GOP Has No Clue What to Do

By Booman Tribune

by BooMan

John Fund
gives another example of just how out of ideas the Republicans are. He
runs through the standard formula detailing the recent special election
losses, etc. And then he provides the prescription for success in the
fall.

 

With John McCain at best an even bet to win the White
House, Republicans may enter the fall homestretch with the prospect of
losing the White House and sinking much further into minority status.
It would be better if congressional Republicans finally decided to
adopt a coherent message and a bold reform program for this fall's
elections. But an alternative may be to emulate their 1996 success and
make a direct appeal to voters to keep power divided so that Democrats
once again don't have a blank check.

That's right, while it would be ideal for the party to adopt a bold
reform message, they can alternatively go to the American people and
ask them to vote against the Democrats to keep the government divided.
'Please don't let the country be united, vote for us.' That's what John
Fund wants to use against the Politics of Hope. And what about that
bold reform package?

 

Although congressional Republicans have many gripes
about John McCain, they would do well to embrace some aspects of his
record: his pledge to veto all earmark spending, his record of opposing
corporate welfare, and his willingness to make bold free-market
proposals to reform health care.

This is very weak tea. An end to earmark spending would be a bold move,
but almost no one is going to believe it until they see it. Who votes
on earmarks anyway? The voter that cares about earmarks, cares about
the budget. But John McCain promises to keep taxes where they are or
lower then while keeping our troops in Iraq through his whole first
term. How is that going to help the budget?

As for opposing corporate welfare, I don't think John McCain has a good
record on that issue. But it is laughable to think that the Party of
Corporate Welfare is suddenly going to change their ways. Favoring
Corporate America is in the GOP's DNA. And where would they get the
money to fill their PACs?

And on the whole concept of 'bold free-market proposals to reform
health care', the Republicans are not going to gain any traction on
that whatsoever. Health care costs are skyrocketing at the same time as
energy and food prices are going up. The price of higher education is
insane. People do not want to hear about more corporate health
insurance. They want coverage they can afford.

I keep reading these post-mortem articles about what the GOP needs to
do, and they all share the same feature that they have no idea what to
do. John McCain is running on more war, bigger deficits, and no help to
the middle class. His idea of bold is merely admitting that Global
Warming exists. He doesn't even want a rape and incest exception to his
ban on all abortions.

The problem with Republicans is that we've seen them in power and they
don't do what they say they will do. They're awful at keeping us safe,
their foreign policy is a disaster, they can't balance the check book,
they prey on pages, beat their mistresses, troll men's lavatories for
dates, and have secret second families. They haven't overturned Roe v.
Wade, they haven't stopped gay marriage, they have done nothing to stop
illegal immigration, they haven't restored honor and dignity to the
White House, and they have divided, not united, the country. They have
failed at everything except letting the rich keep more of their money,
slashing environmental regulation, and letting their buddies loot the
treasury.

I don't think more of McSame is going to be a winning argument in the fall.

Comments

(45)

Whatever...

So, where is the thread on the Court Decision on California..?

www.slate.com/id/2191500/

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Don't know, don't care

I think it is great that anyone who wants to get married can now do it in CA. Why should we straight people be the only ones to suffer? LOL

By UffdaguyMay 16, 2008 - 2:46pm

That's pretty much right on IMHO. I'll go one step better though. Since marriage is not just a religious action in our society but a contractural agreement, there are certain legal protections that are afforded to those who wish to enter it. Because it is sanctioned by the state I don't see HOW under the law the state can discriminate.

That said, I don't feel that the state has the right to make a member of the clergy perform a ceremony if he/she doesn't want to. Same can be said about an elective abortion. A woman may have the right to ACCESS to elective AB but that doesn't mean society has to pay for it and NO doctor should EVER be forced to perform the procedure....

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

I don't believe any preacher or clergy is FORCED to perform

any ceremony that they don't want to. Therefore, I don't see that happening in this case now. There are plenty of JPs and clergy that are willing to perform these ceremonies. In fact, JPs may have to perform them no matter what, as they are basically government employees. They have to follow the law first and foremost.

Can't you just hear the divorce lawyers salivating at the prospect of a whole new pool of potential clients being opened up for them? I may consider a career change!

By UffdaguyMay 16, 2008 - 3:03pm

Not to stereotype but this is too good to pass up..

I can just imagine the discussion in the divorce preceding. Here you have two guys with all the testosterone that comes with being a guy but with that subtle touch of estragon that many gay men have.... Talk about a "cat" fight..... ULGY divorce...

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Having known a few gay couples, I would say that a

divorce between two gay men would be nastier than your average heterosexual divorce, which can be nasty enough as it is. I would suggest if a divorce lawyer wants to get into the gay divorce area, they should learn self-defense and learn how to use a gun!

You've finally said something coherent,

and then you blow it.

No clergymen have to perform marriages; a marriage is a civil contract, and clergymen are authorized to perform them by the government. A marriage by a judge is just as legal.

No one ever forces a doctor to perform an operation he doesn't want to, but state-sponsored health care is not allowed to discriminate against which contraceptive procedures it allows and which it doesn't, and hospitals are allowed to limit their range of services. For example, Catholic doctors (and hospitals) not only do not perform abortions, but do not perform tubal ligations for either sex.

By alienuslxMay 16, 2008 - 3:28pm

Hey I'm just presenting the argument that less tolerant (homophobes) will make. Once you say somebody has the "right" to do something, somebody (usually a lib) than says that society has the obligation to give it to you... Take healthcare. I feel that NOBODY should be disallowed healthcare as long as they can pay for it... (I'm not getting into the healthcare debate here)...

If it is a "right" to get an elective AB or for a gay couple to get married (and I feel it is) that's fine.

But I would never want to see the law used to force an OB/GYN to perform a elective AB because a woman wants one and it's her "right" to get one or for the law to be used to force a church to perform a wedding.

That is where the "Christian Right" is going to base their opposition...

By the way it cuts both ways. Under the 2nd Amendment, I have the right to own a weapon but I have no right to make the government buy it for me...

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

Oh stop bringing up the constitution

you filthy war criminal. The only thing you are for is murder, mayhem and genocide. You support the destruction of the constitution. How dare you even mention it.

The point of the decision

is that the state cannot discriminate by preventing a civil marriage. Nowhere does it FORCE anybody to do anything. A church is still free to sanction or not any rite it deems proper.

By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 2:39pm

Right here:

http://airamerica.com/blog/2008/may/15/california-court-overturns-gay-ma...

Sorry to see that this thread's topic doesn't please you ...

By frazzledMay 16, 2008 - 3:01pm

Thanks, I didn't see that one over there...

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 3:11pm

"My presidency will be my worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

is what he realy meant

One pary rule

There is no doubt that the Republicans have shown the Country how poorly that they as a Party govern. Let's hope that the Democrats avoid the same tendency to take the Country so far to the left that 8 years from now we are having the same discussion about failed policies.

Our founding principle of majority rule with guaranteed minority rights has served us well. The Republicans forgot that. The Dems must be carefull to not make the same mistake.

Lets hope we can get

the country back to the center first.

Make ME understand

I just don't get it. I live here in San Antonio. So you know I don't get anything BUT conservative radio here. However. I know how to think on my own and have an IQ of over 3 so I am a lot better than the average conservative. That said, how is it that all the fuck-ups that have occured in the last 7 yrs are some how the Democrats fault? It's like we held the White House hostage while we run a muck on 1600 ave. riiiight!!! I think even the folks in WV now the difference between a possum and a rat!! OOPS maybe not....... To be continued on the FOX Network until Hannity admits he has a secret man crush on McCunt ahem, I mean McCain....

Suggestion

What do you all think of the Take-all state rule next time for the Dems?

I am all for it!

We should have used it this time so Hillary would be the nominee so that we would have a chance to win in Nov

By hufflarry2000May 16, 2008 - 3:24pm

I knew that would bring you out to play hufflarry.....lol why am I not suprised

You are suprised that I want

to beat the Republicans. You should re read my posts.

Of course you have the stats

Of course you have the stats to back up that claim? Didn't think so...

-- McCain = Four more years of the same --

By fourteenaces May 16, 2008 - 3:13pm

While I am of the opinion that the entire process should be reformed, I find the concept of "winner-take-all" to be abhorent as it offers little to no representation to the "losers". The concept of offering no representation to the minority sounds entirely too Republican to me... which might be why huff immediately supported it...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

I don't like the winner take all idea either for exactly

the same reason. It seems that everything that has been done to "repair" the political system over the past few years has been done with one thing in mind: to make everything go faster. Take "Super Duper Tuesday" for example. Almost half the states held their primaries and caucuses on the same day. I think the idea was probably to get the nomination process done as quickly as possible. Perhaps the corporate types who run this country were worried that a long, drawn out process would make it more likely that their handpicked candidates might have too many chances to screw up if they were out on the campaign trail for too long. A compressed primary season favors those who have strong name recognition and/or deep pockets.

I think winner take all has the same effect. It is an attempt to make the selection process faster, so that the corporations and other big donors won't have to think too long and hard about whom to give their money to. After all, it must really suck to be a big donor, and drop $50K on your favorite candidate only to see him or her bow out long before the big show begins. Pick the candidates early so you know your bribes....ummmmm, errrrr.....contributions, will work to your advantage.

By Uffdaguy May 16, 2008 - 4:30pm

I'm a fan of an extended process as well. I think what we were seeing was a dash by numerous states to try and have a greater effect on the process only to have it more jumble it up and many of them giving themselves little to no voice. Take my home state of Jersey, for example. Our state legislature decided that a June primary was so late as to give is practically no say in the process. They passed legislation to move it up, and we basically got lost in the jumble. The irony is that if they would've just left it as a late primary, we would now likely be finding our state as the focus of much attention for some time. If nothing else, maybe this year will cause some within to take a more serious look at reforming the process. Some of it is good. Much of it is not. I know I would get rid of the concept of "superdelegates". To me, it's but one more wall built between the people and their representation. I would keep a proportional representation of pledged delegates but make their pledge a mandate/requirement. No more of this "we can all switch if we want!" nonsense, which is yet another barrier between the people and their representation. And that's not even really beginning to scratch the surface...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

No you dont like winner take all

because your candidate would have been eliminated months ago.

By hufflarry2000 May 16, 2008 - 4:41pm

President Obama.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

By SJerseyIndyMay 16, 2008 - 5:03pm

Well, he certainly looked presidential handing Monkey Boy's ass back to him!!

President Obama ... has a nice ring to it!!

"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL

Ok I see

Please forgive me . I must have had a conservative moment....lol Now I am back.

From DK

An abbreviated look at the media's take on the current state of the Republican Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/10551/7844/409/516237

Seems the media is ready to turn the page on the Democratic primary and focus on the party that's really in chaos. It's about time ... wonder how long it will last?

It will last right up to the

It will last right up to the point that the good ole' Rev comes out of hibernation again. Which brings up and interesting piont. Do you know that Barbara Reynolds set that PC up?

Run Hillary RUN!!!

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_pre...

"However, if Clinton does not win the Democratic Party nomination, 29% of Democrats say she should run an Independent campaign for the White House."

Run Hillary! 29% of Dems want you to run against Obama in the general! Here's your chance Huffy!

"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007

LOL - That's a damned funny heading for this thread ...

With the exception of old school repubs (I mean, Goldwater repubs), does ANY member of the GOP have a clue ... on ANYTHING??!!

"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL

Uh oh ... I think huffer's head's gonna EXPLODE ...

Florida, Michigan delegates most likely can't save ClintonAssociated Press
Published: Friday May 16, 2008

|

Print This Email This

Interviews conducted by the Associated Press with those considering how to handle the two states' banished convention delegates found little interest in Senator Hillary Clinton's best-case scenario.

Her position, part of a formidable comeback challenge, is that all the delegates be seated in accordance with their disputed primaries.

And even if they were, it wouldn't erase Barack Obama's growing lead in delegates over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is scheduled to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida's 366 delegates.

Last year, the panel imposed the harshest punishment it could render against the two states after they scheduled primaries in January, even though they were instructed not to vote until Feb. 5 or later. Michigan and Florida lost all their delegates to the national convention, and all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states, stripping them of all the influence they were trying to build by voting early.

But now there is agreement on all sides that at least some of the delegates should be restored in a gesture of party unity and respect to voters in two general election battlegrounds.

Clinton has been arguing for full reinstatement, which would boost her standing. She won both states, even though they didn't count toward the nomination and neither candidate campaigned in them. Obama even had his name pulled from Michigan's ballot.

The Associated Press interviewed a third of the panel members and several other Democrats involved in the negotiations and found widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line. If not, many members say, other states will do the same thing in four years.

"We certainly want to be fair to both candidates, and we want to be sure that we are fair to the 48 states who abided by the rules," said Democratic National Committee Secretary Alice Germond, a panel member unaligned with either candidate. "We don't want absolute chaos for 2012.

"We want to reach out to Michigan and Florida and seat some group of delegates in some manner, at least most of us do. These are two critical states for the general (election) and the voters of those states who were not the people who caused this awful conundrum to occur deserve our attention and deserve to be a part of our process and deserve to be at the convention," she said.

Just as Democrats across the country have been divided over which candidate would make the better nominee, most of the panel members also bring personal preferences and political allegiances to the table.

Many are long-standing party officials with close ties to the Clintons. The former first lady has 13 members publicly supporting her, including campaign advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy who are working to build her delegate count. Eight are openly aligned with Obama. Nine others are officially undeclared.

"We have to have delegates, and they have to be delegations that reflect the opinions of those two states," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a committee member supporting Clinton. "How we get there is very different because everyone sees these questions of who it helps and who it hurts. I don't think the formulation has been found that will get around the piece at this point." But he said a solution is probably possible among the diverse interests.

Because Obama is in the lead for the nomination, his camp heads into the meeting in a position of strength. It is possible the Illinois senator could clinch the nomination by the time the panel meets if he picks up the pace of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks.

But Obama has such a lead that he may be able to afford to be generous and give Clinton most of the delegates. That would help put the issue behind them and help him build good will in Michigan and Florida heading into the November election.

Still, some of Obama's supporters think the fairest solution is to disregard the primary votes and split the delegations evenly between the two candidates.

"It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community."

It's also possible that any vote that recognizes the Michigan and Florida results would legitimize their elections. Clinton has been arguing that she leads in the popular vote, but that's only when both states are included and it is very slim — fewer than 5,000 votes out of 34 million cast.

Her accounting also doesn't include some caucus states that favored Obama and where the popular vote wasn't tallied. The measure of winning the nomination is not the popular vote but the delegate count, and Obama leads 1,898 to 1,718, with 2,026 needed for the nomination. Still, Clinton is trying to use the popular vote argument to win over some delegates.

So far, Obama's campaign has not been giving direction publicly or privately to panel members. The Clinton campaign's official position has been full reinstatement, but her advisers acknowledge they are considering an idea before the panel to seat the delegates with half a vote each. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that they "certainly might" accept a compromise to seat half the delegates.

If their elections had been held according to party rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, so that would not catch her up even under that unlikely scenario.

The plans before the committee will be more generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, an advantage of 10 delegates for Clinton.

A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate advantage for Clinton.

"I think it's a reasonable solution to the problem that was created, and my hope is that we'll be able to get past this and move on," said Allan Katz, an Obama supporter who serves on the panel but won't be able to vote on any Florida solution because he is from the state.

The committee is not bound to select the proposals offered and has authority to reinstate any number of delegates and divide them in any way.

An open question is how to handle the other type of delegates each state lost — the superdelegates who are party leaders not bound by the outcome of the vote and are free to support whatever candidate they personally choose. Michigan has 28 superdelegates, and Florida 25. A total of eight have declared for Obama, seven for Clinton and the rest are undeclared.

Germond said she hopes the meeting will begin the process of unifying the party.

"Probably what we will come up with will not make everybody or anybody completely happy, which will mean that we did a good job," she said. "It is mighty unfortunate that at this point in our nominating process we are talking about people who did not abide by the process instead of talking about (beating Republican presidential candidate) John McCain."

www.therawstory.com

"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL

She may not get the nomination

but more primary voters voted for her.

Ignoring the caucuses? What about the delegates?

And, since FL & MI don't count, your theory that she's ahead in the popular vote is ... a baseless theory.

"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL

No, your baseless theory

that peoples votes dont count is....very neocon. And anti american. But you Obamacons have to lie and say you have more votes to perpetuate your myth of "will of the people"

By hufflarry2000 May 16, 2008 - 5:14pm

No, your baseless theory that peoples votes dont count is....very neocon. And anti american.

“You know, it’s clear, this election they’re having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything.”
-Senator Hillary Clinton, 11 October 2007

Oct 11 2007?

I see now.

By hufflarry2000 May 16, 2008 - 5:38pm

I see now.

Good, it's about time. I knew that only Hillary could explain it to you.

Exactly

When she was still sure she would win, she accepted the rules. It was only in her desperation that she decided that rules were for other people.

By gt6 May 16, 2008 - 5:43pm

Just think...some people actually have the nerve to question Clinton's integrity by suggesting that she would do or say anything in order to win.

What part of "all parties, i.e. all dem candidates,

Agreed not to violate DNC rules, regardless if MI and FL did violate DNC rules," seems to fly straight through, ear to ear?

What part of "all parties, i.e. all dem candidates, agreed the MI and FL results would not count," seems to fly straight through, ear to ear?

What part of "the people voted anyway, knowing full well the results wouldn't count,so they really can't complain" escapes the space between your ears?

It's very cut and dried; very simple, really.

"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL

The only thing

fascist Republicans have this November is lies and fearmongering. It is only a matter of time before Anti-American, fascist domestic economic and foreign policy brings the suffering these fascists intended to the threshold that Americans need to want to investigate the truth and realize why they are suffering.

Too bad we had to come within a McCain earhair of a depression and complete collapse of our economy and pitiful reputation in the world community.

Too bad this criminal regime was allowed to imperialize the middle east to confiscate a sovereign nation's resources to make fellow fascist billioniares.

Too bad the fascist Republicans and enabling coward Democrats allowed this criminal regime to steal the civil rights our founding fathers and ancestors sacrificed their lives for.

If the Republicans ran on their record, they would be guaranteeing perpetual imperialization of soveriegn nations and war, continued declining standards of living and wages for 94% of America, further desecration of our constitution and the rights it bestows on Americans like our founding fathers intended, even more unaffordable healthcare, even more poverty. in other words we would have a goverment that continues to flip the bird at most of us.

Underestimating you opponent?

What a great strategy. You will end up, the day after the election, blaming the voters for being stupid, again.

This is one of the most bizarr Pres elections I have ever seen.

Anything could happen.

McCAIN HASN'T A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL.


BET THE RANCH.

Hey, shitbag... you takin' any action?... I suggest you put your money where your mouth is.

Comments

(45)