[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Neocon Nuttery See other Neocon Nuttery Articles Title: The "Intolerance" Party? GOP Strategists Worry Ideologues Are Bad For The Party's Future A major rift has emerged within the Republican Party. On one side: Ideologues who are inciting the base with wild rhetoric and banking on a "great American awakening" that will sweep conservatives back into power. On the other: Strategists, who see the party's growing intolerance as a prescription for minority status. So far, the ideologues are winning. "Nobody helps the cause when they use name-calling instead of substantial criticism," says strategist Charlie Black, a senior adviser to almost every Republican presidential campaign since Ronald Reagan first ran. But name-calling and demagoguery are the hallmarks of the movement conservatives and media celebrities like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who are increasingly being viewed as dominant forces in the modern GOP. Palin's allegation that Obamacare would result in creation of government "death panels" has been widely criticized within her own party. Republican strategist Whit Ayres, who is no fan of the Democratic health care plan, noted: "Wildly inappropriate comments hurt the argument that the comments are supposed to support." As early as last October, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks called Palin "a fatal cancer on the Republican Party," and George F. Will, a voice of the Republican establishment, dismissed the former Alaska governor as "an inveterate simplifier." On July 28, Glenn Beck asserted on Fox News that Obama has "a deep hatred for the white people or the white culture...This guy, I believe, is a racist." And Rush Limbaugh -- not one to moderate his rhetoric - spent part of his August 6 broadcast discussing "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany." Alex Castellanos, strategist and media consultant to George W. Bush's presidential campaigns and to Mitt Romney, said, "We have a case to make and sometimes I think we draw more attention to the battle than to the message." Despite this intra-party struggle, there is one area of common ground: Both the strategic and ideological factions are convinced that the outspoken public opposition to the Obama health care plan voiced at House and Senate town halls during the August recess has been highly advantageous to the GOP. Conservative radio and television hosts have fanned the flames of protest but professional Republican operatives -- some of whom initially voiced concerns that the expressions of intense anger might backfire - are now on board. The town hall forums on health care "have been a huge benefit," said Castellanos. "This has gone far beyond the base of Republican activists." Charlie Black, in turn, argued that "people who don't normally get involved are looking at the news stories and getting involved" in the health care debate. Ayres warned "incivility almost never helps," but added, "energy and passion go a long way toward furthering an argument. The town halls really raised serious doubts about the health care plan, and intensity matters in politics." * * * The split between Republican ideologues and strategists has deep roots. Many GOP operatives, consultants, and tacticians believe the party will be relegated to enduring minority status unless elected officials aggressively tone down and reach out: Tone down the hard-edged stands on such issues as gay marriage and abortion to avoid alienating socially liberal young voters; And reach out to minorities, specifically to Hispanics, once immigration returns to the front burner. Party professionals, in stark contrast to movement conservatives, argue for the necessity of a version of immigration reform which makes possible -- at least for some -- a "path" to citizenship. "How about we actually look at ourselves as an ordinary, non-political business, selling a commercial product?" asks Republican consultant Bill Greener, founder of Greener & Hook. Citing the strength of Democrats among growing minority groups -- and the continuing Republican dependence on white support when the share of the electorate that is white is declining -- Greener poses the question, "Who would ever start down a path that essentially said that we will be strong in all the declining markets while we let our only significant competition be strong among the emerging and growing markets? Unless North Dakota suddenly gets 54 electoral votes, would someone please show me another way for Republicans to realistically conclude we can compete at the national level?" On the "movement" side, social and fiscal conservatives are convinced that Democratic successes in 2006 and 2008 were aberrant -- caused by Republican wavering on core principals and the party's deviation from a hard line. In their view, the only change that is needed is the restoration of backbone. Democrats, they believe, will run aground on the shoals of reckless spending and failed "social engineering" -- giving the GOP renewed legitimacy. This struggle has played out in the past in primary challenges to moderate Republicans from candidates aligned with the conservative Club for Growth. The current Republican conflict will be on center stage in the 2010 Texas Republican gubernatorial primary. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a centrist Republican, has announced that she will take on incumbent governor Rick Perry, a movement conservative. "I do not want a governor who is going to narrow our base, make it dwindle," Hutchison told Texas voters. "I will work to build the Republican Party, not make it narrower." Perry, who has strong support from the far right of the party, countered: "it's a fight between a real, proven conservative and one who is not so conservative." The power of movement conservatives has created major political problems in the home districts of Republican moderates. In 2005, then-Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, complained bitterly that the "Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." Although the strategic wing of the party is currently challenging the hard right, those challenges still remain well within the bounds of Republican orthodoxy. One of the most outspoken GOP strategists is Tom Doherty, a partner with John McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt in the firm Mercury Public Affairs. Doherty notes that some in the party are convinced that appealing to blacks, Hispanics and gays "somehow means you are giving up our party principles." Conservative author and public relations guru Craig Shirley offers a more elaborate variation: "This period of 2009 reminds me greatly of 1977-78. The GOP was feckless, moribund and still attempting to shed Nixonism, as it now is attempting to shed itself of Bushism. A vacuum developed then as now; the conservative movement led to fill it just as it is now. Then, the conservatives led on opposition to the Panama Canal Treaties, SALT II, ERA, high taxes, the Departments of Energy and Education, etc. Jimmy Carter tried to do too much, as Obama now is." For elected Republicans, the split between the ideologues and the tacticians/strategists poses a major dilemma. In private conversation, many side with the strategists, but are unwilling to publicly offend the core of their party -- the primary voters, the donors, the talkers, and the workhorses -- by publicly arguing that, health care aside, the growth of the Hispanic electorate, the strong tilt of young voters toward the Democratic Party, and the rise of a socially liberal, professional "new" class require change in both substantive policy and rhetoric. The dangers facing elected Republicans who share the views of the strategists are reflected in the firestorm that hit Georgia Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey when he had the temerity to confront Limbaugh: "It's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party. You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of thing," Gingrey said. On April 30, Republican House Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), top House and Senate leaders, and potential presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal formed the National Council for a New America (NCNA) designed to be "the foundation of a concerted, policy-based forum to listen to, partner with, and empower the American people with ideas and solutions that speak directly to the needs of our great nation." Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
A point upon which she has been proven, in light of further analysis, essentially correct. Obamacare® would use a calculus based on Rahm Emmanuel's brother's "Life Curve". Slaves in their productive prime would be given more than those who are judged unworthy. Essentially care would be rationed and denied to the very young and very old. "A rose by any other name still smells the same." The reality is that when the Republican's have run on true conservative/libertarian platforms and issues they have won and in '92 they won BIG despite the eventual betrayal by Gingrich and the Republican leadership which then frittered away the advantage by selling out. Of course the controlled media played a big role in that by distorting the issues and misrepresenting them. Bush was a pawn of the Rockefeller/Globalist/Bankster wing of the party which is represented by the so called, from the liberal point of view, "reasonable" Republicans (they lose elections so they are "reasonable"). As for that all purpose whipping boy and Judas Goat "With Talent on Loan from Drugs", the Mahajunkie, a.k.a. "Pills" Limbaugh he is no more representative of true conservative thought than was Ted Kennedy. Limbuggerer is a paid whore who dances to the tune his master dictate and is paid off with a salary that is likely in excess of the advertising revenue generated by his show. So, why would he be paid more than the revenue generated by his program - he delivers his segment of the Rockefeller Wing of the party while blathering on about how conservative NeoConservatism is while doubletalking his way around the reality that he is pushing Neoconservativism (Trotskyism in a Gray Flannel Suit). Strategists regardless of which party you are talking about are paid milquetoasts who have about as much conviction as a whore for her latest "john". They are professional wafflers who have no solid principles that are not negotiable and are ultimately rudderless therefrom.
What a fucking mess !! Anyone else ready to shoot their way out yet ? Get ready...there is a solution on the horizon and nobody is going to like it. Kind of like ipecac; no one likes it, but it works and works and works. Tree of Liberty tagline bump
#7. To: Rotara (#5)
Yes, it is near time to nourish it.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|