GOP, RIP?

[babylonsister]

http://www.slate.com/id/2201245/

GOP, RIP?
Nearly three decades of Republican dominance may be coming to an end.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2008, at 6:45 PM ET


The Republican-led defeat of President Bush's Wall Street bailout plan caused an immediate financial catastrophe: The stock market fell an unprecedented 777.68 points, wiping out, by one estimate, $1.2 trillion in wealth. But the greater and more lasting damage may be to the Republican Party itself.

Percentagewise, the Sept. 29 crash was one-third the size of Black Monday, the stock-market crash of Oct. 19, 1987. As I write, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen more than halfway back up (though stock prices remain volatile). It's still possible to believe that the economy will return to normal in a year or two. For Republicans, though, the events of Sept. 29 could well be remembered as the start of a decadeslong exile from power—much as Democrats remember Nov. 4, 1980.

That's not to say that John McCain is certain to lose this year's election to Barack Obama. As I've noted before, this race has experienced so many abrupt reversals that we're all starting to suffer from "game-changer" fatigue. At the moment, though, things seem to be going the Democrats' way, with Obama up five or six points in national polls and swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Missouri trending toward him. Meanwhile, the GOP has virtually no hope of retaking Congress; indeed, it's projected to lose seats in both the House and the Senate. Even if McCain wins, his past record of unpredictability combined with the likely imperative of working with a Democratic Congress suggest he'll spend much of his time fighting with members of his own party. That would seem especially likely given the current banking crisis, which has forced the Bush administration, the House and Senate leadership of both parties, and McCain himself to practice lemon socialism.

The central con of the political coalition assembled by Ronald Reagan and maintained by his successors was that government was a common enemy. Middle-class social conservatives loathed the government for legalizing abortion, forbidding prayer in schools, and coddling minorities through welfare and affirmative action. Upper-class libertarian conservatives loathed the government for soaking the rich through the income tax and weakening businesses through burdensome regulation. The only useful function of the federal government was to provide for the common defense. This was a con for two reasons. First, the middle and upper classes were both dependent on the federal government for a variety of benefits, including Social Security, trade protection, scientific research, and assorted localized spending (termed "pork barrel" by those who don't receive it and "economic development" by those who do). Second, the distribution of this government largesse greatly favored the rich. In the April 1992 Atlantic, Neil Howe and Philip Longman, citing unpublished data from the Congressional Budget Office, reported that U.S. households with incomes above $100,000 received, on average, slightly more in federal cash and in-kind benefits ($5,690) than households with incomes below $10,000 ($5,560). This was four years before the Clinton administration eliminated Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the principal income-support program for the poor. When tax breaks were added to the tally, households with incomes above $100,000 received considerably more ($9,280) than households with incomes below $10,000 ($5,690). Clinton subsequently expanded tax subsidies to the poor through the Earned Income Tax Credit, but not enough to undo this disparity. "{I}f the federal government wanted to flatten the nation's income distribution," Howe and Longman concluded, "it would do better to mail all its checks to random addresses."

snip//

This is not, I'll confess, the first time I've believed that the Republican ascendancy has ended. In 1994, I felt sure that the warmed-over Reaganite nostrums of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" spelled defeat in the midterm elections. Instead, the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. I also thought the GOP was cracking up in 2000, when, desperate to find fault with every last aspect of the Clinton administration, it started bad-mouthing prosperity. I got that wrong, too. So maybe the GOP isn't really dead.

It sure looks dead, though.

[jedr]

1. Have read many of your posts, and I have always enjoyed them;

However; you ( your source) have forgotten the "gullible vote". You know, the ones that all have to say is that it's the "Libural's fault" and they go baaaa. I was through the Pa. "T" zone today. The ones who have all lost their jobs and blame some poor lady in Philly for buying cigarettes on food stamps. Anyway the Mc Cain family signs were out every 100 yds. Apparently there is nothing that can happen to change their minds!:shrug:

[babylonsister]

2. That is indeed discouraging to hear.

I'm having that conversation with my stepson, who claims he could never vote for Obama. Here's a man who is close to wheelchair-bound, yet he will vote against his best interests (stem cell research). I don't get it either.

[jedr]

3. Rodger all that;

:banghead:

[chknltl]

7. Regarding your sig line and your stepson.

"A nation that does not take care of its veterans has got no business whatsoever making new ones." Stacy Bannerman

The McCain record on voting FOR our troops and FOR our vets is utterly dismal. The vets and the troops know this. (for instance:
Deployed Troops Donate to Obama 6-1 Over McCain
By Jon Soltz
PUBLISHED: August 14, 2008
http://www.votevets.org/news/?id=0164 )

You know most of the talking points already. May I suggest asking those stubborn types like your stepson, if they actually DO support our troops, actually DO support our veterans? When the answer is YES as it invariably will be, bring up the McCain record with our troops and our vets! Point out their hypocrisy, (gently) then ask what is more important: your hypocrisy or our troops and our vets. Ask them why they have so little respect for our troops and our vets!

I must add that my own step-kid is a flaming freeper and this tactic did little to sway him, (he refuses to talk politics at all because I beat up on him too much in our discussions). He had no rebuttal to my point, the best he could come back with was, "Yeah but what would Obama do instead?" My answer was that, unlike McCain's record, there are no examples in Obama's record that showed him voting directly against the troops or our vets.

This particular hypocrisy of McCain's, was driven home to me during the debates when McCain said: "I know the veterans and I know them well and I know that they know that I'll take care of them well and I've been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans and I love them...." I and likely hundreds of thousands of vets and servicemen across our nation were outraged when he said that!

IMO, many of these stubborn types who say they refuse to vote for Obama can be at least be swayed to say the same thing about McCain as well. I'd rather they sat home-voted for nobody as opposed to going out and voting for McCain.

[babylonsister]

10. Hi, chknltl, and thanks for the advice.

My problem is he lives in a different state so we talk very rarely; I e-mailed him with my questions, and he hasn't responded yet.
My fear is that he's being guided by someone he met recently. He and his wife found a church that now holds a lot of sway over them both. He sends us DVDs about Christ regularly, which annoys my husband no end. But anyway, it does make me wonder.
I still hope he lets me know how he arrived at that decision about Obama. I would never have taken him for a racist, but you never know. Hell, maybe he listens to Rush or Faux; that would do it, too.

[chknltl]

11. Howdie back babylonsister, My step kid ALSO lives far away....

He is going to college in California, I live south of Seattle in Washington. I love him dearly but....he lives with his mother, a wealthy republican advocate. He is one who drinks kool-aid easily, sadly not my kool-aid. He believes firmly that Al Gore is a hypocrite and that global warming is a myth. (He is a bit fuzzy on who is perpetrating that myth and why). He will be voting for McCain as will his mother, neither it appears could truly care about the vets or our troops. As long as republican policies continue to add to their coffers, they could care less about ANYBODY else...well except for me. I suppose I should be thankful that neither he nor his mother are fundie Christians. Truth be told, I am unaware of examples where those folks can be rehabilitated through facts or logic. It never stops us from trying though. I'll wish us both luck with our kids.

OTOH, I do believe that the deception by McCain regarding his relationship with our troops and our vets could and should be a deal breaker for many a fence sitter. It's not hurting anything by us hammering away with this on those who will listen. Speaking of hammering away, I'd like to thank you for tirelessly fighting the good fight here in the DU with your posts. You are one of a few who keep us up to date and enlightened on events both current and relevant.
c

[Enthusiast]

14. Agree, jedr...

The gullible vote is in the bag for Palin/McCain in Ohio. The Republican Party has thoroughly convinced these voters that the Democrats are entirely responsible for our economic trouble. Lou Dobbs even claims it is nearly completely Acorn's fault. The media is helping move some voters to the Republican point of view.

The advertisement we watched here in Ohio today was just plain disgusting. The add claimed Obama was not only for throwing away 700 billion at the economic crisis but he was also proposing an additional one trillion in new spending. I thought, you lying fucks! But these adds have an impact.

[jedr]

15. Please help me by continuing to call it "The Gullible Vote"

It's a necessary tag line that points out how foolish those who fall into that category tend to be. Perhaps the ridicule may help them to see the light.

[UK populist]

4. Cancer very rarely goes away forever

[martymar64]

5. I wont' be happy 'til every rethug is in a mass grave

They have no business even being on this earth any more.
They deserve to go the way of their Nazi mentors.

[sonias]

6. Hey I don't want them to rest in peace

I want them walking hell for eternity. :evilgrin:


Sonia

[unblock]

8. we thought the gop was finished after nixon. all we got was one stinkin' term.

republicans have historically been a minority party, and they're formidable as backseat drivers. in fact, they suck at actually being in charge and are far more useful as critics anyway.

they will return to their proper role as minority party and complain about anything that goes wrong and will redeem themselves in the public eye in 4 years or so.

we must always work hard to continue to EARN public support.

[FatDave]

9. Even if not immediately, they won't be along much longer.

There really aren't any young republicans any more. Here's today's numbers by age group from the Kos/Reserch 2000 daily poll.

        MCCAIN  OBAMA
18-29     30      65
30-44     41      48
45-59     44      50
60+       46      41

As those 60+'s die off, there will be fewer and fewer republicans.

Also consider, they own the radio, we own the internet. Radio was dead when they got it. We had the net before they knew what it was.

Faster is better of course, and we'll likely see a speedy demise. We just have to stop playing nice and finish them.

[tech3149]

13. Don't count out the old-timers

My parents are in their late 80's and have lived through the last Republican Depression. There are a lot of old farts out there who have seen this movie before. They might be a small percentage of the population, but they've got a lot of grand kids to think about. You can count on them to make sure that their progeny has a good world to live in.

[FatDave]

16. Oh, I know it.

My mother is among them. She grew up during the depression and hasn't voted for a republican since Eisenhower. I'm not saying that all old-timers are republican, just that all republicans are old-timers. And by all I don't even mean all, I mean a significant majority.

[Phred42]

12. You understand that these Sociopaths will take us ALL down with them

as they go? Right?