Grand political roundup

[AAA]

So...that's the goal? Cut out the moderates, become even more right-wing and exclusive? And then these moderates and independents and soft Democrats will just magically vote you for again despite being told that they're to blame for everything? Really?

[Dunefar]

On a completely different note, conservatives, any thoughts on what the Repubs can do to rebound in time for 2012?

Finish the incoming purges and refocus the party. Find a charismatic leader like Obama to oppose him. Try and gain some seats back in 2010 so that momentum swings your way once more. Hope Obama does a mediocre to poor job; realistically, the initiative is entirely in his court. If he's perceived as being effective he'll be hard to topple. Remember 1984 when Reagan won every state but one? It's kind of like that. If the nation's in the middle of one of those periodic political swings, it's going to take awhile.  Focus on maintaining the House/Senate and rebuilding.

The good thing about being the minority party is that your base gets to see the other side do all those things that drives them mad. Nothing fires up the base like that. It makes them more willing to accept a candidate as well instead of engaging in inter party squabbles.

[superaielman]

Hope and pray that Pelosi keeps being Pelosi.

[NotMiki]

He doesn't live in Washington.  Apparently he lives on Venus and transmits stories from there.  It is a quaint little town of Denialsville in the state of Make Bullshit Up which is one of the more democratic parts of the great country of Being a Complete Shit.

He lives in NYC, actually, or at least he's here a lot.  I've seen him a couple times in our corporate cafeteria.  That dude seriously needs to lose some weight.

Though the story about her prancing around in a towel was funny- and makes perfect sense considering her backround in beauty pageants.

I don't get the humor in that one. They interrupted her in the shower! Anybody pansy enough to be scandalized by that wouldn't have lasted five seconds in the LBJ administration.

Once you've been the subject of a Hustler porno, you're probably not too concerned about small potatoes like letting an aide see your upper arms.

So...that's the goal? Cut out the moderates, become even more right-wing and exclusive? And then these moderates and independents and soft Democrats will just magically vote you for again despite being told that they're to blame for everything? Really?

It's not a goal, but the first part happens.  First, in an atmosphere where one party is unpopular, like '06 and '08, they lose seats in their weakest areas first, and those seats are almost always the moderates.  Democrats now completely own New England, for example, and that means less fiscal conservatives for Republicans.  Conversely, during the Bush years, Democrats started aggressively fielding conservative candidates, in the south especially, to shore up their numbers and diversify their party.

The antidote for Republicans is, of course, exactly what the Democrats did: wait for the glow of a new administration to fade, then attack the low-hanging fruit with your own cadre of moderates (again, fiscal conservatives are the best bet).  This is especially true if Obama is still strong in '12.

[Grefter]

NYC, Venus, what's the difference.  They are both horribly oversaturated environments that have heated up to temperatures unsuitable for human life (I couldn't come up with a funnier come back.  Sad.  NYC is pretty cool in all seriousness).

Isn't anyone else scared to fuck at the concept of things rolling back to have the party trying to be even more like Reagan than the Bushes both were?  This did some truely horrible things for the society with bringing out the slash and burn corporate culture and villifying the Unions and is a huge part of the reason such a large portion of population no longer has private health care (Pre-Reagan it was being paid for by employers....)?   I mean this is the kind of shit that people just voted in Obama to try and clean up and they are saying that what everyone really wants is to be made the bitch of the rich again even harder than before?

What the fuck man.  If they do go in that direction instead of pandering more to the moderates and get voted in I will be at a complete and total loss for words.

Edit - Of course if you aren't in the school of thought that Reaganomics is the worst thing to have happened to a society ever then this will make no sense to you at all.

[Idun]

Weeeeeeeell, Chicago is known for some pretty corrupt politicians.  So even hawt, smirky Emmanuel Rahm may be part of something sinister.


I doubt it.


Once Obama gets into office, I'll be doing more speculation.

[NotMiki]

The Republican party (the politicians, that is) ended up with McCain because voters forced him on them; as a consequence, they tried to force him to become as much of an orthodox nonconservative as possible.  Hence the flipping on tax cuts, immigration, and of course Palin.

Contrast that to Harry Reid.  Senate majority leader, pro-life Mormon.  Elected by Democratic politicians.  Adversarial in style, but decidedly moderate.  Frustratingly so to the liberal wing of his party (believe me).

If Republicans want to reclaim the middle, they need to stop trying to mess with folks like McCain and start letting them legitimately lead their party.  McCain as minority leader would be a start.

[superaielman]

I'd settle for the execution of Ted Stevens myself.

[Mad Fnorder]

I'd settle for the execution of Ted Stevens myself.

Seconded.

[NotMiki]

Can we settle for returning Alaska to provincehood?  They're the loonies who reelected him (and with a massive 33% turnout no less).  And that's not mentioning Don Young and his probable pending indictment.

On a more positive note, just read a wonderful editorial about the historic nature of the election.  Written by an Obama supporter, but worth a read by anyone.  A good read for anyone like myself who is slightly annoyed that people would vote against or for a candidate based on race.

The relay race of social change
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/07/the_relay_race_of_social_change/

[Sierra]

Can we settle for returning Alaska to provincehood?  They're the loonies who reelected him (and with a massive 33% turnout no less).  And that's not mentioning Don Young and his probable pending indictment.

I was just going to suggest this. Stevens was possibly the most headdesk-inducing moment of the election for me (it definitely would be if not for Prop 8).

[Veryslightlymad]

That Prop 8 passed is nothing more than an indication that the country still has an awful long way to go, as far as social progress goes.

Republicans lost this election because they had no ideas. They collectively put their heads in the sand about how bad off an awful lot of America is, and they paid the price for it. Their solution was "Everything is fine under Bush" (it wasn't) and "Everything should be done the same way" (It shouldn't.)

People aren't stupid. They're not. You can't say you're the party of fiscal responsibility, when, under your last president, you've had unprecedented amounts of debt, and the only reason why job creation is up is because you started to count jobs no one else did. This especially rings false when the last president to actually have a surplus was a democrat. Either shape up or STOP LYING TO US.

When your big plan for how to clean up the economy is "Cut pork" and "Freeze all spending" people will KNOW you are full of shit. Republicans have lost a LOT of credibility by how much money has been spent in the past administration. The three trillion dollar war, however you may feel about it, does nothing but exacerbate a very real financial problem at home.

How do republicans come back? Simple. They wait for people to be pissed off with Democrats. Obama, or whoever comes after him, will need to fuck something up. A huge amount of our presidents are elected simply because people are pissed at the current regime.

How exactly do they need to retool? Maybe getting a shred of their supposed financial responsibility back. Maybe by getting a shred of their small government ideals back. Maybe by not fucking meddling in everyone's lives so goddamn much making asinine laws opposing stem cell research or homosexual rights, or online mother fucking gambling god DAMN it. This is the party that swears up and down that they're not here to tell people what to do. BUT THEY DO.

As of now, the Republican party has NO BUSINESS whatsoever calling themselves conservatives. What the fuck are they actually conserving?

Are they conserving money? No. A three-trillion-dollar war and a president who didn't realize he had the veto until someone wanted to pass scientific research says otherwise.
Are they conserving the environment? DRILL BABY DRILL.
Are they conserving the rights of the people? On a personal level, I'm mad as hell at the prohibition of Online Gaming. They're deliberately stomping on the rights of homosexuals, although they're not entirely to blame for this. (Prop 8 passed in California, of all places. God damn.) There's a whole can of worms with the Patriot Act and torture and whatnot I don't even want to get into because 1)I'm not too educated on all of it and 2)I'm not sure how far we need to go to protect ourselves. See #1

So what, prey tel, are the Republicans Conserving? Because I honestly have no idea at this point.

I'm not defending Democrats. There are a lot of loonies in the party, and there are some serious issues I wish they'd address more realistically, like the need for Nuclear Power, but at this point, our choice is between the PROgressive party, and the REgressive party. There IS no conservative party in the United States of America. I'm an ulcer-ridden, pepto-chugging, mad-as-hell democrat or libertarian until SOMEONE in the Republican party gets an idea as to what they're doing again.

[Grefter]

What are you talking about VSM?  The Republican party is conservative about Morality and has ultraconservative economic policy.

Morals is obvious (and this IS part of the party line remember).  You and your modern "Not spending money" and whantot concepts have no place in the real Economic Freedom that the modern Republican party stands for.  You know, Feudalism.  The rich are in power to make more money for themselves and all the other royalty right?  Doesn't get more conservative than that.

[superaielman]

Random Miki kick: What was that blog/site you were reading at the meet?

On a related note, is Martin Peretz always a shmuck?

[NotMiki]

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

I was reading others, but I think this is the one you're thinking of.

[superaielman]

On a related note: Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out (or into prison), Stevens.

[NotMiki]

I wonder if Bush will commute Stevens' sentence?  I'm fairly certain he gets sentencing before Bush leaves office, and I doubt it's politically toxic for Bush to do it now that Stevens is powerless.

[Taishyr]

If I felt like betting I'd put even money on it.

[NotMiki]

Eric Holder has been asked to be the next Attorney General.

Here is a speech he gave recently on Gunatanamo and FISA.

http://acslaw.org/node/6720

Lots to take away from that, but I'll just share a pair of quotes from his concluding statement:

"We are the best example of a good nation that mankind has to offer, and the test of a great and good nation to adhere to our values not only when it is easy but also when it is hard."

"The rule of law and our stature in the world are inevitably, historically, and inextricably linked."

The idea of having a man such as this one as our Attorney General, wielding that same authority Alberto Gonzales had, makes me so happy I'm almost crying.

[Dunefar]

The pro gun crowd is just going to love that appointment. A democrat who attached his name in favor of DC in DC vs Heller? Oh boy.

[NotMiki]

Now, wat's Obama's position there?  I know he's stated the 2nd amendment confers an individual right, but I think he was also Pro-DC and Chicago gun laws.

[Dunefar]

Now, wat's Obama's position there?  I know he's stated the 2nd amendment confers an individual right, but I think he was also Pro-DC and Chicago gun laws.

That sounds right without checking a source.

It'll be more interesting to see how this gets spun. I wonder how close Obama is willing to get to gun control? It could be a fascinating early indicator to how much he's willing to push the status quo.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Gun_control

For a quick and dirty source. Looks to be pretty pro gun control, assuming Wiki's on the mark.

[NotMiki]

Sounds pretty mainstream for a democrat, at least if you only take his national record.  I expect he'll leave the issue alone except where congress forces him to take a stand on it.  Shouldn't be too controversial if it's limited to reapplying the federal assault weapons ban, closing the gun show loophole, and childproofing guns.  What would be interesting is if congress passes a broad and restrictive law aimed at feeling out the second amendment, something like a national ban on concealed weapons.  Don't think that's likely to pass the senate, though.

Remember, opposing Heller vs. DC's decision would have played well in the base, especially given that Scalia wrote the opinion and that it is so ludicrously specific that it would be easy (and accurate) to say he was legislating from the bench.  The fact that he agreed with the majority in that case is powerful evidence that he intends to be moderate on the issue.

[Cotigo]

The idea of having a man such as this one as our Attorney General, wielding that same authority Alberto Gonzales had, makes me so happy I'm almost crying.

I, on the other hand, am a little disappointed.  Obama had previously made comments that hinted at a de-escalation of the drug war, and possible decriminalization of Marijuana.  With Holder as Attourney General, that ain't gonna happen.  http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130163.html

A minor issue, all things considered, but still.

[NotMiki]

For everyone watching the Minnesota recount, here's an example of some of the challenged ballots:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/