|
Post by pubtv on Jan 13, 2009 3:24:15 GMT
Senate Republicans brace for ominous 2010 Story Highlights Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, announces he will retire when term is up Republicans with a highly vulnerable seat in a perennial swing state Several other Republicans also retiring from the Senate Senate Democrats also face a few roadblocks in states like Arizona, Iowa By Alexander Mooney CNN WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The 111th Congress has just barely begun as Senate Republicans brace for more grueling elections in 2010 that threaten to further weaken the party's influence in Congress. The latest setback for the party came Monday, when Ohio Sen. George Voinovich -- the 72 year-old two-term GOP senator -- announced he will not seek reelection in 2010. That leaves Republicans with a highly vulnerable seat in a perennial swing state that has drifted Democratic in the last two elections. Voinovich's decision sent Ohio Republicans and Democrats scrambling ahead of what will likely be a competitive primary on both sides, and virtually guarantees the GOP will have to spend significantly more money defending a seat that otherwise would likely have been a safe bet. Democrats control 58 seats in the Senate -- 59 if Al Franken's lead in Minnesota's recount withstands Norm Coleman's legal challenge -- moving the party close to the 60 seats needed for a filibuster-proof majority. "Republicans are starting the cycle on the defensive once again, it's a familiar but uncomfortable position," said Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report. Voinovich is the most recent in a string of four Republican senators -- some from crucial battlegrounds states -- to announce his retirement, rattling Republicans in an election cycle that already promises to be difficult. Just last week, longtime Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, unexpectedly announced he would not seek reelection after more than two decades in the chamber, abruptly setting the stage for a competitive race in a state that 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain carried by less than 1 percentage point. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, the once-popular Cuban-American who has seen his approval ratings slump of late, also recently announced he would not seek reelection. Jeb Bush, the popular brother of President Bush, announced last week he would not enter that race despite the urging of national Republicans. Two-term Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a former Republican presidential candidate, is also retiring in 2010 to run for governor. While Kansas is traditionally considered a red state, Democrats are buoyed by President-elect Barack Obama's strong performance there and the prospect that the state's popular Democratic governor, Kathleen Sebelius, may enter the race. "A party would almost always have incumbents run for reelection rather than open seats, especially in swing states," said Quinn McCord, the executive editor of the Hotline. "These are exactly the type of seats Democrats have won the past two cycles when they have opened up." In all, Republicans must defend 15 incumbents in addition to the four open seats next year, a number that could increase if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, decides to mount a 2010 gubernatorial bid. Meanwhile, Democrats have to defend 15 incumbents and two seats for which special elections are expected to be held. Delaware will hold a special election for Vice President-elect Joe Biden's seat and New York will hold one if Sen. Hillary Clinton is confirmed as the next secretary of state. More sobering for Republicans is the fact that few Democrats currently appear vulnerable, except perhaps for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose current approval numbers are slumping in his home state of Nevada. But John Feehery, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor, said the GOP shouldn't panic just yet, especially considering Democrats control all three branches of government and the economy shows little signs of recovering in the near future. "A lot depends on what happens in the next year with the economy and how [President-elect] Obama does -- That's the great unknown." Feehery said. "We've had two really bad cycles in a row, and the Democrats are running everything now." Mid-term elections have historically not been kind to the party of the sitting president. One exception was 2002 during Bush's first term, when Republicans picked up seats in both houses. Other Republicans are optimistic the wave of recent retirements offers the GOP a chance to move beyond its old guard and recruit fresh faces to inject the party with new energy. "The reality is Bond and Voinovich both would have won reelection, but they would have been tough. I'd rather have someone who is 110 percent committed, gung-ho, has the energy, and wants to do that, rather than someone who is going through the motions," a Senate Republican leadership aide said. Senate Republicans are also eyeing one of Colorado's Senate seats, recently vacated by Obama's Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar. To fill the remaining two years of the term, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, appointed Denver School Superintendent Michael Bennet -- a man who has never run for statewide office before. "Republicans were handed a gift in Colorado," the GOP leadership aide said. "He's not someone who has run a statewide race before or known around the state. He's not tested." Senate Democrats also face a few roadblocks: Their top picks in Iowa and Arizona to take on Republican incumbents there have both been named to Obama's Cabinet -- Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Still, much of the GOP's outlook will ultimately depend on how well Texas Sen. John Cornyn -- the man tasked to head the Republicans Senate Campaign Committee -- can recruit strong and credible candidates amidst a playing field that clearly favors the opposition. "The map itself is working against Republicans, it's not clear yet where the vulnerable Democrats are," McCord said. www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/senate.republicans/index.html?eref=ib_topstories
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 13, 2009 17:22:07 GMT
They probably need to find a way to reinvent their public image to shed the stigma of Rove, the neo-cons and the far fringe religious right. Those are the main elements that make people cringe at the thought of returning them to power. jmo
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 13, 2009 20:10:49 GMT
The problem with that is that if they ditch them then their prospects of winning are even more remote.
The Republicans have become prisoners of their extremists (rather like the Labour Party in Britain did during the 1980s) and someone needs to do what Neil Kinnock did and kick them out of the party as Kinnock did with the Militant Tendency.
It's not healthy in any democracy to have long periods of one-party rule and whether it's the Democrats or Republicans it's better to have alternating periods.
You can't govern any country for long from either the far right or the far left.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 13, 2009 23:34:32 GMT
The problem with that is that if they ditch them then their prospects of winning are even more remote. The Republicans have become prisoners of their extremists (rather like the Labour Party in Britain did during the 1980s) and someone needs to do what Neil Kinnock did and kick them out of the party as Kinnock did with the Militant Tendency. It's not healthy in any democracy to have long periods of one-party rule and whether it's the Democrats or Republicans it's better to have alternating periods. You can't govern any country for long from either the far right or the far left. Possibly they could just stop pandering to the extremes. That would leave those folks with 3 choices - vote left, splinter off into a 3rd party or stick with the republicans. I don't think they'd ever vote democratic because of social issues, they wouldn't have much of a chance with a 3rd party and that kind of side show would insure a liberal victory ... sooo they'd stay with the republicans - no matter. Are you familiar with the "southern strategy". Nixon started it and, truly, it needs to end now. I absolutely agree that the factions have to alternate in cycles for the country to move forward.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 14, 2009 20:08:19 GMT
There was a time when US political commentators spoke of 'the solid south' because the southern states always voted Democratic.
It's also a matter of historical record that there have been times when the Republicans were the MORE liberal party in the US.
Broadly speaking, between 1860 and 1919 the Republicans were to the left of the Democrats on almost every issue except imperialism (where William Jennings Bryan's anti-imperialist sentiment made him unpopular even within his own party.)
Herbert Hoover returned to the more liberal Republican tradition and in 1948 Dewey's victory would have been a real blessing for America because he was determined to enforce civil rights for the Afro-American population.
It is also arguable whether or not it was Nixon who made the breakthrough in the south. In the 1964 election Goldwater made significant inroads in the southern states.
Mercifully, Goldwater was not a religious fundamentalist as so many of the stooges who masquerade as serious political figures within the Republican party appear to be nowadays. He was an intellectual with many radical and excellent ideas who was simply unfortunate in his timing. A Goldwater presidency might well have demonstrated to the lunatic fringes of right-wing politics that being a conservative does NOT require you to leave your brain at the door.
Ayn Rand is another conservative thinker (well, in my view she is ultimately a right-wing anarchist rather than a true conservative but her influence, as an advocate of reason, of the humanist and secular values that underlay the Enlightenment, was vastly preferable to the ignorant bigots who pass for serious thinkers in the contemporary Republican party.)
I would like to add that I am very much in favour of a multiplicity of parties. In the UK we have a Labour government and a Conservative opposition but we have one independent MP, around 60 Liberal Democrats, and a variety of regional parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who between them mean that approximately 1/6 of our MPs do NOT come from the two big parties.
That is much healthier for democracy.
Of course a proportional representation system of voting would make it healthier still but that is a subject for another debate rather than this particular one.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2009 21:34:23 GMT
They probably need to find a way to reinvent their public image to shed the stigma of Rove, the neo-cons and the far fringe religious right. Those are the main elements that make people cringe at the thought of returning them to power. jmo along with haliburton and the welfare checks for exxon mobil
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2009 21:40:50 GMT
There was a time when US political commentators spoke of 'the solid south' because the southern states always voted Democratic. It's also a matter of historical record that there have been times when the Republicans were the MORE liberal party in the US. Broadly speaking, between 1860 and 1919 the Republicans were to the left of the Democrats on almost every issue except imperialism (where William Jennings Bryan's anti-imperialist sentiment made him unpopular even within his own party.) Herbert Hoover returned to the more liberal Republican tradition and in 1948 Dewey's victory would have been a real blessing for America because he was determined to enforce civil rights for the Afro-American population. It is also arguable whether or not it was Nixon who made the breakthrough in the south. In the 1964 election Goldwater made significant inroads in the southern states. Mercifully, Goldwater was not a religious fundamentalist as so many of the stooges who masquerade as serious political figures within the Republican party appear to be nowadays. He was an intellectual with many radical and excellent ideas who was simply unfortunate in his timing. A Goldwater presidency might well have demonstrated to the lunatic fringes of right-wing politics that being a conservative does NOT require you to leave your brain at the door. Ayn Rand is another conservative thinker (well, in my view she is ultimately a right-wing anarchist rather than a true conservative but her influence, as an advocate of reason, of the humanist and secular values that underlay the Enlightenment, was vastly preferable to the ignorant bigots who pass for serious thinkers in the contemporary Republican party.) I would like to add that I am very much in favour of a multiplicity of parties. In the UK we have a Labour government and a Conservative opposition but we have one independent MP, around 60 Liberal Democrats, and a variety of regional parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who between them mean that approximately 1/6 of our MPs do NOT come from the two big parties. That is much healthier for democracy. Of course a proportional representation system of voting would make it healthier still but that is a subject for another debate rather than this particular one. actually, the republicans were more liberal than the southern democrats in the fifties and sixties. one could hardly call george wallace or lester maddox, both democrats, particularly liberal. of course, not all republicans were either. strom thurmond and jessie helms were republicans typical of those the past forty years, except for the fact that jessie helms was a great american, and you ALWAYS knew where he stood. never in his entire life did he waver from his core beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 14, 2009 21:43:25 GMT
barry was great. we'll always remember the irrefutable truth that, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice, no virtue
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 15, 2009 2:41:41 GMT
They probably need to find a way to reinvent their public image to shed the stigma of Rove, the neo-cons and the far fringe religious right. Those are the main elements that make people cringe at the thought of returning them to power. jmo along with haliburton and the welfare checks for exxon mobil Yes, that, too - absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 15, 2009 3:01:23 GMT
There was a time when US political commentators spoke of 'the solid south' because the southern states always voted Democratic. It's also a matter of historical record that there have been times when the Republicans were the MORE liberal party in the US. Broadly speaking, between 1860 and 1919 the Republicans were to the left of the Democrats on almost every issue except imperialism (where William Jennings Bryan's anti-imperialist sentiment made him unpopular even within his own party.) Herbert Hoover returned to the more liberal Republican tradition and in 1948 Dewey's victory would have been a real blessing for America because he was determined to enforce civil rights for the Afro-American population. It is also arguable whether or not it was Nixon who made the breakthrough in the south. In the 1964 election Goldwater made significant inroads in the southern states. Mercifully, Goldwater was not a religious fundamentalist as so many of the stooges who masquerade as serious political figures within the Republican party appear to be nowadays. He was an intellectual with many radical and excellent ideas who was simply unfortunate in his timing. A Goldwater presidency might well have demonstrated to the lunatic fringes of right-wing politics that being a conservative does NOT require you to leave your brain at the door. Ayn Rand is another conservative thinker (well, in my view she is ultimately a right-wing anarchist rather than a true conservative but her influence, as an advocate of reason, of the humanist and secular values that underlay the Enlightenment, was vastly preferable to the ignorant bigots who pass for serious thinkers in the contemporary Republican party.) I would like to add that I am very much in favour of a multiplicity of parties. In the UK we have a Labour government and a Conservative opposition but we have one independent MP, around 60 Liberal Democrats, and a variety of regional parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who between them mean that approximately 1/6 of our MPs do NOT come from the two big parties. That is much healthier for democracy. Of course a proportional representation system of voting would make it healthier still but that is a subject for another debate rather than this particular one. The "southern strategy" didn't/doesn't have as much to do with "who" as with "why". For appx. 4 decades, it has been a deliberate effort by the republican party to use racism to sway blocks of southern voters. All these good southern democrats (aka dixiecrats) were set adrift during the Johnson era by the democratic move toward racial equality. Nixon, and his political henchmen, devised a strategy to scoop them up and anchor them to the conservative movement - complete with catch words and phrases (states' rights, among others) and vague promises to play to white supremacists. It was/is ugly and manipulative - the fact that it actually worked is outlandish. Ayn Rand, yeah, her books influenced me, somewhat, in high school. I got over it. Now, she's mostly the darling of libertarians.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 15, 2009 14:41:47 GMT
There was a time when US political commentators spoke of 'the solid south' because the southern states always voted Democratic. It's also a matter of historical record that there have been times when the Republicans were the MORE liberal party in the US. Broadly speaking, between 1860 and 1919 the Republicans were to the left of the Democrats on almost every issue except imperialism (where William Jennings Bryan's anti-imperialist sentiment made him unpopular even within his own party.) Herbert Hoover returned to the more liberal Republican tradition and in 1948 Dewey's victory would have been a real blessing for America because he was determined to enforce civil rights for the Afro-American population. It is also arguable whether or not it was Nixon who made the breakthrough in the south. In the 1964 election Goldwater made significant inroads in the southern states. Mercifully, Goldwater was not a religious fundamentalist as so many of the stooges who masquerade as serious political figures within the Republican party appear to be nowadays. He was an intellectual with many radical and excellent ideas who was simply unfortunate in his timing. A Goldwater presidency might well have demonstrated to the lunatic fringes of right-wing politics that being a conservative does NOT require you to leave your brain at the door. Ayn Rand is another conservative thinker (well, in my view she is ultimately a right-wing anarchist rather than a true conservative but her influence, as an advocate of reason, of the humanist and secular values that underlay the Enlightenment, was vastly preferable to the ignorant bigots who pass for serious thinkers in the contemporary Republican party.) I would like to add that I am very much in favour of a multiplicity of parties. In the UK we have a Labour government and a Conservative opposition but we have one independent MP, around 60 Liberal Democrats, and a variety of regional parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who between them mean that approximately 1/6 of our MPs do NOT come from the two big parties. That is much healthier for democracy. Of course a proportional representation system of voting would make it healthier still but that is a subject for another debate rather than this particular one. The "southern strategy" didn't/doesn't have as much to do with "who" as with "why". For appx. 4 decades, it has been a deliberate effort by the republican party to use racism to sway blocks of southern voters. All these good southern democrats (aka dixiecrats) were set adrift during the Johnson era by the democratic move toward racial equality. Nixon, and his political henchmen, devised a strategy to scoop them up and anchor them to the conservative movement - complete with catch words and phrases (states' rights, among others) and vague promises to play to white supremacists. It was/is ugly and manipulative - the fact that it actually worked is outlandish. Ayn Rand, yeah, her books influenced me, somewhat, in high school. I got over it. Now, she's mostly the darling of libertarians. If I am not mistaken, Mississippi, Alabama and Lousiana have such large Afro-American populations that they ought to have voted for Obama overwhelmingly and yet my recollection is that they returned McCain. I also watched a fascinating programme on British television last year where southern black church people were being interviewed and they appeared in many respects MORE conservative than some of their white counterparts. I honestly believe that it is too simplistic to blame racism for the decline of the Democratic party in the south.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 15:49:45 GMT
The "southern strategy" didn't/doesn't have as much to do with "who" as with "why". For appx. 4 decades, it has been a deliberate effort by the republican party to use racism to sway blocks of southern voters. All these good southern democrats (aka dixiecrats) were set adrift during the Johnson era by the democratic move toward racial equality. Nixon, and his political henchmen, devised a strategy to scoop them up and anchor them to the conservative movement - complete with catch words and phrases (states' rights, among others) and vague promises to play to white supremacists. It was/is ugly and manipulative - the fact that it actually worked is outlandish. Ayn Rand, yeah, her books influenced me, somewhat, in high school. I got over it. Now, she's mostly the darling of libertarians. If I am not mistaken, Mississippi, Alabama and Lousiana have such large Afro-American populations that they ought to have voted for Obama overwhelmingly and yet my recollection is that they returned McCain. I also watched a fascinating programme on British television last year where southern black church people were being interviewed and they appeared in many respects MORE conservative than some of their white counterparts. I honestly believe that it is too simplistic to blame racism for the decline of the Democratic party in the south. most black churches ARE more consevative than than most whites. most of those voted for mccain because he represented their values, and they are not swayed by the lunatical notion that blacks are still oppressed slaves. sadly, there are also many black churches, such as jeremiah wright's, who keep preaching that blacks are not responsible for where they are because their great-great grandfather was a slave who had been sold by his black brothers to white men. of course, jeremiah's selective memory on the latter point never allows him to preach the truth
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 15, 2009 19:39:03 GMT
The "southern strategy" didn't/doesn't have as much to do with "who" as with "why". For appx. 4 decades, it has been a deliberate effort by the republican party to use racism to sway blocks of southern voters. All these good southern democrats (aka dixiecrats) were set adrift during the Johnson era by the democratic move toward racial equality. Nixon, and his political henchmen, devised a strategy to scoop them up and anchor them to the conservative movement - complete with catch words and phrases (states' rights, among others) and vague promises to play to white supremacists. It was/is ugly and manipulative - the fact that it actually worked is outlandish. Ayn Rand, yeah, her books influenced me, somewhat, in high school. I got over it. Now, she's mostly the darling of libertarians. If I am not mistaken, Mississippi, Alabama and Lousiana have such large Afro-American populations that they ought to have voted for Obama overwhelmingly and yet my recollection is that they returned McCain. I also watched a fascinating programme on British television last year where southern black church people were being interviewed and they appeared in many respects MORE conservative than some of their white counterparts. I honestly believe that it is too simplistic to blame racism for the decline of the Democratic party in the south. I probably didn't make myself clear with this comment. I was not suggesting the "southern strategy" was responsible, in and of itself, for republican's winning the south regularly - just that it is one element that contributes to that situation and should, after almost 4 decades, come to an end. Many African-Americans are very conservative - an example would be that Prop 8 had huge support from A-A church members. A book to help with info on the S.S.: www.amazon.com/Origins-Southern-Strategy-Bruce-Kalk/dp/0739102427/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232047655&sr=8-3
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 23, 2009 23:23:43 GMT
What is more elusive and harder to find than the Lochness Monster?
Answer: That would be something good that the Democrats have ever done for America. You have to go all the way back to Harry Truman dropping the A-Bomb on Japan.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Apr 27, 2009 15:03:10 GMT
"Ayn Rand is another conservative thinker (well, in my view she is ultimately a right-wing anarchist rather than a true conservative but her influence, as an advocate of reason, of the humanist and secular values that underlay the Enlightenment, was vastly preferable to the ignorant bigots who pass for serious thinkers in the contemporary Republican party.)"
LOL, so true.
Ayn Rand, the unintelligible masturbatory pursuit of the delusional, summarized:
-All Men are islands
-Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for someone else.
-Selfishness is the king of virtues.
-Altruism consists of equal parts weakness and self-deception.
-I'll never treasure a gift I receive more.
Many years ago I read Rand, two major works: the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead is about some guy who struggles with his sexuality and blows things up. Atlas Shrugged is about a group of rich white people who move to a gated community and make self-righteous speeches about it. Shrugged was written by a 13-year old, and a not particularly bright one at that. I think everything Rand ever written is bad, in every conceivable way. Her essays are brief enough, however, that the reader may get a laugh or two before weariness and disgust set in.
I agree with your assessment of Goldwater. He was a conservative, but he had nothing but contempt for the new versions of conservative Republicans (now mainstream) - especially with regard to civil liberties. He even mentioned during the late 1980s/early 1990s that he was on the left-wing of the GOP.
I hope the Republicans go down in massive defeat; as should any party whose agenda is pure plutocracy coupled with theocracy. Gerrymandering, of course, protects many Republican seats, so a defeat of something similar to what the PCs had in the 1993 Canadian elections is impossible. I do hope they get their right wingnut butts kicked in hard, though.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 27, 2009 17:38:16 GMT
I love your sense of humour, Clemie!
Unfortunately Mike has gone away to Yorkshire for a few days so he'll have to reply on some of the specifics because it was his post you were responding to.
I particularly enjoyed your quote 'plutocracy coupled with theocracy!'
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on May 17, 2009 0:30:44 GMT
I think the best strategy for the Republicans is to lay low and give Obama plenty of rope. The Democrats are sure to hang themselves.
They have such looney ideas for America and the world that they're bound to self destruct.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 17, 2009 1:33:02 GMT
I think the best strategy for the Republicans is to lay low and give Obama plenty of rope. The Democrats are sure to hang themselves. They have such looney ideas for America and the world that they're bound to self destruct. Perhaps they *should* lay low since they appear to have no ideas at all, and Dick Cheney is repulsing a new generation of voters on his own - well, aided and abetted by Rush and Beck.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 17, 2009 10:14:50 GMT
I think the best strategy for the Republicans is to lay low and give Obama plenty of rope. The Democrats are sure to hang themselves. They have such looney ideas for America and the world that they're bound to self destruct. More loony than Dubya and the neocons? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on May 18, 2009 16:55:46 GMT
the Republicans have their message. Dick delivers it: They also have a diverse fan base:
|
|