It will be interesting whether the GOPs financiers convince its primary voters you are right. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 11/11/2012 05:11:11 PM
The partys relevancy, if not survival, may depend on that. It is funny that a century after progressives splintered GOP dominance over economic issues when both parties were socially conservative, social liberals are splintering GOP dominance when both parties are increasingly conservative on economic issues. Obama has already practically agreed with Boehner that tax hikes are dead in the water; the consensus seems to be Congress and the WH will agree to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy while retaining them for the middle class (like they should have done four years ago.)
Meh, it is not Elizabeth Warrens fault if her parents lied to her (which it is far from clear they did.) I am white as a sheet, but both of my parents were 1/8th Indian (my mothers great-grandfather was one of the so-called "Choctaw Preachers,") so I am, too. Keep beating that drum if you like though; I am sure glad Scott Brown did.
The WH is insular, period, with friend and foe alike (e.g. the Robamacare and fiscal cliff negotiations Obama farmed out to Biden and Congressional Dems.) He assumed office handing out trillion dollar bailouts and windfalls to corporate America hand over fist, so it is hard to see how he is an anti-business president anywhere except in GOP rhetoric. Again, compare the DJIA now to its January 2009 level, then tell me Obama is anti-business.
I disagree with your cited examples, but not their underlying premise (for which I can and elsewhere have cited other examples with which you similarly disagree.
) Had Obama paid his Congressional dues he would have gained the experience and relationships (with both partys delegations) to make the Robamacare and fiscal cliff negotiations a lot more productive. Instead he delegated negotiations to Biden, Reid and Pelosi, diminishing the leverage the presidency gave him (and perhaps creating an impression of dismissiveness) while ensuring Congressional Republicans were entrenched in the positions before he deigned to negotiate personally. The legislative "experience" supposedly his best asset was visibly lacking throughout his first term.
He should have bowed out to Hillary in 2008 and waited until he was ready to be president, but refuse to wait until 2016 and pass up the 2008 election Bush gift wrapped for him. Hubris ate nemesis, perhaps.
Messages have been mixed so far. McConnell is doubling down on obstruction, prompting speculation he fears a Tea Party primary challenge in 2014. On the other hand, while Boehner remains opposed to any tax hikes, both he and Obama seem willing to settle for the highest brackets reverting to their 2000 levels. I still think that insufficient, but in conjunction with serious entitlement reform and military cuts it would at least mitigate, if not eliminate, much of our budgetary and credit problems.
Romney was not silent, just vague, as on most policy specifics. It is the nature of the beast; Romney said he did not want to nail his foot to the floor with Congress, but the truth is he did not want to do so with VOTERS. Balancing the budget while handing out more tax cuts was a good example: Independent analysts all agreed even cutting every tax credit and exemption on the books would only increase revenue 4%, nowhere near enough to give everyone a 20% tax cut without a financial meltdown. Romney claimed the numbers worked, but based that claim on cherry-picking the most favorable parts of three distinct and often conflicting policy plans.
Anyway, with regard to illegal aliens, Romney stated a clear, if vague policy: Make life so unbearable for illegal aliens that they "self-deported." Romney made very clear he would make it so impossible for illegal aliens to find jobs, pay for housing, send their kids to school or receive any government benefits (whether or not they paid taxes) that they would simply give up and go home. It was easy for Obama to portray Romneys immigration policy as heartless and draconian, because it was. It was still the most moderate position Romney could take without losing the GOP base, and that is the partys real problem.
Romney once raced to a hospital to browbeat a mother of four out of an abortion necessary to save her life, despite a higher ranking Mormon (and church doctrine) previously approving it. Obama did not mischaracterize Romneys position: Romney mischaracterized his RECORD, and no less than FOUR GOP Senate nominees spotlighted that dishonesty. The Republican Party platform calls for a federal abortion ban with no exceptions, so it is no surprise 12% of GOP Senate candidates publicly stated scientifically and philosophically hopeless justifications for that (how many more tacitly agree...?) They are not exceptions, but the rule the GOP platform and legislation like Akin and Ryans Sanctity of Human Life Act reflect. You are in CT, IIRC: Any idea what McMahon meant by "emergency rape"?
No argument there, but Republicans face the same problem Democrats did a generation ago: Extremists cannot win general elections, but moderates cannot get nominated. The smart money says Republicans will respond with their own version of the Democratic Leadership Council that killed US liberalism for the sake of electoral victories thus rendered worthless. Ultimately, hard core red state conservatives have nowhere to go except the abhorrent Democratic Party, but you Wall Street folks paying for the GOP must convince them to stop kicking out RINOs in the state primaries.
I honestly do not know how I feel about that. The pre-Bush and post-Clinton major parties were already so indistinguishable anyone with strong policy views had few valid choices. Reducing Republicans to "Democrat Lite" while Democrats remain "Republican Lite" is a victory for indecisive mediocrity, and the major parties sharing most of the same positions would, ironically, only increase partisanship, since they would no longer be arguing about WHAT to do but WHOM should do it.
That was the problem, yes, but the core of it is that Romney was NOT a better alternative to Obamas failures. A below average president does not justify electing a horrible one. A victory for Romney and the GOP Senate candidates would have been a mandate for all the intractability and social conservatism you just disavowed at length: If you, as a Republican, cannot stomach them, how did you expect the whole nation to feel? You spent this whole post stating how the GOPs platform would have seriously harmed America, but closed by affirming the opposite and lamenting Americas refusal to support those same harmful policies. Offhand, I would say the GOP is somewhat conflicted at the moment.
With the glaring exception of the outcome of the Presidential race, I am by and large satisfied with the results of yesterday’s election. There are a few seats I would have liked to see go the other way, notably Scott Brown’s in Massachusetts, as I think Elizabeth “Cherokee” Warren was a terrible choice. I also would have liked to see Michelle Bachmann lose her seat in Minnesota, because she represents the wing of the Republican Party that is responsible for all of the Party’s failures last night.
Meh, it is not Elizabeth Warrens fault if her parents lied to her (which it is far from clear they did.) I am white as a sheet, but both of my parents were 1/8th Indian (my mothers great-grandfather was one of the so-called "Choctaw Preachers,") so I am, too. Keep beating that drum if you like though; I am sure glad Scott Brown did.
Certainly, Mitt Romney was not the ideal candidate and he ran a terrible race. He was vague on too many points and he changed his positions on too many subjects. He, like Obama, ran a largely negative campaign. He said some things that he never should have (the “47%” remark, the “I like firing people”, the “binders full of women” and others), and he came off as a bit stiff.
Even so, I think that he could have, and should have, won. Obama has been a miserable chief executive. As The Economist aptly put it:
No administration in many decades has had such a poor appreciation of commerce. Previous Democrats, notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama. If he has appointed some decent people to his cabinet—Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Arne Duncan at education and Tim Geithner at the Treasury—the White House itself has too often seemed insular and left-leaning. The obstructive Republicans in Congress have certainly been a convenient excuse for many of the president’s failures, but he must also shoulder some blame. Mr Obama spends regrettably little time buttering up people who disagree with him; of the 104 rounds of golf the president has played in office, only one was with a Republican congressman.
Even so, I think that he could have, and should have, won. Obama has been a miserable chief executive. As The Economist aptly put it:
No administration in many decades has had such a poor appreciation of commerce. Previous Democrats, notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama. If he has appointed some decent people to his cabinet—Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Arne Duncan at education and Tim Geithner at the Treasury—the White House itself has too often seemed insular and left-leaning. The obstructive Republicans in Congress have certainly been a convenient excuse for many of the president’s failures, but he must also shoulder some blame. Mr Obama spends regrettably little time buttering up people who disagree with him; of the 104 rounds of golf the president has played in office, only one was with a Republican congressman.
The WH is insular, period, with friend and foe alike (e.g. the Robamacare and fiscal cliff negotiations Obama farmed out to Biden and Congressional Dems.) He assumed office handing out trillion dollar bailouts and windfalls to corporate America hand over fist, so it is hard to see how he is an anti-business president anywhere except in GOP rhetoric. Again, compare the DJIA now to its January 2009 level, then tell me Obama is anti-business.
I believe, and I have repeated this point, that Obama was pushed forward too far, too fast. The Democratic Party was enthralled by a man who was, as Vice President Joe Biden put it, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”. He certainly didn’t have the experience to be President, though. He had been a one-term Illinois state senator, then a one-term United States Senator from Illinois, having conveniently skipped the other elected offices that one usually is expected to serve before aspiring to the US Senate. His record was scarce, with lots of absenteeism. His Administration, since he became President, has reflected this amateur status. I firmly attribute foreign policy successes to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the domestic sphere, Obama’s actions have undermined one another. How, for example, can you help encourage an increase in employment when you’ve just saddled employers with higher health care costs? How can you encourage manufacturers to return to the United States while pushing for rules that make it easier to unionize and keeping the corporate tax levels where they are?
I disagree with your cited examples, but not their underlying premise (for which I can and elsewhere have cited other examples with which you similarly disagree.
) Had Obama paid his Congressional dues he would have gained the experience and relationships (with both partys delegations) to make the Robamacare and fiscal cliff negotiations a lot more productive. Instead he delegated negotiations to Biden, Reid and Pelosi, diminishing the leverage the presidency gave him (and perhaps creating an impression of dismissiveness) while ensuring Congressional Republicans were entrenched in the positions before he deigned to negotiate personally. The legislative "experience" supposedly his best asset was visibly lacking throughout his first term.He should have bowed out to Hillary in 2008 and waited until he was ready to be president, but refuse to wait until 2016 and pass up the 2008 election Bush gift wrapped for him. Hubris ate nemesis, perhaps.
For good or for ill, however, Obama has won another four years. I sincerely hope that the Republican Party has learned some important lessons, because if they haven’t, they are doomed to repeated defeat and, ultimately, collapse as a political party. This would be a catastrophe for America because a new credible opposition (and/or split in the Democratic Party) would take time to form, and in that time there would be no voice to question the DNC’s platform and goals. Regardless of political leanings, the idea of a one-party system for any length of time should be disturbing to anyone who values the democratic process and representative government.
Messages have been mixed so far. McConnell is doubling down on obstruction, prompting speculation he fears a Tea Party primary challenge in 2014. On the other hand, while Boehner remains opposed to any tax hikes, both he and Obama seem willing to settle for the highest brackets reverting to their 2000 levels. I still think that insufficient, but in conjunction with serious entitlement reform and military cuts it would at least mitigate, if not eliminate, much of our budgetary and credit problems.
what, then, are the lessons for the Republican Party as I see them? I’ll tell you:
1. Being anti-immigrant is a losing strategy. Unless you’re the sort of person Elizabeth Warren lied about being, most of your ancestors were born somewhere other than the Americas. Some came on the Mayflower, others through Ellis Island, still others on slave ships. Almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants. Furthermore, we now have millions of illegal immigrants who have largely crossed our southern border, and it’s been going on for several generations so many of their children and grandchildren are citizens (read: voters). Our southern neighbors are Hispanic nations, and many of our citizens are Hispanic. Any strategy for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration (because it is a problem; undocumented workers put burdens on communities, law enforcement, health care providers, and strain the domestic labor market in some industries) must recognize that you have to deal with non-criminal illegals with a sense of humanity and decency. Hell, even Newt Gingrich recognized that. And yet, all Romney did to try to influence the Hispanic vote was rant about Cuba (which might have helped him with a very narrow demographic among Cuban exiles in Florida, but doesn’t seem to have been enough for him to have carried the state) and then point out that Barack Obama failed. Well, okay, but Mitt, what the Hell were you going to do differently? Romney never said anything. He was ominously silent. For all we know, he was going to solve the problem of illegal immigration by lighting immigrants on fire with flamethrowers. He made the first part of a winning argument (Obama lied to you and used you) but then he didn’t follow it up with anything of his own. This was more indicative of his largely negative strategy, but it’s a losing one. Many Hispanics should, by rights, be Republican voters. Many are religious, they by and large have a strong work ethic and they usually side with Republicans on economic issues. I fervently hoped that Romney would pick Rubio, and that Rubio would force the Republicans to address the immigration issues directly, openly and honestly, and come up with a decent solution that didn’t involve mass deportations or other harsh measures. He didn’t, perhaps because he didn’t know how to sell immigration reform to his own party or the country, but it was a mistake. Republicans need to recognize that if they treat illegals like human beings with the same hopes and dreams that brought their own ancestors to America, they need not cede the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. In fact, had Romney done that, I think we would have seen both Nevada and Florida turn red last night.
1. Being anti-immigrant is a losing strategy. Unless you’re the sort of person Elizabeth Warren lied about being, most of your ancestors were born somewhere other than the Americas. Some came on the Mayflower, others through Ellis Island, still others on slave ships. Almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants. Furthermore, we now have millions of illegal immigrants who have largely crossed our southern border, and it’s been going on for several generations so many of their children and grandchildren are citizens (read: voters). Our southern neighbors are Hispanic nations, and many of our citizens are Hispanic. Any strategy for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration (because it is a problem; undocumented workers put burdens on communities, law enforcement, health care providers, and strain the domestic labor market in some industries) must recognize that you have to deal with non-criminal illegals with a sense of humanity and decency. Hell, even Newt Gingrich recognized that. And yet, all Romney did to try to influence the Hispanic vote was rant about Cuba (which might have helped him with a very narrow demographic among Cuban exiles in Florida, but doesn’t seem to have been enough for him to have carried the state) and then point out that Barack Obama failed. Well, okay, but Mitt, what the Hell were you going to do differently? Romney never said anything. He was ominously silent. For all we know, he was going to solve the problem of illegal immigration by lighting immigrants on fire with flamethrowers. He made the first part of a winning argument (Obama lied to you and used you) but then he didn’t follow it up with anything of his own. This was more indicative of his largely negative strategy, but it’s a losing one. Many Hispanics should, by rights, be Republican voters. Many are religious, they by and large have a strong work ethic and they usually side with Republicans on economic issues. I fervently hoped that Romney would pick Rubio, and that Rubio would force the Republicans to address the immigration issues directly, openly and honestly, and come up with a decent solution that didn’t involve mass deportations or other harsh measures. He didn’t, perhaps because he didn’t know how to sell immigration reform to his own party or the country, but it was a mistake. Republicans need to recognize that if they treat illegals like human beings with the same hopes and dreams that brought their own ancestors to America, they need not cede the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. In fact, had Romney done that, I think we would have seen both Nevada and Florida turn red last night.
Romney was not silent, just vague, as on most policy specifics. It is the nature of the beast; Romney said he did not want to nail his foot to the floor with Congress, but the truth is he did not want to do so with VOTERS. Balancing the budget while handing out more tax cuts was a good example: Independent analysts all agreed even cutting every tax credit and exemption on the books would only increase revenue 4%, nowhere near enough to give everyone a 20% tax cut without a financial meltdown. Romney claimed the numbers worked, but based that claim on cherry-picking the most favorable parts of three distinct and often conflicting policy plans.
Anyway, with regard to illegal aliens, Romney stated a clear, if vague policy: Make life so unbearable for illegal aliens that they "self-deported." Romney made very clear he would make it so impossible for illegal aliens to find jobs, pay for housing, send their kids to school or receive any government benefits (whether or not they paid taxes) that they would simply give up and go home. It was easy for Obama to portray Romneys immigration policy as heartless and draconian, because it was. It was still the most moderate position Romney could take without losing the GOP base, and that is the partys real problem.
2. America is much less homogenous in general, and not socially conservative. The growing power of Hispanics is just one aspect of a larger change in the United States. The US is less white, less Christian and less conservative on social issues than it was ten years ago. Gay marriage is slowly being legalized in state after state (as it should be), and before long the Supreme Court is likely to require states that don’t officiate such marriages to nonetheless recognize them. Americans, by overwhelming majorities, do not believe that life begins at conception, or rather, do not believe that abortion should be illegal. Recreational marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington state, and it, like gay marriage, is likely to be legalized in more and more states. Although the Federal government and the courts are likely to resist this move, there is hardly anyone under the age of 40 who is terribly concerned about marijuana being legal as long as proper restrictions are put in place to limit access by minors. Social issues are perhaps where the Republicans lost the most votes in any state because Obama was able to maintain his lead with women. The statements made by dipshits (that’s a technical term) like Akin and Mourdock help to reinforce the view that the Republicans are a bunch of religious extremists who want to let women die in back alley illegal abortion clinics, who want to persecute gays and deny them civil rights, and who adhere to outmoded 1950s social norms (and on that last point, Romney himself reinforced the popular opinion with his clean-cut Mormonism). It is true that Obama grossly mischaracterized Romney’s own position with pernicious lies, intentionally casting Romney in a bad light. However, Obama’s lies worked not simply because much of the media does bear a liberal bias, but also because it reinforced a perception that the public already had. Just like most Americans’ understanding of what bankruptcy is comes from stories about relatives or friends or, worse yet, from seeing the black wedge with the word “BANKRUPT” come up on the Wheel of Fortune and reduce the contestant’s money to $0 (thus dooming Romney in Ohio, when in fact his position on the auto bailout was actually close to what happened, but wouldn’t have demanded government money up front at a minimum), Americans aren’t good at picking up nuanced positions against a backdrop of Akins, Mourdocks, Bachmanns, Palins, Santora, or Gingriches. In a healthy party, someone like Rick Santorum, who has not a shred of gravitas nor anything remotely Presidential about him, whose positions are just this side of Medieval, would have been laughed off the stage at the first debate (and actually, it should be mentioned that he was, but somehow he hung on and pulled the extreme right around himself as the other candidates left the race, realizing Romney would win). After seeing that shit swirl in the primaries, Americans were ready to believe that the Republican Party was just about intolerance. Certainly, some of its members are, but then again some Democrats are socialists, and yet Obama still wanted their vote (and no, I don’t think he’s a socialist, just a big-government Democrat). The Party can’t control who votes for it, but it sure can try to make sure that people understand that religious principles are not going to drive a secular state. Republicans don’t have to reject their faith, certainly. However, they need to recognize that imposing their beliefs on those who do not share them runs counter to what America is about.
Romney once raced to a hospital to browbeat a mother of four out of an abortion necessary to save her life, despite a higher ranking Mormon (and church doctrine) previously approving it. Obama did not mischaracterize Romneys position: Romney mischaracterized his RECORD, and no less than FOUR GOP Senate nominees spotlighted that dishonesty. The Republican Party platform calls for a federal abortion ban with no exceptions, so it is no surprise 12% of GOP Senate candidates publicly stated scientifically and philosophically hopeless justifications for that (how many more tacitly agree...?) They are not exceptions, but the rule the GOP platform and legislation like Akin and Ryans Sanctity of Human Life Act reflect. You are in CT, IIRC: Any idea what McMahon meant by "emergency rape"?
3. Inflexible positions may play to the base, but they breed defeat. Grover Norquist and his tax pledges have done more harm than good, as have any attempts at “loyalty oaths” that require Republicans to adhere to certain positions. The only political party that ever enforced that level of discipline was the Communist Party, and I doubt the Republicans want to be compared to the communists. To say that Republicans would not permit any tax raises on anyone even if there were $0.10 of tax increases for every $0.90 of spending cuts is not just bad politics, it’s stupid. Politics by nature is about compromise. Each grandiose statement, each Grover Norquist loyalty pledge, each unequivocal promise, erodes the ability of the Party to maneuver in these instances. Romney essentially admitted as much when he refused to go into specifics about which deductions he would eliminate in the Tax Code. Of course, that by itself was a tactical error because it essentially allowed people to worry about the most popular deductions being removed before they knew how a rate reduction would affect their tax liability.
No argument there, but Republicans face the same problem Democrats did a generation ago: Extremists cannot win general elections, but moderates cannot get nominated. The smart money says Republicans will respond with their own version of the Democratic Leadership Council that killed US liberalism for the sake of electoral victories thus rendered worthless. Ultimately, hard core red state conservatives have nowhere to go except the abhorrent Democratic Party, but you Wall Street folks paying for the GOP must convince them to stop kicking out RINOs in the state primaries.
I honestly do not know how I feel about that. The pre-Bush and post-Clinton major parties were already so indistinguishable anyone with strong policy views had few valid choices. Reducing Republicans to "Democrat Lite" while Democrats remain "Republican Lite" is a victory for indecisive mediocrity, and the major parties sharing most of the same positions would, ironically, only increase partisanship, since they would no longer be arguing about WHAT to do but WHOM should do it.
Essentially, I think the Republicans did a terrible job explaining why they were a better alternative to the President’s admittedly failed policies. I believe Mitt Romney would have made a better President than Barack Obama but sadly, the Republican Party and Romney himself were unable to convince a majority of Americans of this.
Well, that’s really about all I have to say.
Well, that’s really about all I have to say.
That was the problem, yes, but the core of it is that Romney was NOT a better alternative to Obamas failures. A below average president does not justify electing a horrible one. A victory for Romney and the GOP Senate candidates would have been a mandate for all the intractability and social conservatism you just disavowed at length: If you, as a Republican, cannot stomach them, how did you expect the whole nation to feel? You spent this whole post stating how the GOPs platform would have seriously harmed America, but closed by affirming the opposite and lamenting Americas refusal to support those same harmful policies. Offhand, I would say the GOP is somewhat conflicted at the moment.