If you haven't read it Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History is a good book on the subject. Heres the sample chapter from the authors website(pdf)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
If you haven't read it Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History is a good book on the subject. Heres the sample chapter from the authors website(pdf)
The Librarian
Banned
To add to this: https://twitter.com/lolgop/status/313636190224011264
Black Republican
Member
Michael Steele still must be pissed over this, apart from the debt RNC issue, he actually tried to reach out and more minority candidates got elected under his watch than i think GOP has had in a while and still got the boot.
TacticalFox88
Banned
The Librarian
Banned
Oh, she is so running.
RustyNails
Member
DC has some of the craziest fucks in the country, no kidding. And they're all super rich.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Lets hope she does.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I love how now a politician actively saying they support marriage equality is a politically wise move
TacticalFox88
Banned
8 Years ago it would've been political suicide. lol.
It was pretty funny watching Scott Walker dancing around trying to avoid taking any position on the issue on Meet the Press this week. When someone like him is even doing that you know things are changing quickly.
I still remember the House GOP in 2006, in the run up to the election, holding votes on every issue they could come up with to save their skins. Gay marriage votes, flag burning, you name it. They got nothing from it. I remember being hopeful at the time that we were near a tipping point gay rights, but I never imagined things would swing this far, this fast. And the GOP is moving at the speed of molasses on it, so they look further and further disconnected from the public as time moves on.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yup. His answer about why is the government in marriage business screamed "of course I support it just got to wait till a few more bigots in my party come around"
Making a joke about that republican's support for gay marriage after his son came out.
el retorno
Member
LOLOLOL they are still not getting it.
When you have to limit the number of primary debates to avoid having your party's message getting out to the public, you know you're in trouble. I remember that the 2007-8 Democratic primary debates were nothing but 20+ debates during which every candidate agreed over and over again, and it was a winning message every time.
el retorno
Member
Hopefully it leads to things not being dug up till the general. I've never been of the belief that the number of debates hurt them. It was the ideas contained within.
RustyNails
Member
Good. Let them relish their dumbassery. Will just mean easier elections for democrats.
The dumb thing is that his mom example includes the what and not just the how. But their focus is still going to be on the how and ignore the what.
TacticalFox88
Banned
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
GOP Loves gays! They even have a gay friendly Senator =D
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I know. I was joking =P
PhoenixDark
Banned
So does that mean they'll stop fighting for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
Not a bad first step but I'm not sure how much influence the national GOP had over southern republicans, heartland conservatives, etc. I doubt the Bachmans of the party will care about any of this.
I'm more interested in their foray into the digital realm. It shouldn't be hard for them to modernize. 2008 and 2012 were horrible, making it easy to forget the GOP was well ahead of democrats in 2004 with respect to campaigns.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
this is rich
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I just can't...
TacticalFox88
Banned
The Right's Fetish for privatization is disturbing.
Steve Schmidt made a great point on Real Time a couple weeks back saying that getting the young, tech-savvy people that will help digitize GOP campaigns and outreach suffers because of their backwards social platform, including their stance on marriage equality.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Yes and no. A good governor has to compromise on the state level, which tends to make them more moderate than a senator or congressman who doesn't nessicarily have to work with anyone. Christie has worked wit democrats quite effectively for instance and would be a solid candidate. Tennesee's governor is also getting shit done, but under the radar. Previously there was Jon Huntsman.
Then you have Rick Snyder, Rick Scott, and Tom Corbett who are horrible governors who have gone so far right they've ruined their appeal. So it's an opportunity to raise your national profile while getting some decent stuff done, unless you're only interested in far right nonsense.
Isn't Scott Walker still relatively popular despite far right policies?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
From what I gather from my neighbors to the North, he's extremely popular with half the state and hated by the other half.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I am going to lose my shit the next time I hear someone on the right say that the people voted them into the House again so it must mean they like the job they're doing. At least when it came up on Bill Maher's show he called it out and made the point it was only gerrymandering that kept them in.
Basically I've been reduced to shouting at everything when it's brought up and not countered. Makes my skin crawl.
Basically I've been reduced to shouting at everything when it's brought up and not countered. Makes my skin crawl.
RoninChaos
Member
I love this shit.
I just read the CNN article, after listening to that one dude talk about it on starting point on the way to work.
What kills me is they think it's their message. They're like "It's not that the message is fucked up. it's how we're saying it!"
No no no no, no, really, your message is just fucked up.
This gigantic cultural divide they're talking about is the same one republicans don't seem to get. Like this shit with tax breaks. The only thing they ever looked like was a group of people FOR the rich. Fuck everybody else. And when you looked at the math behind what they were talking about, the facts added up to the republican party overwhelmingly caring for the rich, at the expense of the poor.
And the fact that so many people came out when Romney was like 47% of america are moochers and supported Romney says a LOT about their positions and how the republican party REALLY feels.
I heard something interesting the other day that, I think, touches on some of this
I read an article where a guy was approached to work with the Romney campaign
and he's like 28. His job was to work on social media, the website, etc, and the guy turned the offer down because his best friend is gay. He was like "Why would I give my skills to a group of people who wouldn't even let my best friend in the building?"Otherwise the guy was a conservative through and through. Stay the fuck out of my business kinda guy.
When you look at the things the GOP is PUSHING, it's things like the government being involved in peoples lives for things THEY think are important. Abortion, gay marriage, and immigration, etc. All issues that have been positive wedge issues for the republicans up until Obama took office. And this time around they lost in a very dramatic fashion.
Younger folks don't give a shit about abortion, they want gay rights, and they have friends that are immigrants. One of the best things Obama could have ever done was coming out for gay rights. He created a wedge issue on the democratic side. Something they haven't really had for years.
Something else I've thought about as well, is when you look at this, it's the republicans fault. We all knew that, right? But take a look at something like redistricting. These guys have gerimandered themselves into a corner. So many of them are in really solid, deep red republican districts so they can't make moves to get things rolling and get things fixed . They can't say "Yes, we need to fix immigration" or "I don't care of gay people get married" because they'll get primaried and tossed out of office because there aren't any voters in those districts who will side with them. They're getting elected by the people who think Obama is going to try and serve a third term and is some alient from mars who wants to destroy capitalism and kill your grandmother. They got elected by the people who think that shit so they certainly can't work with the president. Instead, the republicans in those districts are beholden to the same crazy ass mother fuckers that got them there in the first place.
Look at Rick Perry. Remember in the debates when he refused to go hard on immigration?
Boom. His chances evaporated. Not that Perry is a genius, or was even presidential material, but the minute he said "We can't just be this hardlined about immigration. Have a heart." his chances were shot.
Bottom line is the more that republicans continue to ostracize the majority (Old white men are not the majority anymore), they will continue to lose and frankly they deserve it. This is something where I hope fox news ratchets up the rhetoric so the republicans insulate themselves in the same bubble that told them Romney was going to win by a landslide. You don't get high off your own supply, you know? And right now they're doing just that
with the exception of a few people who are like "This is a bad idea".
I kind of want to see the party crash and burn. You can shit in a pretty box, but the end result is still shit.
Black Mamba
Member
If the GOP wants to gain the support of non-white males they're going to have to change their stances on policies. All the rhetoric won't change anything.
Put a ribbon on a pile of shit and you still got a pile of shit. All this is in line with my belief the GOP won't change until after 2016.
Put a ribbon on a pile of shit and you still got a pile of shit. All this is in line with my belief the GOP won't change until after 2016.
I was expecting some modicum of change after 2012, but its becoming more and more apparent that, despite the popularity of key issues at the national level - such as marriage equality, taxes on the rich, obamacare, the need for immigration reform etc - that the GOP won't budge because they are still too afraid of their base. No one wants to risk a primary challenge.
So until then it's going to be talk of outreach, and talk of how to fix the message delivery - but not the underlying message.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I had never considered the downside to gerrymandering the inability to field a moderate candadite. Wow.
And yeah, it seems like the party won't let go of the evangelical drivers like gay marriage. Seriously, if they did, they'd probably do a lot lot better, even if their policies are anti-poor-- just because it's a lot harder to get into the nuance on those issues.
And yeah, it seems like the party won't let go of the evangelical drivers like gay marriage. Seriously, if they did, they'd probably do a lot lot better, even if their policies are anti-poor-- just because it's a lot harder to get into the nuance on those issues.
Black Mamba
Member
Here is the interesting thing. This past election they should have gone hardcore moderate. Shit economy and a president the far right loathed. They would have held their nose to vote for moderate Romney and other such candidates. They also could have ignored social issues completely. Enough would have come over to vote for them.
Now the funny thing is come 2016 they're fucked. They have to moderate to win because of the changing demographics and beliefs. unlike versus Obama if they do moderate the far right will stay home. They won't loathe Hilary or whomever runs like they did Obama so they just won't support anyone or maybe a third party run by a rand Paul or something. This past election they were voting no matter what.
They're in an box.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/03/18/backing_immigration_reform_could_help_republicans.html
Interesting. All they need is 40%
Telling: the report does specifically call for increased outreach to gay voters. But as far as gay rights goes, they're still too in bed with the religious right to change any positions. It's only addressed euphemistically ("social issues"):
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And then they go and do stuff like Arizona type laws and blocking the Latino nominee to secretary of labor and accuse him of "helping illegal immigrants avoid detection". These polls make it seem like this issues are decided in a vacuum. These polls also seem to ignore the fact the "party" isn't going to support immigration reform a few members might. There will be a large contingent that won't vote for it.
They still can hold the house do to geographic realities. There needs to be real talk about multimember districts. Its got a history in the country and its fairer with the reality of an increasingly urbanized country. The house is beginning to look more like the senate, its not the people voting its land.
Edit: FLASHBACK (found on twitter)
The Day Obama Lost the Presidency
NYCmetsfan
Banned
PhoenixDark
Banned
The funny thing is that there is plenty of stuff to oppose Perez on from a conservative perspective without touching the racial rail, such as the False Claims Act/St. Paul decision. But nope, they'll push that shiny "race" button - and for what? Perez will win confirmation, what's the point in wasting time delaying things long enough for Rush and co. to say something stupid?
There's no accountability or humility in punditry. Say whatever and get those hits!
speculawyer
Member
Actually, the Gerrymandering should be making Democrats field extremist candidates. With the Gerrymandering, the GOP tries to pack all the Democratic voters into a few districts. Those seats will go to Democrats. But the remainder of districts have some Democrats but are majority Republican because so many Democrats got packed into those other districts that they sacrificed.
Thus, with those super-heavy Democratic districts you might expect them to field some extremist candidates. But this doesn't seem to happen much. (Although you do get Democrats that are corrupt and should have been booted out like Rangel.)
But in those majority Republican districts (but not hugely majority Republican), they are getting primary challenges with far-right nutcases.
So, it seems the GOP is party of extremists and this 'both sides have their extremists' is just not really true. Sure, there are some extremists on the left but much less than on the right.
speculawyer
Member
The ARE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF OUR TIME! Duh. Those young people are correct! The fact that you say 'many seem them as' shows that you just don't get it!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
doesn't really matter if they can congregate into a district and elect representatives. tea parties won't win senate, but they ca nstill win regional
I basically agree with this take. I mean, yeah, gerrymandering in favor of your side means that politics moves away from the median voter and closer to your side, but that's the whole point. That's not "making it harder" to run a moderate; that's making it less necessary to run a moderate.
Gerrymandering doesn't do much to the structure of the primary electorate in a district. It makes it bigger, but not more extreme. If your primary electorate is sane, it's purely advantageous. There's a sense in which it's bad for the GOP right now because the party "needs" to reinvent itself, and to the extent that it can continue to win elections with crazy candidates because of gerrymandering it can continue to exercise power without reinventing itself. But this is a strange way of looking at things - most Republicans don't want the party to reinvent itself, and gerrymandering makes such a reinvention unnecessary in the short-term. It's true that if gerrymandering gets suddenly undone, the party will collapse, but that isn't much of a concern for at least 7 years, and in the meantime gerrymandering is clearly in line with the expressed desires of most actual Republicans.
- Status