties co-operated to keep the power status quo.

Its really not a matter of taking back the republican party - or the democrat party either for many older democrats that wonder what has happened to their voices as well. Instead - its about taking back OUR country - red and blue, green and whatever colors the other parties use.

To do that requires one thing - and that is something that neither "D" nor "R" parties are willing to allow - a removal of the party system. If a person didn't have a R or D beside their name - then they would have to deal solely on issues. Get truly open ballot access and real monetary reform - and you would see a country that spoke with ONE voice on what it feels are important.

Specifically on ballot access - prove your eligible for office - and your name is on the ballot if you put yourself forward. You want to fix it so that the rich and powerful don't buy their way into office? Simple - political contributions can come from only one source - people eligible to vote in the locale/district/state that your running in. Limit the contributions of each individual to $100 or $1000 TOTAL.
So if your running for govenor of Tennessee - you cant take money from anywere but the PEOPLE of Tennessee - No "Political Action Committees" because they cannot vote. No Unions, No Corporations, No Special Interest groups. NO POLITICAL PARTY MONEY EITHER! No Federal matching funds if your running for a federal office. Only the person who goes and pulls the lever - or colors the circle or pushes the button can donate. Every donation has to include name, amount and address - so that it can be auditted for fraud. So you could give 100 bucks to a guy you like 10 times - or one 1000 dollar donation - but after that you can't give money. You could volunteer time.

Level the playing field - so that candidates are ANSWERABLE to those they vote for, not special interest groups or a specific political party.

Now - how many think that the 2 parties in question would ever really be willing to give up their power to allow the people to speak?

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Specifically on ballot access - prove your eligible for office - and your name is on the ballot if you put yourself forward. You want to fix it so that the rich and powerful don't buy their way into office? Simple - political contributions can come from only one source - people eligible to vote in the locale/district/state that your running in. Limit the contributions of each individual to $100 or $1000 TOTAL.
So if your running for govenor of Tennessee - you cant take money from anywere but the PEOPLE of Tennessee - No "Political Action Committees" because they cannot vote. No Unions, No Corporations, No Special Interest groups. NO POLITICAL PARTY MONEY EITHER! No Federal matching funds if your running for a federal office. Only the person who goes and pulls the lever - or colors the circle or pushes the button can donate. Every donation has to include name, amount and address - so that it can be auditted for fraud. So you could give 100 bucks to a guy you like 10 times - or one 1000 dollar donation - but after that you can't give money. You could volunteer time.

Level the playing field - so that candidates are ANSWERABLE to those they vote for, not special interest groups or a specific political party.

That's the best plan I've seen for a real government of the people.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Now - how many think that the 2 parties in question would ever really be willing to give up their power to allow the people to speak?

Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that one

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

Good post Schoneboom. I thought the Jesus freaks made up 95% of the GOP though? I mean who else is voting for republicans besides those with big business interests?

Good lord.. talk about steriotyping.

[subchaser12]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Renoldus Magnus talked about how the strength of the republican party was its diversity.

This made me chuckle. There is nothing diverse about the republican party at all. Look at the McCain crowd on election night, it was nothing but 40 something and over white people. Look at Obama's, young, old, white, black, latin, asian, arab and you name it.

You can try and deny it, but it is no secret the republicans are nothing but christian white people. The liberals use your, how shall I put this "dated" views on other races and cultures to their advantage. Liberals courted the African American community and the hispanics. Republicans need to get on board and realize that everyone isn't heterosexual or white.

[CaptainHaplo]

Subchaser - you show your ignorance with that statement. The fact is the republican party has always been willing and open to diversity. McCain is not representative of the entire party - had you followed the election you would have heard how much the BASE didn't care for him. You bring up race - lets deal with that. Fact is that percentage wise - more REPUBLICANS voted for Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Here is the breakdown:

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

• The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
• The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
• The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By party

The original House version:

• Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

• Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

But while the FACTS show that it was the DEMOCRAT party that wanted to DENY equal rights to anyone who wasn't Caucasian, "non white" people are constantly told that its the "EVIL REPUBLICANS" who want to keep them on the plantation or working as illegal slave labor.

The only thing "Dated" about true republican views (and this thus excludes the party in its current incarnation) is that we expect 3 things. Personal Responsibility from each person, Respect for your fellows, and belief in following our Constitution.

Obama pulled together disparate people - I don't deny that. But to claim that a view of the campaigns on election night is a picture that must define the entire country is ludicrous.

So while you talk "dated" - I talk FACT - we have never been about cutting people out of the picture - that would have been the liberals who even now try their best to figure out how to make more minorities DEPEND on them so they can be assured of their support.

[subchaser12]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The fact is the republican party has always been willing and open to diversity.

:rotfl:

Republicans willing and open to diversity? Yeah as long as you are not poor, black, gay, an unmarried mother, an immigrant, divorced or not in the chrisitan family of faiths. If you are non of the above you will be welcomed with open arms in republicanville.

Damn, still makes me laugh hard everytime I read the words "republican, open and diversity" used together. I'm not going to waste time debating a known fact that blacks aren't republicans. Gays aren't welcome either. The right wing has also been crying about Mexican immigrants over the past few years. Many immigrant families have been put thru hell over the past few years with the immigration crack down brought on by right wing crying voters. Yet you then talk about all you care about is "family", yeah right, you only care about your white middle class family.

Ok then, I'll play your game, it's funny. I want to see if I can get you to talk up right-wing diversity some more. haha. You blame McCain for not having black people in his crowd. Ok, what about Bush 1 and 2? Their supporters look to be very white to me.

:rotfl:

[1480]

Subchaser12, sterotyping a party is also bigotry:

http://online.logcabin.org/about/mission.html
Gay & Lesbian GOP organization.


http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....nbra&x=9451690
Black GOP organization.

http://www.rnha.org/about_us.htm
Hispanic GOP organization.

http://www.rjchq.org/
Jewish GOP organization.

http://muslimrepublicans.net/
Muslim GOP website.

A pretty diverse portfolio.

[Digital_Trucker]

1480, don't confuse subchaser with things like that. He might blow a gasket

[subchaser12]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

1480, don't confuse subchaser with things like that. He might blow a gasket

Speaking of confusion, who here is dreading the crowd on inaguration day? I sure am, but at least I got a good hotel.

As for 1480s websites. I can find a website dedicated to albino Russian toaster worshippers. That isn't saying much. I never said you can't find a flaming homosexual black republican, but they are so miniscul in number they are only weak tokens. We all know where the right stands in race relations. The election sure cleared it up.

My favorite preacher in the world happens to be a black republican. Enjoy!

[August]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

flaming homosexual black republican, but they are so miniscul in number they are only weak tokens

Really? How many flaming homosexual black democrats can you name? And what would you consider minuscule?

[subchaser12]

Originally Posted by August

How many flaming homosexual black democrats can you name?

Obviously you never get coffee from Starbucks.

[August]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

Obviously you never get coffee from Starbucks.

So I guess the answer is no then.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Fact is that percentage wise - more REPUBLICANS voted for Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats.

That's half the story. You left out afterwords the GOP implementation of their "Southern Strategy", which had much more of an effect shaping the present GOP than did supporting Civil Rights legislation in greater numbers than Dems.

Disclaimer: I am not a member of any political party.

PD