http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/op...f=general&_r=0

I think he makes some excellent points, and offers a positive way for conservatives to embrace a larger electorate.

Originally Posted by tolladay

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/op...f=general&_r=0

I think he makes some excellent points, and offers a positive way for conservatives to embrace a larger electorate.

It's a good article but it will fall on deaf ears. Goldwater Republicans are followers of the Southern Strategy, and that's a tactic built purely on divisive politics and wedge issues designed to capture the vote of white southerners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The GOP will never capture the votes of minority groups when their party plank is to demonize minority groups. We're not stupid, we can see the saccharin messages pointed at us, and how they're different to the fire-and-brimstone race-baiting drawn up for the white audience.

There are smart conservatives who are happy to NOT be about race and demonizing. Painting all of them with a wide brush only serves your own purposes, not mine, nor America's. In fact, it is doing exactly what you claim they are doing.

" Goldwater Republicans " is my quote, not "ALL Republicans." And unfortunately for conservatives that aren't insane, the entire leadership of the GOP is comprised of Goldwater Republicans.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

" Goldwater Republicans " is my quote, not "ALL Republicans." And unfortunately for conservatives that aren't insane, the entire leadership of the GOP is comprised of Goldwater Republicans.

Right. You're not using a big wide brush, you just happen to have only that one in your paint box.

You do know the author of the article is a conservative, right? Moreover, its been my experience that the party leadership follows the people, not the other way around.

Yes, I've read other articles by Brooks, and I'm sure he's well aware of the point I made as well. There have been a lot of "wishful thinking" articles wanting to untie the party from insanity such as "purity tests" that even Reagan would fail, and dog-whistle code-wording, but those voices are easily drowned out by big money like Karl "Republican math" Rove, and Rush Limbaugh.

If you really need more evidence of my point, just watch all the material Jon Stewart got to pick through on 11/7. It was a cornucopia of schadenfreude.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...12-nate-silver

Yeah, well I think most of the adults in the room are aware that the wheels just came off Karl Rove's pretty little hate machine.

I'm not the least bit interested in where the conservatives have been. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I quit hanging around down here. Who needs Jon Stewart when LTUP is just as entertaining.

But... the future looks pretty wide open right now, and I'm fully convinced that conservatives don't like loosing any more than liberals did back in 2004. If I was a betting man, I'd be putting money on the "voices of reason" in the republican party. They have never had a better chance to be heard than now, and someone has to sweep up the floor and clean the dirty dishes in the sink.

Here's the funny thing: I think a stronger conservative party, one based upon a more inclusive framework, and with less of a need to describe themselves as victims of the government, is better for America. I think it would also be better for us liberals as well (we've gotten lazy by playing pointy finger politics), but that's another point.

Originally Posted by tolladay

But... the future looks pretty wide open right now, and I'm fully convinced that conservatives don't like loosing any more than liberals did back in 2004. If I was a betting man, I'd be putting money on the "voices of reason" in the republican party. They have never had a better chance to be heard than now, and someone has to sweep up the floor and clean the dirty dishes in the sink.

Who's going to give the "voices of reason" a soap box to speak from? Certainly not Karl Rove, not Fox News, not the Tea Party. Who's left that's loud enough?

Originally Posted by tolladay

Here's the funny thing: I think a stronger conservative party, one based upon a more inclusive framework, and with less of a need to describe themselves as victims of the government, is better for America. I think it would also be better for us liberals as well (we've gotten lazy by playing pointy finger politics), but that's another point.

Absolutely agreed. I think a two party system of REAL parties working to make real compromises is necessary to keep the US moving forward. I just don't see that happening with the current leadership of the GOP today. There's already been grumbling about how they simply "weren't conservative enough." COME ON.

We just need Jay Z and Oprah on our side.

Great article and yes, they do paint with a wide brush. Did it all campaign long. There is no right good. They are all racists and want to put women and all minorities back to the 1800s. That was their message and it resonated full on. Rationale or reason do not seem to be in that paint bucket

Hasty generalizations are hasty indeed.

Look, the Tea Party is the new face of the GOP. It's the monster that Fox built. You're not going to get meaningful change within the structure of the GOP until the leadership and the money behind it change their entire structure and policy and narrative.

Want more examples of the GOP hate machine at work? Listen to the first 10 minutes of Opie and Anthony on 11/7. It's a beautiful example of "still doesn't get it." Warning though that Opie and Anthony are complete potty-mouths. http://greggtonyandjim.blogspot.com/...-nov-2012.html

This stuff doesn't create itself. It's been carefully grown and farmed since Nixon.

Originally Posted by bildo baggins

We just need Jay Z and Oprah on our side.

Great article and yes, they do paint with a wide brush. Did it all campaign long. There is no right good. They are all racists and want to put women and all minorities back to the 1800s. That was their message and it resonated full on. Rationale or reason do not seem to be in that paint bucket

Uh, no. CL was using a wide brush, and so are you.

Asians voted 75 to 25 for Obama. The article in the OP discusses the reasons why, and makes what I think is a good argument that asians share more core values with conservatives then liberals.

For Bog's sake, CL and I are making an argument for a STRONGER Republican party, and your response comes down to, "they're picking on us."

If two liberals are shouting out for you, and you miss it, you need to rethink a few things. Like who your enemies really are, cause I'll tell you right now, I'm not one of them.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Look, the Tea Party is the new face of the GOP. It's the monster that Fox built. You're not going to get meaningful change within the structure of the GOP until the leadership and the money behind it change their entire structure and policy and narrative.

Want more examples of the GOP hate machine at work? Listen to the first 10 minutes of Opie and Anthony on 11/7. It's a beautiful example of "still doesn't get it." Warning though that Opie and Anthony are complete potty-mouths. http://greggtonyandjim.blogspot.com/...-nov-2012.html

This stuff doesn't create itself. It's been carefully grown and farmed since Nixon.

I disagree. I think you're stuck on the past and assuming that is the only future. I think the tea party could possibly be on its way out. If the economy improves significantly, then it this will have been its last hurrah.

That's not to say the GOP will not have stances that I think are flat-out insane, I just think some of those are going to be tossed. Like I said before, even conservatives don't like to loose, and I'm betting they can go back, look at their playbook, and retool for a better game two years from now.

And if you are stuck believing that all that money and power in the FOX news crowd is so influential, then explain the shellacking they got on Tuesday. See, I think Roves ideas can only go so far, and I think this election proved that.

Originally Posted by tolladay

explain the shellacking they got on Tuesday.

I'm sure a few LTUP conservatives will roll their eyes at this, but I don't think Obama's win on Tuesday was a shellacking. It was a huge victory over the states, and it was a very close election among the popular vote, and that's because the GOP's Southern Strategy is very effective at courting the white vote in the south. Just like voting for Obama in California is a "wasted vote," so was voting for Romney in the deep red state. Obama's big territory win was really just proof of a better GOTV strategy in the states that actually mattered. Remember that Romney's last ad buys at the end of the campaign were flooding the media market in PA during the last week. That's wasted money. It's money that should have been spent in Ohio months ago in preparation... but no, pretty much all of Romney's campaign seemed to be reactionary and ill-planned.

The problem with running up the popular vote like that for the GOP is that they can't "flip flop" as easily as Romney did and disavow all the hatred and racism and bigotry. If they try to court the minority vote then they're going to lose their largest monolithic voting block: Southern whites. And quite frankly there isn't a demographic that the GOP could divide and peel off to gain a victory without jeopardizing the Southern white vote.

Originally Posted by tolladay

See, I think Roves ideas can only go so far, and I think this election proved that.

Yeah, unfortunately for the GOP, they've pushed themselves so far off to the right that I don't see any path where they could bring back the center voters, much less any minority. Like I said, they would have to shake down everything in order to re-organize.

Quote from another thread:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wiz

Did you see the demographics? Obama carried 90 some odd percent of the black vote. Not surprising to me. I had not talked to a single black person that wasn't voting for him. He also carried the Hispanic vote by a huge margin. He got the women vote too and what's left? White evangelicals.... Maybe it's time the republicans started looking for a way to appeal to someone else too.

So yeah maybe I'm "stuck in the past" but history is the best predictor of the future.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

I'm sure a few LTUP conservatives will roll their eyes at this, but I don't think Obama's win on Tuesday was a shellacking. It was a huge victory over the states, and it was a very close election among the popular vote, and that's because the GOP's Southern Strategy is very effective at courting the white vote in the south. Just like voting for Obama in California is a "wasted vote," so was voting for Romney in the deep red state. Obama's big territory win was really just proof of a better GOTV strategy in the states that actually mattered. Remember that Romney's last ad buys at the end of the campaign were flooding the media market in PA during the last week. That's wasted money. It's money that should have been spent in Ohio months ago in preparation... but no, pretty much all of Romney's campaign seemed to be reactionary and ill-planned.

The problem with running up the popular vote like that for the GOP is that they can't "flip flop" as easily as Romney did and disavow all the hatred and racism and bigotry. If they try to court the minority vote then they're going to lose their largest monolithic voting block: Southern whites. And quite frankly there isn't a demographic that the GOP could divide and peel off to gain a victory without jeopardizing the Southern white vote.



Yeah, unfortunately for the GOP, they've pushed themselves so far off to the right that I don't see any path where they could bring back the center voters, much less any minority. Like I said, they would have to shake down everything in order to re-organize.

Quote from another thread:


So yeah maybe I'm "stuck in the past" but history is the best predictor of the future.

I agree. Look up Father Couglin, although you are probably familiar with the name. Joseph McCarthy is another one to look up.

I think you misunderstand the size of the racists aspects of the Republican party. Sure there are racists in it (they're in the Democrat party too), but they are a small minority of the party, even in the south. Most of the hatred and bigotry we've been experiencing is a response to the economic hardships we've been going through, and the discomfort they have brought. As the economy improves, their divisive message will have less and less traction. In this aspect the popularity of Fox news exactly matches that of Father Coughlin, which is why I used him as a metaphor. They rise up out of the fear of a massive economic hardship, they swell to large ranks, and then as things improves they shrink back down to the size of insignificance.

When you're afraid you're going to lose your home, a lot of people are happy to find a scapegoat, but when things are going well that message is much harder to sell. For most people that is. Remember, this is the country that flirted with Father Coughlin, but was still able to keep the root of Fascism from sprouting. Rather than follow his bigoted message most Americans took up their arms and attacked his fellow bigots in Europe and Asia.

I think that is a lesson of history worthy of study.