Right Thinking From The Left Coast
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it - Henry David Thoreau

Republican Party Suicide Watch

At the risk of sounding like I’m quibbling (sorry, Jim) the meltdown of the GOP is continuing apace.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.’s appearance at a Michigan county Republican Party event was scrapped this week after the county chairwoman said that hosting the moderate Utah governor would mean abandoning the party’s conservative principles.

Kent County Republican Party Chairwoman Joanne Voorhees abruptly canceled the party fundraiser scheduled for Saturday.

“The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots. Unfortunately, by holding an event with Governor Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite,” Voorhees wrote in an e-mail quoted in The Grand Rapids Press.

Voorhees did not specify which issues she felt were contrary to the party’s principles and did not return messages left at the party headquarters and on her cell phone.

The group Campaign for Michigan Families praised the cancellation, attributing it to Huntsman’s support of civil unions, and urged the Oakland and Kalamazoo county parties, where Huntsman is also scheduled to speak this weekend, to do the same.

It should be noted that Huntsman has an 80% plus approval rating in his home state, which is not exactly a bastion of liberalism (outside of perhaps Salt Lake City). He’s the kind of Republican who could represent the Party’s future, if it still has one. But he is not opposed to civil unions, so of course he’s out. As Larison notes about another “Pure” Republican:

It is rare to find people who seem genuinely unaware that Cheney is deeply unpopular and also implicated in atrocious crimes, and rarer still to find people who know this and still think it wise to have him making the rounds on television serving as a leading Republican spokesman. Some might say that Huston is simply a pitiable product of the conservative cocoon, but I say that he can offer us evidence for the strange mutant varieties of conservatism that have developed in isolation from reality.

It’s this strange definition of winning which is driving the Republican party further and further from the mainstream-like those Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender after WW2, they cling to the belief that because they held out on “Principal” that somehow they’re morally victorious even though their ranks are dropping like flies with each passing day. As such, satire is now becoming reality:

Now that Specter’s gone, we can turn to the real enemy – Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe! Then the only thing between us and victory will be Graham, Lugar, McCain, Murkowski, Grassley, Hatch, and some of the RINOs in the House. And the Governors, like Crist and Douglas and Lingle and anyone not named Palin or Jindal. And the Supreme Court Justices like the radical Kennedy. But time is on our side. If we get small enough, voters will finally see true conservatism, and then we’ll have to win.

Yeah, they’re “Winning,” all right. And the rest of us who used to consider ourselves Republicans can only shake our heads and watch the spectacle of a massive train wreck in action.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 04/29/09 at 03:33 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Aaron - Free Will on 04/29/09 at 05:30 PM from United States

“The voters want and expect us to stand on principle and return to our roots. Unfortunately, by holding an event with Governor Huntsman, we would be doing the exact opposite,” Voorhees wrote in an e-mail quoted in The Grand Rapids Press.

Voorhees seems hopelessly confused about which principles voters are worried about.

Posted by on 04/29/09 at 05:54 PM from United States

Not always time to poll the electorate when he’s out killing camp counselors, he’s a busy zombie.

Posted by on 04/29/09 at 07:13 PM from Germany

Here’s the thing about gay marriage, or “civil unions” (aka “marriage") - it’s really a dead issue.  And by “dead” I mean when the current generation of old folks dies off, so does the majority opposition to homosexuals getting married.

As most anyone under 50 can tell you, only fundietards and their parents gives a shit about what two consenting adults do with each other.  True, I can’t think of a single straight person on the planet that wants to watch, but we are adult enough to realize that it isn’t any of our business. 

Also, considering the past 40 years of casting off Puritan ethics as largely ignored laws that were defied by about everyone when nobody was looking, most people see the essential unfairness of denying people rights that everyone else enjoys based solely on being part of a biological minority.  Would you deny a lefty the right to get married?  This is essentially what it boils down to once you strip away the fundietard religious objections.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/29/09 at 09:09 PM from United States

The quote going around that they’d rather have 30 real conservative than 60 fake ones is the best examplar of what’s wrong with the GOP.  What are 30 real conservative going to do but get steam-rolled?

All politics is built on compromise.  Reagan was able to get a conservative agenda through a Democratic Congress and Clinton was able to work with a Republican Congress.  Compromise does not mean selling out; it means finding ways to get what you want.

Posted by on 04/29/09 at 09:26 PM from United States

The quote going around that they’d rather have 30 real conservative than 60 fake ones is the best examplar of what’s wrong with the GOP.  What are 30 real conservative going to do but get steam-rolled?

Well then Hal, I guess the GOP is as confused as the people who supported and then became disillusioned by them. On the one hand, we say they need to be fiscally conservative and oh boy did we bitch when they were spending like democrats, on the other we say they need to let in the very same people that weren’t fiscally conservative for the sake of compromise. Perhaps before the GOP makes up its mind on whether they should be big spenders or free market supporters or libertarians or socialists, the people who complain about their failure (particularly the ones who say they used to support them) should figure what exactly it is they have a problem with, because not too long ago it was because they were acting like democrats on the economic side of things. Now was that good or bad? Perhaps you can give an answer to that because the other guy won’t. I’m not going to bring up the social side because I believe the quote you are referencing was referring to economic views, and I honestly don’t know what the problem is with that quote. 

They can compromise with the other parties, that’s fine. Their ultimate goal should be to eventually restore the free market they claimed they stood for, and for that to happen, they need players on the team that actually believe in that. Period.

Posted by on 04/29/09 at 09:29 PM from Germany

True, I can’t think of a single straight person on the planet that wants to watch

Gianna Michaels/Carmella Bing videos notwithstanding.

Posted by josparke on 04/29/09 at 10:17 PM from United States

Their ultimate goal should be to eventually restore the free market they claimed they stood for, and for that to happen, they need players on the team that actually believe in that. Period.

Agreed… Sorry… Specter jumping on the Trillion buck bandwagon… Well… Screw him!

Posted by on 04/29/09 at 10:35 PM from Germany

Gianna Michaels/Carmella Bing videos notwithstanding.

Dude, have you ever seen real lesbians?  Fucking ugly as all hell 99% of the time.  The last thing I want to watch is a pair of 200 pound butches going at each other....

Fake lesbians in porn flicks, is something else....

Posted by syddelish on 04/30/09 at 12:19 AM from United States

Dude, have you ever seen real lesbians?  Fucking ugly as all hell 99% of the time.

Actually, one of my best friends is a lesbian. She’s been “out” for about 25 years. Stands about 5’ 2” and maybe 130 lbs. Now, I won’t claim she is beautiful, but she is definitely cute in a “tomboy” sorta way.

And I can tell you this, my wife is most appreciative of the fact that my friend and I got drunk together a few times after we both had bad breakups and she taught me a few things that women really, REALLY, like. A man could do much worse than having a lesbian show him how to work things “down there”. I joke with all my friends that I am “Lesbian Certified” and, as I said, my wife is happy that I am.

That being said, my friend’s ex of 20 years is a raging, flannel wearing, roll-her-own-tampon bulldyke. Outweighs my fatass by 50 lbs. and would scare even Cthulhu.

Back to the point, though. Yeah, once most of the baby boomers are dead, most people won’t give a shit about gay marriage. Sadly, I fear that those that do will become more vocal and somehow drag this non-issue out decades longer than it needs to.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/30/09 at 09:20 AM from United States

section, you’re missing the point (or I’m not making it well).  The point is that you can have 60 Republicans, half of which aren’t very conservative and half of which are mindless opportunists and still get spending restraint and a conservative agenda through.  Reagan did it with a Democratic Congress.  Clinton controlled spending with a Congress that later spent like crazy.

Had Bush vetoed a budget, had the House and Senate leadership shown *any* interest, any interest whatsoever in controlling spending, things would have been very different.  The GOP is occasionally showing signs of life (or death throes).  They peeled off 17 House Democrats against Obama’s budget.  But they need to do a lot more.

Which situation is better.  30 fiscal conservatives and 70 fiscal liberals?  Or 30 fiscal conservatives, 30 moderates and 30 liberals?  You can control spending in the latter situation—as we saw in the 90’s.  You can’t in the first.

Posted by on 04/30/09 at 09:46 AM from United States

I think the problem is that you’re just naturally assuming that if the Republicans weren’t “driving people away” that it would be 30 fiscal conservatives, 30 moderates, and 30 liberals, when it could just as easily wind up being 30 fiscal conservatives, ten moderates, and 60 liberals (some of whom have an R beside their names).

Besides, in your examples, aren’t you talking about how the Presidents controlled a congress that otherwise would have spent like crazy? So why is it the President’s job to corral the House and Senate to control senate in those instances, but suddenly the House and Senate Republicans’ job to please everybody enough to control spending now?

I mean, I agree that the Republican party hasn’t done enough to bring in moderates on many issues, and that’s going to hurt it in the long run, but the way you’re framing it and the particular instance you’re drawing lines on comes off more like Obama’s appeals for bipartisanship, which equate to “Sit down, shut up, and let me do what I want”.

Posted by on 04/30/09 at 09:47 AM from United States

to control spending, rather.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/30/09 at 10:12 AM from United States

Spending in the 90’s was mostly controlled, IMHO, by Gingrich and the house leadership.  CLinton helped, but the GOP did a lot.

That’s harder to do as a minority.  But even as a minority, the GOP derailed Clinton’s health care reform and stimulus program.

Posted by on 04/30/09 at 08:26 PM from United States

Which situation is better.  30 fiscal conservatives and 70 fiscal liberals?  Or 30 fiscal conservatives, 30 moderates and 30 liberals?  You can control spending in the latter situation—as we saw in the 90’s.  You can’t in the first.

I somewhat understand your point Hal, but for me I’m more for the 30 fiscal conservatives to start out and then get more on board when the rest on the sidelines start to believe they are actually serious. Now if it comes out that they say they want fiscal conservatives but behind the scenes they are still pulling the Christian Democrat game well the f’em, that’s a whole other story. For now, if they are serious, maybe they do start off small, but over time they’ll regain what they lost. That is if they stay focused, and start to keep the social side in check. They are a broken party, so it will take time, but considering there are no elections in the near future, time is on their side. I think their quotes of late about getting back to their roots and fighting for the free market is an indication they finally figured out that the fiscal conservative side actually has some importance. Although at the end of the day if the LP rose up as a serious contender, I’d drop the remaining 5% interest I have in the GOP in an instant.

Next entry: Furnurs

Previous entry: So don't $*#@%ing do it!

<< Back to main