Is the GOP dying?

It seemed like the democrat party was a goner back in 2000. The tide goes in, and the tide goes out.

With Pelosi and Ried pairing up with Obama, I figure the democrats are in for a little ebb tide.

Obama hasn't been elected yet, either. Polls are often shown to be way off come election day.

Or we could just go down to one party. Seems like some folks are pushing really hard for that.

I was just coming to post about this very topic, and you cite one of the examples I was going to use to pose this question.

The other was a statement by Powell during his endorsement speech- about how the party was narrowing down its view of what it meant to be a Republican.

And, again on This Week with Stephanopoulas someone (probably George Will) said that the Evangelical vote is the single largest block the republican party has, accounting for a huge percentage of its base-something along the line of 37% of Americans describe themselves as Evangelicals and almost that same number as Republicans.

And that has gotten me to thinking about the fate of the conservative movement and the Republican party.

Right now the engergizing force in the GOP is not McCain. He's this cycle's version of Kerry. There because there was no one else. But who is getting the big crowds? Who gets a new thread here on a daily basis?

And because she's such a energizing figure for the base, that evangelical base, many of the GOP power-mongers will circle their wagons around her.

McCain is the last gasp of the Goldwater style conservatives. If he fails to win, and I think this is the case, guys like Arlan Specter are in for a hard road. and then the GOP will be right were the Democrats were when the Reagan revolution swept through washington.

They will have to reasses the party and its message. My fear is they will tighten that view around Palin. And, I think this will happen because Palin is so dynamic. They will see her as their best chance to regain a foot hold in Washington. As a result, a successful candidate must be Evangelical. Must support anti-abortion legislation. Must walk lock step with the base.

And they will lose the center leaning conservatives. They will be shut out because they do not support over-turning Roe v. Wade. Long term conservatives like Specter.

And it will alienate the middle independants, conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans.

IF, in 2012, they hold her up as the model Repubilican they will get their asses handed to them again. And signaled the end of the Party of Lincoln.

Now, if the Libertarians had a central group that put together a party message they should start to come more to the center. Listen to the Ron Paul Revolution, strip out the more xenophopic portions of their charter and play to the non-religious conservatives like Joe the Plumber.

Something what I have learn, in my point of view, about US people is that they are quite traditionalist and I don't mean conservatives with this. Since, unlike Europe and Japan, WWII wasn't a break from the old customs but some sort of reinforcement you have keep things from fraternities to electoral systems virtually unchanged, not because they needed or not to be kept but for tradition. I have heard that the great inferiority complex US used to suffer is that they didn't had those century-old legacy like Europe, but I don't know if that is true.

I doubt the Republican Party will cease to exist anytime soon considering the groups that manages the party; but I don't doubt they will return (4 years? perhaps 8 years, maybe even 12) with a new image, since they will realize they need to survive; if not, US may form a single-party democratic oligarchy like the PRI in Mexico or perhaps could be a schism between Liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans, that it would harm the party and leading again to a Democrat oligarchy; but if a Democrat oligarchy form I wouldn't doubt a schim would form, perhaps like the Argentine Justicialists between liberal and conservative Democrats... a party made of Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans? interesting to see... but I doubt it, for traditon again,

What I wonder is, US has been bipartidist so long; will you people remember how to be under a multi-party system?

I'm with Bart here, we need a vicious, bloody competition for a new spot. Or, better yet, we need three gorram parties. More if necessary.

Well, Max, Americans have changed despite what some people try to delude themselves into believing. If my parents could deal with the sixties and if their parents could deal with the thirties, then we can damn well deal with the...

What do we call this decade, anyway?

That is to say...I think that we're moving away from a bipartisan thingamajiggy right now. At least, I feel that less and less people are able to define themselves as strictly "Democrats" and "Republicans" anymore. They are not fitting into the increasingly narrow party lines. Now, either the parties have to get wider...or we're going to need more of them.

But, then again, I haven't talked to all 360 odd million people in the country, so I might be incredibly wrong.

with the way things are turning in the economy, the socialist party may gain in (gulp, gulp) stature and give the democratic and republican ones a real run for the money.

I don't know. How can anyone say that a party that gets close to 50% of the votes while running against an image of incredibly unpopular president from its ranks and facing a huge financial crisis largely (and unfairly) blamed on it is dying? Sure GOP is in a rough spot at the moment. We'll see in a couple of years.

We are about to live in even more interesting times. There may indeed be attempts to create seriously significant 3rd and 4th parties. For conservative/moderates if the religious right seizes control and on the left if Obama is not socialist and pacifist enough.

Bartholomew said:

With any luck, this will send a powerful message to Republicans -- one I think they need to hear again and again and again. That Gay Marriage and Abortion are not the platforms to run on.

Click to expand...

That's a tremedously erroneus assumption and one that if made by the Democrats will ensure a one term presidency. Everyone I know who used to vote Republican but stopped, including me, have stopped voting for them for other reasons. A vote AGAINST one party is not the same as a vote FOR another party. There are far more issues at stake.

donroc said:

We are about to live in even more interesting times. There may indeed be attempts to create seriously significant 3rd and 4th parties. For conservative/moderates if the religious right seizes control and on the left if Obama is not socialist and pacifist enough.

Click to expand...

Many on the left are already complaining that he's neither. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but all I can say is: shy of being a reanimated zombie Marx, how socialist do you want?

My observation is that the GOP is not the GOP. McCain is an example of the party as a whole. They sold their souls to the NeoCons for power. But the ideology of the NCs and the GOP only overlapped, they weren't the same. Conservatives (the now traditional idea of the GOP) are all about maintaining a level of status quo. The NCs have some specific agendas and changes they believe in.

But having handed the control over to the NCs, the GOP couldn't gain back a say in direction. I think some were blinded by the power the NCs delivered and just didn't care. Others thought they could assert control and found just who they'd gotten into bed with.

I should not be at all surprised to find that McCain knew how much the NCs had screwed him in the 2000 run and thought it would be sweet revenge to get them in his campaign and turn them to his will. Unfortunately that wasn't the case and I suspect that rather than this campaign apparently jumping from one message/direction to another, what we were seeing was two internal factions wrestling for control.

Many of the Republicans I know are not voting Republican because they are tired of the policies. ANd most that I've talked to are actually voting Ron Paul instead of Obama.

There is no party that advocates being fiscally conservative AND socially liberal. Honestly, I think that's what a lot of people are looking for.

But when we live in a nation where (as of the last election) something like less than HALF of the *eligible* voters got to the polls... how can we say what people really want? There a quite a few people who think voting is pointless because there's no one that really represents their view, so they stay home. And there are some who are apathetic. Until we have MUCH higher numbers of voters, then I don't think we really know what "The People" really want.

The GOP is nowhere near dead--whether that's good or bad. It may seem that way to a more liberal pair of generations that are now voting, but trust me--it's alive and well. Conservatism can't die as long as there are stubborn people living.

Zoombie said:

What do we call this decade, anyway?

Click to expand...

The Twenty-oughts.

The GOP needs a wake up call, regroup, recharge, and rethinking about what they're really about. They're not the Republican party of the past, not even Reagan's party. So what's going on? Conservatism is fine and good -- but the move to the right and the "cut tax and spend" and "even bigger government than the Democrats would have had" are not what the Republicans are about, despite what they tell you.

Bartholomew said:

Could such a loss put the GOP on par with the various third parties?

Click to expand...

Um, No. Elections are cyclical. Nothing more can be read into that. But if you want to get technical. the GOP has held the office of President for 28 of the last 40 years.

The GOP is undergoing a much-needed deadwoodectomy. There will be lots of bleeding after the operation, which takes place first Tuesday in November. Scalpels are already being sharpened and cauterized.

The religiosocial conservatives will blame the election loss on the failure of the party to emphasize the really big problems in the country, namely abortion and gay marriage. The financiobusiness conservatives will blame the election loss on the failure of the party leadership to rein in spending and cut taxes even further. Anybody identified as a "neoconservative" better run to a basement closet and hide.

It should be fun to watch. But the patient won't die.

caw

The financiobusiness conservatives will blame the election loss on the failure of the party leadership to rein in spending and cut taxes even further.

Click to expand...

This is a major hit the GOP needs to address. Way past time now, but it's a problem. I figure if the religoGOP can't deliver McCain, they'll lose their clout. About time.

Joe270 said:

This is a major hit the GOP needs to address. Way past time now, but it's a problem. I figure if the religoGOP can't deliver McCain, they'll lose their clout. About time.

Click to expand...

They'll blame McCain because he's not one of theirs and scratch and claw to get a religion-on-my-sleeve candidate to run next time.

[/quote]

Bartholomew said:

A vote for something other than the Republican party is still a vote saying, "I don't care for that party."

Click to expand...

True, but in a two party system most people, when disenchanted with one party will vote for the second party rather than a third. The problem is that every politician and pundit seems to think that "X" was elected because everyone just loves them, when often it is that they were perceived as only slightly less objectionable. They frequently misinterpret their election as a mandate for some particular agenda when it is rarely so.

Bartholomew said:

... the fact still stands that you, by your own admission, see something flawed with it.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that's why I'm voting for a third candidate. I don't see the Democrats as anything better. You can be happy that it is one less vote against your candidate or agenda, but don't assume that it is for or against any one or two particular party platform planks.

Bartholomew said:

If Obama wins, and a few more democrats take elected positions in congress and in the senate--the democrats may end up with control of the government.

With any luck, this will send a powerful message to Republicans -- one I think they need to hear again and again and again. That Gay Marriage and Abortion are not the platforms to run on. That the common man cares about different issues than the GOP wants to deal with.

Could such a loss put the GOP on par with the various third parties? A pundit speaking on the Colbert Report a while back said that, in the event of a loss, the GOP will have to learn from their mistakes. He spoke of their comeback in "when, not if" language.

But if the GOP falls out of power, what is to stop another party from filling their place? With George Bush's approval rating and the decreasing number of Republican Elected officials, is it possible that another party will take their place? Perhaps not one of the pre-existing ones, but a new party that better reflects the desires of our conservative population?

Click to expand...

I'm a Republican, and neither gay marriage nor abortion are foci for my voting decisions. Gay marriage- I see not point why those who agree to look out for eachother for the rest of their lives should be denied benefits conventional couples have. Abortion? I'm against it, but I also know that a President has a snowball's chance in hell of affecting a Supreme Court ruling, and, therefore, why the hell talk about it?
I'm interested in States rights vs. Federal rights, not turning the country into a socialist regime, because, quite frankly, putting government in charge of any responsibility ensures that it will be costly and run inefficiently, protecting the rights of the populace, and drilling for oil while staying green. The caribou in Alaska can move 100 yards to the East, West, North or South. Drill for oil already!