Republicans maneuvering to fill party leadership vacuum
BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney's shadow looms over a Republican Party in disarray.
The face of the GOP for much of the last year, the failed presidential candidate has been a virtual ghost since his defeat Nov. 6. He has quietly weathered the fallout of the campaign from the seclusion of his Southern California home, emerging only momentarily for a private lunch at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday.
His loss and immediate withdrawal from politics, while welcomed by most, has created a leadership vacuum within his party. It's left the GOP rudderless, lacking an overarching agenda and mired in infighting, with competing visions for the way ahead, during what may be the most important policy debate in a generation.
In his final meeting with campaign staffers at his Boston headquarters, Romney promised to remain "a strong voice for the party," according to those in attendance. But so far he has offered little to the Capitol Hill negotiations over potential tax increases and entitlement program changes that could affect virtually every American.
He declined to comment on the Treasury Department's recent refusal to declare China a currency manipulator, which was one of his signature issues over the past 18 months. He made no public remarks after his meeting with Obama, quickly fading away, again.
"If I had to tell you somebody who is the leader of the party right now, I couldn't," said Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, which is among the conservative factions vying for increased influence. "There's a void right now."
There's no shortage of Republicans maneuvering to fill it, from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to a number of high-profile politicians looking to boost their national profiles, if not position themselves for a 2016 presidential run. That group could include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, son and brother of presidents, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Republican officials acknowledge party tensions between the moderate and conservative wings, as well as the tea party and evangelical constituencies. But they dismiss the leadership vacuum as a standard political reality for the losing party in the presidential race. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, never had a strong relationship with the conservative base, given his more moderate past.
Party officials are optimistic that a team of younger and more diverse leaders, drawn from the ranks of governors and Congress, will emerge in the coming months to help strengthen and unify what is now a party grappling with its identity. That list includes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina.
The GOP was in disarray following its 2006 showing, searching for a new path and leader at a time when President George W. Bush was deeply unpopular.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, briefly assumed control of a party that he long had criticized, but it never really warmed to him. He lost to Obama, and shortly after that, the party turned to an African-American official, Michael Steele, to serve as its chief spokesman. But the decision was widely seen as a mistake, as Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, presided over major financial problems as head of the Republican National Committee.
All that created a leadership vacuum that helped give rise to the tea party movement in 2009 and sparked rounds of internal battles between party pragmatists and more extreme conservatives.
Republican strategist Phil Musser is among those suggesting that the current void presents a breakout opportunity for the party chairman, Reince Priebus. The 40-year-old Midwesterner largely played a supporting administrative role in his first two years on the job.
"To some degree it's a challenge in as much you don't have a standard bearer to rally behind that unifies central themes of the conservative movement," Musser said. "The bottom line is that a little bit of messiness and frank family discussion is not a terrible thing after an election like this."
But Democrats are emboldened, both by their Election Day successes and the subsequent Republican discord.
GOP factions are fighting over multiple issues: the "fiscal cliff," which will dominate the debate on Capitol Hill at least through the end of the year; blame for Romney's defeat; and how to appeal to a shifting and more diverse electorate and unify its message.
The party's most passionate voters are reluctant to abandon hard-line immigration policies that have dominated their thinking for years. But Washington-based strategists describe a dire need to win over more Hispanic voters and other minorities who overwhelmingly supported Obama in the swing states that decided the election.
At the same time, rank-and-file Republicans on Capitol Hill are struggling to coalesce behind a single message during fiscal cliff negotiations that have exposed a new rift with fiscal conservative guru Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge.
There's also evidence that the fight isn't over between the conservative and pragmatic wings of the party in Senate primaries.
Conservatives wasted little time signaling that they would work to defeat Shelley Moore Capito, a popular congresswoman from a storied West Virginia political family, as she seeks the nomination for the chance to challenge Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller in 2014. Within an hour of Capito's announcing her candidacy, the deep-pocketed conservative Club for Growth branded her as the "establishment candidate" whose record in Congress of supporting prominent bailouts has led to bigger government.
Democrats already are working to exploit the GOP divisions to strengthen their own political standing.
Obama has taken his party's message directly to voters. He visited a Pennsylvania toy manufacturer on Friday, calling for Republicans to embrace the immediate extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of wealthiest Americans.
Though Boehner has taken the lead in negotiations with the White House, Republicans generally did not have a standard-bearer to counter that message. Instead, they're relying on familiar Capitol Hill leaders to guide party doctrine during his debate.
"We don't have one person out there carrying that torch. You'll have (South Carolina Sen.) Lindsey Graham, Speaker Boehner, (Wisconsin Rep.) Paul Ryan, John McCain — same old, same old," said Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, a senior official on former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's unsuccessful presidential bid. "Void of a singular leader, we're going to have to rely on some of the younger more dynamic speakers to go out and make our argument."
No one, it seems, is talking about Romney assuming any sort of leadership role.
"I don't think that we need to be looking toward Mitt Romney to articulate our principles," said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.
It appears Romney may cooperate, choosing business over politics in defeat.
The former businessman is subletting office space at the Boston-area venture capital firm, Solamere Capital, which was founded by his oldest son. Former aides expect Romney to stay out of the spotlight for the foreseeable future — spending colder months at his California home and warmer months at his New Hampshire lake house.
"It might be better for him, better for the party, to start fresh," Gidley said.
The face of the GOP for much of the last year, the failed presidential candidate has been a virtual ghost since his defeat Nov. 6. He has quietly weathered the fallout of the campaign from the seclusion of his Southern California home, emerging only momentarily for a private lunch at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday.
His loss and immediate withdrawal from politics, while welcomed by most, has created a leadership vacuum within his party. It's left the GOP rudderless, lacking an overarching agenda and mired in infighting, with competing visions for the way ahead, during what may be the most important policy debate in a generation.
In his final meeting with campaign staffers at his Boston headquarters, Romney promised to remain "a strong voice for the party," according to those in attendance. But so far he has offered little to the Capitol Hill negotiations over potential tax increases and entitlement program changes that could affect virtually every American.
He declined to comment on the Treasury Department's recent refusal to declare China a currency manipulator, which was one of his signature issues over the past 18 months. He made no public remarks after his meeting with Obama, quickly fading away, again.
"If I had to tell you somebody who is the leader of the party right now, I couldn't," said Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, which is among the conservative factions vying for increased influence. "There's a void right now."
There's no shortage of Republicans maneuvering to fill it, from House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to a number of high-profile politicians looking to boost their national profiles, if not position themselves for a 2016 presidential run. That group could include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, son and brother of presidents, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Republican officials acknowledge party tensions between the moderate and conservative wings, as well as the tea party and evangelical constituencies. But they dismiss the leadership vacuum as a standard political reality for the losing party in the presidential race. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, never had a strong relationship with the conservative base, given his more moderate past.
Party officials are optimistic that a team of younger and more diverse leaders, drawn from the ranks of governors and Congress, will emerge in the coming months to help strengthen and unify what is now a party grappling with its identity. That list includes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina.
The GOP was in disarray following its 2006 showing, searching for a new path and leader at a time when President George W. Bush was deeply unpopular.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, briefly assumed control of a party that he long had criticized, but it never really warmed to him. He lost to Obama, and shortly after that, the party turned to an African-American official, Michael Steele, to serve as its chief spokesman. But the decision was widely seen as a mistake, as Steele, a former Maryland lieutenant governor, presided over major financial problems as head of the Republican National Committee.
All that created a leadership vacuum that helped give rise to the tea party movement in 2009 and sparked rounds of internal battles between party pragmatists and more extreme conservatives.
Republican strategist Phil Musser is among those suggesting that the current void presents a breakout opportunity for the party chairman, Reince Priebus. The 40-year-old Midwesterner largely played a supporting administrative role in his first two years on the job.
"To some degree it's a challenge in as much you don't have a standard bearer to rally behind that unifies central themes of the conservative movement," Musser said. "The bottom line is that a little bit of messiness and frank family discussion is not a terrible thing after an election like this."
But Democrats are emboldened, both by their Election Day successes and the subsequent Republican discord.
GOP factions are fighting over multiple issues: the "fiscal cliff," which will dominate the debate on Capitol Hill at least through the end of the year; blame for Romney's defeat; and how to appeal to a shifting and more diverse electorate and unify its message.
The party's most passionate voters are reluctant to abandon hard-line immigration policies that have dominated their thinking for years. But Washington-based strategists describe a dire need to win over more Hispanic voters and other minorities who overwhelmingly supported Obama in the swing states that decided the election.
At the same time, rank-and-file Republicans on Capitol Hill are struggling to coalesce behind a single message during fiscal cliff negotiations that have exposed a new rift with fiscal conservative guru Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge.
There's also evidence that the fight isn't over between the conservative and pragmatic wings of the party in Senate primaries.
Conservatives wasted little time signaling that they would work to defeat Shelley Moore Capito, a popular congresswoman from a storied West Virginia political family, as she seeks the nomination for the chance to challenge Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller in 2014. Within an hour of Capito's announcing her candidacy, the deep-pocketed conservative Club for Growth branded her as the "establishment candidate" whose record in Congress of supporting prominent bailouts has led to bigger government.
Democrats already are working to exploit the GOP divisions to strengthen their own political standing.
Obama has taken his party's message directly to voters. He visited a Pennsylvania toy manufacturer on Friday, calling for Republicans to embrace the immediate extension of tax cuts for all but the top 2 percent of wealthiest Americans.
Though Boehner has taken the lead in negotiations with the White House, Republicans generally did not have a standard-bearer to counter that message. Instead, they're relying on familiar Capitol Hill leaders to guide party doctrine during his debate.
"We don't have one person out there carrying that torch. You'll have (South Carolina Sen.) Lindsey Graham, Speaker Boehner, (Wisconsin Rep.) Paul Ryan, John McCain — same old, same old," said Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, a senior official on former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's unsuccessful presidential bid. "Void of a singular leader, we're going to have to rely on some of the younger more dynamic speakers to go out and make our argument."
No one, it seems, is talking about Romney assuming any sort of leadership role.
"I don't think that we need to be looking toward Mitt Romney to articulate our principles," said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots.
It appears Romney may cooperate, choosing business over politics in defeat.
The former businessman is subletting office space at the Boston-area venture capital firm, Solamere Capital, which was founded by his oldest son. Former aides expect Romney to stay out of the spotlight for the foreseeable future — spending colder months at his California home and warmer months at his New Hampshire lake house.
"It might be better for him, better for the party, to start fresh," Gidley said.
This comment has been deleted
 @deadcandance And what would you have done differently, not vote?Â
I get a big kick out of reading all the posts by the arrogant Republican supporters who believe they are smarter, and their ideas are going to be more effective than Pres. Obama's and his team who are working on our fiscal problems. Do they really think, with their limited knowledge, they know better than he does? As they sit in their livingrooms trying away doesn't it ever dawn on them that they have a very limited view of the USA's financial system and really are in no position to be telling the President what he should be doing? The majority of them are only parroting what they've been told on FOX News and we all know how "fair and unbiased" their reporting is! lol
 @justmyopinion "Do they really think, with their limited knowledge, they know better than he does?"
Obviously, yes they do.
 @justmyopinion Has it occurred to you that Obama, in his narccisistic hubris, is a clueless, arrogant, innumerate socialist who doesn't understand economics at all, and he thinks that we can borrow a trillion a year FOREVER and it'll all work out OK? That IS his plan, if you look at the numbers. He is ignorant of the history that says printing money to solve fiscal problems NEVER works out well. NEVER. But that is his course. You have to be fantastically well educated to think it'll be different this time.
 @RN1  @justmyopinion I've said it before and I'll say it again- if you call Obama a socialist, you literally don't know the definition of socialism. Period.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @jowsuf  @justmyopinion SO what about wanting to spend no more than is collected in revenue ISN'T fiscally conservative? Every time it's tried, it's ended badly. Very badly. I'd like to avoid that, and Obama and the Dems numbers don't end well because even with absurdly optimistic assumptions about future events, he spends more than the FedGov will collect for as far as the OBM and the CBO can project.
Â
On the social front, I want to leave people alone; people to marry (gay OR straight), kids to happen (or not), drugs to be enjoyed (or not) w/o government threat or interference. I want people to be able to contract for their labor in a free market, under their own free will. What about that ISN'T socially moderate?
 @jowsuf  @justmyopinion Book, books.... Hmmm... You mean go through all those thousands *again*? (well north of a thousand just in my study and the downstairs shelves). Maybe I've just hit to many history, economic, and science books, and you are thinking I should borrow some of your manga?
 @RN1  @jowsuf  @justmyopinion "I'm a fiscal conservative"
Sir, I've known some Fiscal Conservatives...and Sir, you ain't no fiscal "conservative". And you ARE a right winger. NOTHING you have written supports your other claim of being a "social moderate". Not even close.
 @RN1  @justmyopinion I was just writing up a thoughtful reply, then you posted a paragraph-long name-calling tirade. In one fell swoop you showed me you aren't worth debating with.Â
Â
Drop the arrogance, act like an adult, and read a book once in a while. You'd do yourself good to learn about the things you dislike as much as you learn about the things you agree with.
 @OrcasThunder  @jowsuf  @justmyopinion I dislike a one-dimensional label like "right-winger." I'm a fiscal conservative, and a strong social moderate. I also know enough history to know that the path we are headed for ALWAYS end badly, and would rather not have my children have to live though that, when it is quite avoidable.
Â
And I use the term "socialist" because the more accurate "trash-talking, bullying, economically clueless, historically ignorant, innumerate, arrogant, narcissistic, left-wing, anti-American, race-baiting, personality-cult-driving, spiteful, Chicago-machine-politician" is rather too much of a mouthful to use every time.
 @jowsuf  @justmyopinion So, then, what WOULD you call Obama? He's in favor of coercion on many fronts, not freedom, so I can't say's in the tradition of anything that I consider good about America. He's into cronyism (or didn't you know Solyndra had some big Dem and Obama donors, for example?) If you'd call that a "democrat" then I have to agree, but then I'd have to say that to be a Democrat is to be trying to destroy the best parts of America, and importing the bad and failed / failing parts of other left-wing countries from around the world.... So, what is he, in your opinion, as one of his supporters? Liberal? Hardly, he is quite ANTI-liberty in any classical sense of the word, unless it involves abortion.
 @RN1  @jowsuf  @justmyopinion "greatly expanding the police and surveillance state"
Is that why police departments are cutting back on LEOs, because government money has been cut back?
And when did you start paying any kind of attention to what the French say?
I wonder, do you also say that Sarah Palin is an avowed Alaskan Secessionist? After all, she was a speaker at least one of their conventions, and her husband is known to have been a member.
 @jowsuf  @RN1  @justmyopinion To people like RN1, hitler was a "socialist" just like Joe Stalin...they will point to the "National Socialist Party" name and say that is the proof...as if a right wing politician never lied about their politics in order to fool people...
 @RN1  @jowsuf  @justmyopinion "Going with the broadest general definition of "socialism,""
And yet you STILL claim to not be a "right winger"...by ANY definition?
 @RN1  @justmyopinion France isn't a socialist state. You just can't pick out something that Obama has done or is doing that a socialist country would do and call him a socialist. Just like you can't call someone who advocates patriotism and nationalism a fascist. You can't. One small piece of the puzzle doesn't make the whole picture. That's what you're doing, and you're doing it over and over and over.Â
Â
The entire usage of the word socialism is for the purpose of swaying American idiots who only understand international politics from the Cold War era. Socialism and communism have been thrown around as an anti-American evil because our big enemy Russia was a communist country. Socialism or communism isn't anti-american, and neither is nationalism or right-wing conservatism, for that matter.Â
Â
Hate what you want to hate, but don't equate what you hate with something that isn't what you're saying it is. You wouldn't call a child with a rainbow sticker a homosexual, would you? You wouldn't call Texas Mexico because they have plenty of Mexican culture, would you? You wouldn't call someone with a broken leg who takes an opiate-based painkiller a drug addict, would you? No? THEN STOP DOING IT WITH POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND POLITICIANS!
 @jowsuf  @justmyopinion Yes, I realize that fascism and communism are different things. I also know that few systems or people map perfectly onto any standard, common, broadly used definitions. Yes, I realize there are shades of difference between communism, Marxism, socialism, collectivism, and other variants. But, we (in the US) generally only use a one-axis political spectrum (left-center-right) which fails utterly to capture MANY nuances of belief and political thought, which needs to have AT LEAST two or three to really start capturing a much richer flavor of where people actually believe on the different fields (such as personal freedom, economic freedom, individual rights vs collective responsibilities).
Â
Obama has been for pushing MASSIVELY greater spending, progressive taxes, massive coercion and control of the health care industry, large tax hikes, a total welfare state, demonizing the economically successful, greatly expanding the police and surveillance state, and so-forth. Those are jut the types of things that various practicing socialists call for (see France's current president, for example, who even said he was doing nothing more than Obama was doing). So, in a strict sense, no, he's not a Socialist, even though he WAS a member of the New Party, but he is a (small "s") socialist. He's dealing with a congress that won't rubber-stamp his desires, so he has to keep up at least a pretense of being "middle of the road."
 @RN1  @justmyopinion Do you realize that socialism and fascism are two completely different things? You can't just pick and choose what you don't like from assorted ideologies and apply them to the president just because you disagree with him and want to bash him. You're literally not making sense anymore.
 @jowsuf  @justmyopinion *sigh* Going with the broadest general definition of "socialism," not a strict, narrow definition. To call him a fascist would be closer (heavy government control and regulation of nominally privately owned (by crony supporters) businesses, but that's not quite perfect either because he is more anti-nationalistic than patriotic (constantly points out our flaws, while ignoring the great things we have done). But, to be honest, I think he's really more all about him, and he's a tool of the far left that hates the good in America because for whatever reason they missed the boat so they envy those that earned the dream.
 @RN1  @justmyopinion Wonder why you really hate him so much. Get honest.Â
 @Yoda  @justmyopinion I don't hate HIM. I despise his policies, his methods, his goals, his attitude, and the left's making him a god in their personality cult.
 @RN1  @justmyopinion As most Right Wingers you do not have a clue about what you're talking about. The last year of the Bush Presidency was the first year of the trillion dollar deficits created by a Republican War in Iraq based on lies for the sake of profit for the Military Industrial Establishment and Dick Cheney along with the massive tax cuts for the rich and tax policies that assisted building the deficits and Wall Street speculation.
Â
Talk about arrogance, the Wall Establishment slime bags who assisted in creating this mess via their greed then who were bailed out by the tax payers now have the nerve to tell the President and Congress on how to fix the mess that those of the Wall Street Establishment along with Republican tax policies created, and to do so by largely advocating the very same policies of the Republicans that created this mess in the first place.Â
Â
In addition some these greedy people of Wall Street are the sons of those who assisted financially in Hitler's rise to power and one of those pro Nazi individuals was Prescott Bush, President George W. Bush's Grandfather. Right Wingers only care about profit and power and do not care about the country.  This is history. Right Wing is Right Wing no matter the source.Â
Â
 @Darn it!  @Yoda  @growlerxrunner  @justmyopinion HAHAHAHA! You confuse short and long term interests. My best interest short term is to get every welfare / food stamp / child-care bennie I can. But that will destroy the system. The best LONG-term choice is a strong economy, with VERY few government handouts to ANYONE, few regulations, and low government overhead, so jobs are easy to be had. Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs, it's NOT a good thing. Protectionism raises prices, it's NOT a good thing. Restraint of free labor via unions hurts everyone but the union employee being paid more than they are really worth. Those voting for a nanny-state are voting for their own (very short-term) self-interest, but it will destroy the state (which will hurt them FAR MORE in the long run. Government dependency NEVER ends well. It destroys the incentives to do anything more than get good at working the system.
 @Yoda  @growlerxrunner  @justmyopinion The high-earners are NOT paying less. That is a lie that is easily disproven. The top 1%, while earning less than 20% of the income, are paying nearly 40% of the taxes. The bottom HALF are paying LESS THAN 5% of teh total revenue. If we DOUBLE the taxes paid by the top 2%, it'll still cover only a small fraction of the current deficit.
 @growlerxrunner  @justmyopinion In what year did Bush run a trillion-dollar deficit? Well, according to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm it didn't start until 2008, when the stock panic caused the FedGov to panic and print / borrow / spend like there was no tomorrow. The Iraq wars had nothing to do with it. in fact, you could have totally zeroed out the ENTIRE defense budget during the Bush years, and still not had a balanced budget because of all the other spending growth. Bush is NOT a fiscal conservatives fried, in spite of what the left-wing media try to say. s for wall street, they are cronies who play by the rules they help write, and get passed, by a bipartisan group of scum in elected office. There is MORE than enough blame to go around. The only difference between parties is the details on who gets the most out of the corrupt deals that get spun. Go ahead and hate tha capitalists, but at least many of them provide a good or service you want (compare Apple, Starbucks, MacDonalds to the Post Office, the DMV, and DSHS).
 @OrcasThunder  @justmyopinion That does help. Especially when you are responding to someone who is so obviously clueless. LOL (Not referring to justmyopinion, referring to the fact that many of your posts are debunking republicans.)
 @justmyopinion  @Darn it!"I really don't like this new commenting program..."
No argument here...it's also really hard to track who someone is responding to because there is no visible linkage. Which is why I try to find something in the person's post to quote - which gives a clue on what I am responding to.
 @Yoda  @growlerxrunner  @RN1  @justmyopinion i find it amazing that people are so against their own best interests.Â
 @growlerxrunner  @RN1  @justmyopinion Obama was correct when he mentioned how that it comes down to a moral issue. Most people that vote get their information from mainstream news to decide. For the rich to pay less taxes than the middle class is just wrong. The rich need to pay their fair share. And cutting social programs for those that are disabled, etc. is unthinkable. I don't see this as complicated at all. Obama is for all people and I think that pisses off many.Â
 @justmyopinion I think you are in the majority.
 @Darn it! Oh, sorry. I really don't like this new commenting program...
 @justmyopinion  @growlerxrunner runner was responding to RN! (that name is first). You were in on the post so you were included in the response.Â
 @growlerxrunner I'm not exactly sure where you got the idea I am a Right Winger, but you may want to re-read the posts I've written for clarification on that point.
@RN1 And you are the top of my list. Your posts are laughable, and I love to start my day with a laugh.
 @justmyopinion Exact;ly. Well stated.Â
 @Darn it! I totally agree, they discredit themselves before they even try to get their point across and then have the gal to think what they say is going to be relevant to any other readers.
 @justmyopinion  @RN1 When people like RN1 start their posts with a bunch of name calling I just quit reading and mentally round can their opinions.
The Republican party has plenty of leadership: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, George Bush, The Koch Brothers, Oliver North, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele..
Â
I see no shortage of leaders there at all. If this is the type of leadership you look up to, then there's no shortage. And while some may see the party of No as being in disarray, I unfortunately see that almost 50% of the country still somehow identifies with these horrid haters and corporate shills. 51% is not a landslide victory. Half the country still identifies with these self-serving morons, so our work is far from done. All of these people are still in positions of power and influence, and their agenda has not changed, so watch out. Hate and corporate greed is only 2% away from the White House.
 @Bellevue Scott Very well stated. Boehner and company really need to go. And we need to get the money out of politics. Corporations are NOT people, my friends.Â
One of two things is going to happen within the GOP in the near future.
Â
The first, and least likely given the trend over the last few years, is that they will see that their handing control of party policy to the extreme right has alienated a huge portion of the electorate, and there will be a schism in the GOP, with the teahadists splintering away and operating as a third party. While in the short term this would weaken Republican support from religious groups and the uber wealthy, in the long term they would gain ground among moderate and independent voters who have become disenchanted (maybe even disgusted) with the current party message of "feed the rich and turn the US into a Christian theocracy."
Â
The second, and more likely in the forseeable future, is that the teahadists somehoe misinterpret Romney's defeat as a rejection of his "moderate" message, and tighten their grip on the party, driving it even further to the right. While this would embolden the more extreme factions of the party, moderates would likely begin fleeing from the GOP, and may even coalesce under a new third party of their own, perhaps drawing in some independent leaning voters along with them. This would likely lead to the death of the GOP itself, or at least leave it marginalized with but a small handful of representative elected officials from a few districts.
Â
Either way, the Republican party as a whole is on life support, and somebody needs to take a deep breath and pull the plug. It will be ugly and messy, but if they have any hope of ever reconnecting with that middle group of voters, they need to stop dragging their toes in the sand and get it over with.
 @Mikeftm Or, perhaps, things will implode, the democrat / socialist / fiscal irresponsibleist will be exposed for the unsustainable fraud that it is, and people will turn from them to the still flawed but less imperfect R party as they flee the self-defeating programs of the left (you know, the ones that have put CA, NY, IL into such horrid financial straits.)
 @RN1  @Mikeftm "socialist"
And yet you still plead that the Left stereotypes you.
 @OrcasThunder  @Mikeftm Thanks for the laugh. I don't think I have ever been compared to Marie Antoinette before. Arrogant? yup, as charged. Wrong occasionally, too. But at least I try to learn from the mistake of others, rather than trying to make them all myself.
Â
So, if you don't support a welfare state, would you support a cap of, say, 20% of GDP for ALL FedGov spending? If not, how high, and how high would you say it has to go before it becomes a welfare state? And, if you DON'T support a cap, and are of the "spend as much as it takes," then you DO support a welfare state, because it will, eventually, demand everything... and more. Then what? When you run out of other people's money for your programs, and you have eaten the rich, what will you do then, other than suffer in poverty with the rest of us?
 @RN1  @Mikeftm "I don't think I have ever said YOU want a welfare state"
You have left no doubt that you equate me with that.
Â
You also leave no doubt that you are of the Marie Antoinette class of social elitists... the de-evolved class that can't comprehend how duplicitous and arrogant you are. You have found your level, it's the "legitimize rape" and "folders of women" mindset polluting some kind of social-economic Ayn Rand wanabes.
 @OrcasThunder  @Mikeftm I don't think I have ever said YOU want a welfare state - I said OBAMA wants that. I have made that clear that it is OBAMA'S goal in several other posts, though not in that particular one, so apologies for the miss-queue on that one account.Â
Â
The problem with having a "never let anyone drown" policy is that if you make "just not drowning" an *acceptable course* to too many people, then they pull the whole boat under. Failure HAS to be an option, a SCARY option, or you will always, eventually, pick up to many free riders. EVERY TIME. Maybe you think it's not and acceptable option because your work ethic would never allow you to choose it if there were any alternative, but for many, it IS the choice they make. Consider the incentives in this article and graph:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-01/why-americans-have-lost-drive-earn-more
Â
Why work hard, when you can work a little and have as much?
Â
As to the issue of choice, I'm in the camp that says you take responsibility for your actions, and if you are not even capable of taking care of yourself (you are on welfare) then you DARN sure are not capable of taking care of another. Is it harsh? Yes. natural laws are like that. Gravity doesn't care how much you make when you fall, you still hit the ground. When you remove failure as an option, you skew the risk curve in all the wrong ways.
Â
Should there be a safety net for kids and the truly, severely disabled, who are there through no fault of their own? Yes. But it should also NOT incentivize working the system, rather than working, and there should be significant consequences to being on the dole (such as loss of right to vote, as you have shown yourself unfit).
 @RN1  @Mikeftm "Wanting a massive welfare state"
Out of one side of your mouth comes words proclaiming that you are "misjudged" and picked on, out of the other side vomits the same old "welfare state" drivel you have used as long as I can remember.You cannot prove that I have ever supported a "welfare state", because I haven't - ever. What I have objected to all along is the "throw them in the river - if they sink they are innocent, if they float they are guilty, so kill them" mentality of the extreme right wing.
And being "pro-choice" while yelling about all the "Welfare cheats who have kids to get more money" is not only dishonest, it's vile chauvinism of the worse kind. It makes you no better than the right wingers who want to force women to have children they do not want - and yet refuse to even pay for the prenatal care that might help both the mother and the child be healthy enough to actually survive and prosper in this society.
So...as long as you continue to be the right wing swamp tea huckster, you will be a right winger. ,
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Mikeftm Wanting a massive welfare state, with massive regulation of all private activities, government regulated labor costs, government run education, nearly as many people on government assistance as voted for the winning candidate, pushing for government run health care, a de-facto government take-over of industries like cars, invasive monitoring of citizens and needing government approval to fly (not being on the no-fly-list), TSA checkpoints expanding like a cancer, creeping speech codes and regulation of religious institutions, a desire for heavily progressive taxation, divide-and-conquer control of the political factions by deomonizing and personalizing his attacks.... Yah, that's pretty much all in the the broad definition of "socialist," so calling him that isn't stereotyping, it's a fact.
Â
On the other hand, calling me a right-winger when I'm an agnostic, pro-choice, pro-drug and other vice like prostitution decriminalization, and pro-environment doesn't exactly fit very well.
This story is missing the point. The Republicans do have leadership, the rich powerful that pull their puppet strings on the whim of next day's agenda of gaining ever more power and wealth. The goal of the super rich and their bought and paid for Republican puppets is to transform this country into a fascist republic of the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Romney was the perfect reflection of that segment of our country.Â
 @growlerxrunner Ok, "the Republicans do have leadership".... ugly "Senator Palpatine" leadership they desperately try to hide behind a curtain... unfortunately for them, the curtain keeps falling down. The GOP has no real chance of winning the presidency so long as this uber-conservative movement is hijacking the party once home to moderates like Washington's former governor Dan Evans. Guys like Dan would be run out on the rail in the current Republican party. To coin a favorite "conservative" word.... Now that's unsustainable.Â
GOP is not what it once was. They bought into the ultra conservative view and forgot that most Americans are more or less moderate. So the extreme right ended up in charge and alienating everyone else. Until either they steal the election again like it was for GW Bush in 2000 or simply get their act more mainstream they stand little chance of seeing a Republican in the White House or keeping the House Majority in 2014.
What ? The Repubs maneuvering what ? Are you freaking kidding me....they
have any leadership ? They are getting worse and worse ever since G.W.Bush
administration.....I just don't think they have any idea how to run this country !