RIP, GOP

[Econoline]

I’m writing to you today to announce the death of the Republican Party. It is no longer a living, vital, animate organization.

It died in 2016. RIP.

It has been replaced by 6 warring tribes:

Evangelicals opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and science.

Libertarians opposed to any government constraint on private behavior.

Market fundamentalists convinced the “free market” can do no wrong.

Corporate and Wall Street titans seeking bailouts, subsidies, special tax loopholes, and other forms of crony capitalism.

Billionaires craving even more of the nation’s wealth than they already own.

And white working-class Trumpoids who love Donald. and are becoming convinced the greatest threats to their wellbeing are Muslims, blacks, and Mexicans.

Each of these tribes has its own separate political organization, its own distinct sources of campaign funding, its own unique ideology – and its own candidate.

What’s left is a lifeless shell called the Republican Party. But the Grand Old Party inside the shell is no more.

I, for one, regret its passing. Our nation needs political parties to connect up different groups of Americans, sift through prospective candidates, deliberate over priorities, identify common principles, and forge a platform.

The Republican Party used to do these things. Sometimes it did them easily, as when it came together behind William McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt in 1900, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, and Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Sometimes it did them with difficulty, as when it strained to choose Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

But there was always enough of a Republican Party to do these important tasks – to span the divides, give force and expression to a set of core beliefs, and come up with a candidate around whom Party regulars could enthusiastically rally.

No longer. And that’s a huge problem for the rest of us.

Without a Republican Party, nothing stands between us and a veritable Star Wars barroom of self-proclaimed wanna-be’s.

Without a Party, anyone runs who’s able to raise (or already possesses) the requisite money – even if he happens to be a pathological narcissist who has never before held public office, even if he’s a knave detested by all his Republican colleagues.

Without a Republican Party, it’s just us and them. And one of them could even become the next President of the United States.

-- Robert Reich

[Long Run]

There is a fair criticism in there, but the report of the demise of the GOP is premature . . . it controls the House and Senate, and has 31 of 50 state governors. This may be a "you can't make this up" election season, but it hardly is the story.

[Econoline]

Oh, I dunno...I think one could make the case that all those senators, representatives, and governors are not, individually, members of something which (was once) called "The Grand Old Party" but rather only members of one or another of those "6 warring tribes...

[kmccune]

My Uncle hates the Democrats ,why ? Because he said Jimmy Carter gave the Panama Canal away .
I will say this if the Republicans keep their infighting up ,our next POTUS will a woman .

[Lord Jim]

Oh good night nurse...

The liberal pundits have been "hopefully" writing the obituary for the Grand Old Party for more than 50 years...

They first confidently started hanging crepe for the GOP after the Goldwater Debacle in '64...

Four years later we won back the Presidency, and four years after that our incumbent President won 49 states and 61% of the popular vote...

Then came Watergate, and in '74 we were supposed to be dead again...

Then after losing the next Presidential election by a whisker, we went on to win the next three in a row by landslides, with our standard bearer winning 400 plus electoral votes...

Then after '92 we were again supposed to be finished...

And then in '94 we recaptured control of The House for the first time since 1948...

And today, (as Long Run pointed out) we hold 31 governorships...

As well as a 54-46 majority in the Senate, and the largest Republican majority in The House since the 1920s...

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The reports of the death of the Republican Party have been greatly exaggerated"...

So, what can we learn from this?

Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to save the GOP from oblivion....

[Bicycle Bill]

And today, (as Long Run pointed out) we hold 31 governorships...

As well as a 54-46 majority in the Senate, and the largest Republican majority in The House since the 1920s...

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The reports of the death of the Republican Party have been greatly exaggerated"...

So, what can we learn from this?

Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to save the GOP from oblivion....

I think the number of governorships, as well as the disparity in the Senate and the House, reflects more on the truism that

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.  Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” ...... H.L. Mencken, Chicago Daily Tribune, 9/19/1926

The average voter may not be particularly intelligent but they are completely predictable; and if you tell them what they want to hear, like "I'll kick all the illegals back to Mexico" or "I'll keep the terrorists out of this country" or even empty but great-sounding platitudes like "We'll make America great again!" — even though your party has been telling them this for years now, and still nothing has changed significantly — you can bamboozle them for the length of time it will take them to get to the ballot box and vote for you yet again.

-"BB"-

[dales]

The average voter may not be particularly intelligent but they are completely predictable; and if you tell them what they want to hear, like "I'll kick all the illegals back to Mexico" or "I'll keep the terrorists out of this country" or even empty but great-sounding platitudes like "We'll make America great again!" — even though your party has been telling them this for years now, and still nothing has changed significantly — you can bamboozle them for the length of time it will take them to get to the ballot box and vote for you yet again.

As the saying goes: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh-t"

[Econoline]

Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to save the GOP from oblivion....

Hey, it's what we do best... (You're welcome.)

But this time you guys are making it really hard to come through.



Seriously, I have no doubt that ten or twenty years from now there will still be some miscellaneous factions who call themselves "Republicans"...but unless these motley crews manage to come together and find some sort of unifying ideology, calling them a "political party" will be nothing but wishful thinking.

And no, "Whatever the Democrats are FER, we're AGIN' it" doesn't qualify as an ideology.

[wesw]

BB..., the voters are completely predictable?????

what?

have you heard about trump and sanders???

who predicted this????

even I didn t see the appeal of sanders at first, and I m prescient!

[TPFKA@W]

[wesw]

exactamundo.

[Econoline]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Conspiracy theorists believe that the Republican Party did not die from natural causes but was instead the target of an elaborately planned killing, a leading conspiracy theorist has confirmed.

Harland Dorrinson, whose basement walls are covered with photos of suspects in the killing of the G.O.P., has spent countless hours connecting those photos with different colors of yarn in the hopes that a larger pattern would emerge.

“Because the Republican Party is one hundred and sixty-one years old, it’s assumed that it was time for it to die,” he said. “The truth is, that’s exactly what the people who killed it want us to think.”

While some conspiracy theorists have focussed on the billionaire Donald J. Trump as the most likely suspect in the death of the Republican Party, Dorrinson favors a “two-killer” theory that involves Arizona Senator John McCain and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

“McCain tapped Palin to be his running mate, and that led directly to people like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump being considered credible candidates,” he said. “There is no logical reason why McCain would have chosen Palin unless he wanted to kill the Republican Party.”

In addition to the McCain-Palin cabal, Dorrinson is considering a host of other suspects, including the industrialists David and Charles Koch, the Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, and the novelist Ayn Rand.

“The only suspect I have definitively ruled out is Mitch McConnell,” he said. “No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t imagine a scenario where he accomplished something.”

[wesw]

the GOP is being destroyed, ripped in two.

it is a necessary part of being reborn as a better, brighter thing.

the GOP is dead!!!

long live the GOP!!!!

...and what does that say about the DEMS ?

a half dead party in a state of confusion is whupping your butt, turnout wise.....

[Burning Petard]

Ah Yes, Lord Jim, the glory days of Saint Ronnie. "They first confidently started hanging crepe for the GOP after the Goldwater Debacle in '64...

Four years later we won back the Presidency, and four years after that our incumbent President won 49 states and 61% of the popular vote..."

Dear conservative Ronnie, the man who never said 'read my lips' who is fondly remembered for his oh, so very orthodox conservatism blather and who also
supported the biggest amnesty bill in history for illegal immigrants, advocated for gun control [who do you think signed the Brady Bill], negotiated with the Islamist state of Iran and drug cartels of South America, pushed for tax hikes in 6 of his 8 years in office? Who remembers he was called the teflon president?

Me, yes I am a Democrat, after the likes of Will Rogers, who said "I am not a member of any organized political party, I am a Democrat."

Snailgate

[Lord Jim]

Dear conservative Ronnie, the man who never said 'read my lips' who is fondly remembered for his oh, so very orthodox conservatism blather

No, actually snail, he is best remembered for winning the Cold War...

That, and restoring the economy that tanked under his incompetent predecessor...

[Big RR]

he is best remembered for winning the Cold War...

just as the rooster is remembered for causing the sun to rise.

[Long Run]

he is best remembered for winning the Cold War...

just as the rooster is remembered for causing the sun to rise.

Just as feckless American and NATO policy had nothing to do with Putin rebuilding the Soviet empire.

[Sue U]

he is best remembered for winning the Cold War...

just as the rooster is remembered for causing the sun to rise.

Just as feckless American and NATO policy had nothing to do with Putin rebuilding the Soviet empire.

Ahem ....

16 June 2001:

The first handshake looked stiff and awkward, but after well over an hour of talks they came out smiling with Mr Bush inviting the Russian leader to visit his ranch in Texas.

Mr Bush described their meeting as straightforward and effective.

He said it was time to move beyond Cold War attitudes, away from mutually assured destruction towards mutually earned respect.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1392791.stm

After 9/11, Bush's embrace of Putin as an ally in the "war on terror" gave Putin exactly the latitude he needed:

[O]n Sept. 20, 2001, President George W. Bush announced for the first time that in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the U.S. was starting a "war on terror," and he asked every nation to help. Four days later, against the advice of many of his generals, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed, creating a bond unlike any the U.S. and Russia had built since World War II. But as with many of the unlikely relationships the U.S. formed after 9/11, the reasoning behind this one was not just solidarity or common cause. Countries around the world realized the practical appeal of a war on terrorism. Over the past ten years, it has become a seemingly permanent call to arms, a kind of incantation used to dodge questions, build alliances and justify the use of force. No one, not even Bush, grasped this as quickly as Putin.

Even before Putin became Russia's President in early 2000, and long before the Twin Towers fell, he had invoked the idea of a war against global terrorism to justify Russia's war in Chechnya. The terrorism aspect, at least, was true. Chechen separatists, who renewed their centuries-old struggle for independence soon after the Soviet Union fell, had resorted to terrorism as early as 1995, when they seized a hospital in the Russian town of Budyonnovsk and held more than 1,500 people hostage. Then in 1999, a series of apartment bombings, also blamed on the Chechens, killed hundreds of people in Moscow and other Russian cities. Putin responded by launching Russia's second full-scale invasion of Chechnya in less than a decade. "He received carte blanche from the citizens of Russia," says Mikhail Kasyanov, who was Russia's Finance Minister at the time. "They simply closed their eyes and let him do whatever he wanted as long as he saved them from this threat."

There was scant evidence, however, that the Chechen rebels were part of some global Islamist terrorist network, as Putin and his government repeatedly claimed. ... "Still, all official statements said that we are fighting a war against international terror," says Andrei Illarionov, who served as Putin's senior economic adviser between 2000 and '05. "Of course, nobody outside Russia bought it." In the West, Putin's war in Chechnya thus enjoyed little sympathy. The Chechen conflict was seen as part of a rebellion that Moscow was trying to crush, and the atrocities allegedly committed by both sides earned widespread condemnation.

***

But when Bush announced his own war on terrorism, all this rhetoric quickly evaporated. Putin, who had been the first to call Bush with his sympathy after learning of the 9/11 attacks, graciously offered to help with the invasion of Afghanistan. He let the U.S. ship supplies through Russian territory and did not object to the U.S. setting up bases in Central Asia, where the local despots quickly caught on to the opportunity. Uzbek President Islam Karimov, for instance, allowed the U.S. to build a permanent base, perhaps hoping that his new alliance with the war on terrorism would help reduce U.S. scrutiny of alleged human-rights abuses in Uzbekistan. "It all flowed naturally into the picture of a global war on terror," says Kasyanov, who by that time had been promoted to serve as Putin's Prime Minister. "There was no more criticism ... It just ceased to be a thorny issue."

By the summer of 2000, Russia had defeated the Chechen separatists and installed a puppet government led by the Kadyrov family, a Chechen clan loyal to the Kremlin. But claims of wholesale violations of human rights, including torture and extrajudicial killings, continued to surface as the Kadyrovs consolidated power in Chechnya. The need to remind the world that Russia was still fighting the war on terrorism remained, and Putin began to claim ever stronger links between Chechen rebels and the global jihad.

"Exaggeration of these links was one of the goals," Kasyanov recalls. During and after the 2004 terrorists siege of a school in the town of Beslan, where hundreds of hostages died, the Russian government claimed firm links between the Chechen terrorists and Islamist networks such as al-Qaeda. Soon after the siege, Putin said that nine of the hostage-takers were from the "Arab world," a claim that was never substantiated. Asked why he had decided to storm the building instead of trying to resolve the crisis through negotiations, Putin fumed: "I don't tell you to meet Osama bin Laden and invite him to Brussels or the White House for talks."

***

Yet the idea of a global war on terrorism remains one of Putin's key political narratives. It is trotted out to this day after every terrorist attack in the Russian heartland and during most discussions with Western leaders, who see it as a firm bond in their alliances with Moscow. Since Bush left office, President Barack Obama has let the term fade from White House rhetoric, usually preferring to name a specific enemy of the U.S. But the use of the phrase has spread far and wide. . . . But 10 years on, Bush's idea of a global war on terrorism is still more often used for propaganda than to prevent more attacks like 9/11. . . .

[Gob]

Mr Bush described their meeting as straightforward and effective.

He said it was time to move beyond Cold War attitudes, away from mutually assured destruction towards mutually earned respect.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"I have returned from Germany with peace for our time."

[Econoline]