The Republiclan Civil War, and it's outcome in 2012

This is not the first time Republicans have fought each other for control of the minds and agenda of the Republiclan Party. You saw it after Reagan left office, when Neocons and Paleocons fought for control. But this year, the war is playing out much like it did in 1964. albeit with a different outcome looming.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the juggernaut, an ideological purist, and William Scranton, a Northeast establishment Republican pulled out all the stops in an attempt to derail Goldwater's nomination. During this attempt, he attempted to recruit Mit Romney's father, George, to carry the banner for the "Stop Goldwater" Campaign. George Romney turned down this request. That year, after Goldwater was nominated, a few of the establishment Republiclans, and Scranton himself, worked somewhat with the Democrats towards Goldwater's defeat, and in 1968, got their man, a moderate named Richard Nixon, elected.

This year, the shoe is on the other foot, with an establishment Republican being the juggernaut, with the ideological purists of the party attempting to stop him, but this battle is not that much unlike that of 1964, with establishment Republicans waging war with the purists. In this context, I have a few observations to make.

1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.

2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.

3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.

4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.

5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.

6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.

7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.

8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.

9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.

10) I don't care what the polls say. This one is going to be very close.

Discussion?

That's more or less how I see it, too, though I disagree that OWS has been coopted. Disbanded is more like it.

I think that a lot will depend on how the economy does over the next year. If it maintains its current trajectory the election will be close. If it picks up steam, Obama will win. If it backslides significantly, Romney will take it.

"It's the economy, stupid!" plus who has the better plan for the immediate future (and for Americans "immediate" generally means the next 4 years) that will matter most.

So far, all we've heard from the GOP candidates is "who can debate better" or "who the better job creator" yet neither candidate has really said anything of a positive nature that's better than what the current President has done, is doing or has presented. Besides, if those on the Right were honest with themselves they'd listen to their party leadership (i.e., those in Congress, as wells as, respected party members like Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Daniels) and accept the "hint" Republicans are throwing at the country, "the Republican party is in no position to govern".

Heed the warning, ladies and gentlemen...

danarhea said:

Discussion?

Click to expand...

Other than some quibble on the grass roots movements (IMHO the Tea Party is pretty much astroturf, and OWS seems to have resisted co-option), you pretty well nailed it. Well done

Romney is very chameleon-like... what disturbs me is that his offhand comment that "corporations are people, too" came across as very heartfelt. That disturbs me greatly.

While the 'base' loves what Gingrich has to say, I think the majority in his party recognize him as a snake oil salesman. The Zionists will be pushing hard for him, however.

Obama needs to get tough and quit playing the pansy to GOP bullying. I think that alone could garner him more independent votes than he now has.

Gosh where to begin on this….

danarhea said:

1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.

Click to expand...

Okay, not bad here. A safe and likely wise guess. It’s a relative long shot at this point to suggest someone else will ge the nomination over Romney, though not an absolute.

2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.

Click to expand...

Okay, agree with you here. Romney gives them a decent chance of eeking out a victory

3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.

Click to expand...

Disgaree STRONGLY here. A reasoned examination of the Tea Party movement, its make up, and its effect on American Politics would highlight well in advance that it would have significant issues with exerting any power over a primary. The Tea Party has a centralized national message that is the core thing that binds the multitude of localized individual units. However, each localized unit takes that centralized message and then tailors it, adds to it, and emphasizes things in it that are most important in their locality. A Tea Party organization in New Hampshire will look a fair bit different than one in the heart of South Carolina and one out in Nevada. While they’ll have that same over arching connection, beyond that there could be striking differences.

This method works wonderful at the local, state, and localized federal level. Individual Representatives and Senators can be better chosen who match up with that localized groups important. IE…a Tea Party candidate in South Carolina may also need to be Socially Conservative, while one in New Hampshire may actually have to be socially moderate or essentially uninterested in social policy. The localization of it allowed for the powerful wave during the 2010 elections.

In a Presidential primary however you have an entirely different situation. The Tea Party, while having an overall view point, is not some monolithic entity that all thinks and acts the same way. More over, every Presidential Candidate running on the Republican Ticket has at least a “passable” to “good” level of respectability when it comes to Tea Party issues. What this means is that Tea Partiers check off their Tea Party leanings and move onto the next set of things to determine who they care about. For some, it may be that the person is ALSO good socially. For others, it may be that the person is not just passable or good but GREAT on those issues and to hell with anything else. For others it may be military views. For others it may be Electability.

However, those things are going to vary all across the country, and as such you’re not in a situation where there can be a strong “Tea Party” push for an individual candidate.

They will have a little more power in the General, as at least then you have a bit larger contrast between the two competitors. But really, the Tea Parties main ability to influence electoins will be on congressional races where localization can occur.

4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.

Click to expand...

I agree, though at the same time I think much of Occupy Wall Street’s message was already one Democrats had been pushing. I think they’re just going to push it MORE now.

5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.

6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.

Click to expand...

Eh, I disagree. I think both movements have elements where the parties are attempting to gain control or help guide things, but on a day to day type of thing and in regards to the VAST majority of members of those movements I think it still is very much grass roots.

7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.

Click to expand...

The election will be close because most of our elections since the 1988 Bush election have been relatively close in either percentage of states won or Popular vote. And you have a President whose gone from Pop Culture Icon to “just another Politician” running against what’ll either be a potentially hot headed ideologue or a milk toast moderate.

8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.

Click to expand...

Obama likely wins. If he goes against Mitt, its probably 60/40 (bumped a bit if Mitt gets a good VP), with it being close no matter what. If its Gingirch its probably 80/20 Obama, with the chance that IF Gingrich wins it’d be by a large measure.

9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Contrary to popular belief Independents and moderates don’t win elections. Independents and Moderates combined with a strong base turnout win elections. Both parties nominees, especially if its Mitt, has issues where their base are unhappy with them. So they need to reach the middle but they need to shore up their own base as well.

I don't think there's a civil war there yet. At the end of the day, you've got people trading the normal barbs in a primary, but assuming that Ron Paul doesn't come out of nowhere (which seems quite unlikely), what you're going to get is an establishment candidate. Despite Newt's protestations, he is very much in the Republican mainstream.

The base will coalesce in the end. Given the choice of Romney or 4 more years of Obama, not many are going to pick the latter. Some will vote conscience for a 3rd party, but most people realize that the Libertarian candidate isn't going to win, and splitting the Conservative vote is a quick ticket to Obama's second term.

danarhea said:

This is not the first time Republicans have fought each other for control of the minds and agenda of the Republiclan Party. You saw it after Reagan left office, when Neocons and Paleocons fought for control. But this year, the war is playing out much like it did in 1964. albeit with a different outcome looming.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the juggernaut, an ideological purist, and William Scranton, a Northeast establishment Republican pulled out all the stops in an attempt to derail Goldwater's nomination. During this attempt, he attempted to recruit Mit Romney's father, George, to carry the banner for the "Stop Goldwater" Campaign. George Romney turned down this request. That year, after Goldwater was nominated, a few of the establishment Republiclans, and Scranton himself, worked somewhat with the Democrats towards Goldwater's defeat, and in 1968, got their man, a moderate named Richard Nixon, elected.

This year, the shoe is on the other foot, with an establishment Republican being the juggernaut, with the ideological purists of the party attempting to stop him, but this battle is not that much unlike that of 1964, with establishment Republicans waging war with the purists. In this context, I have a few observations to make.

1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.

2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.

3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.

4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.

5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.

6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.

7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.

8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.

9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.

10) I don't care what the polls say. This one is going to be very close.

Discussion?

Click to expand...

I don't see much I disagree with. You give both movements more respect than I do, but otherwise, I'm with ya.

There is nothing new happening. Except when the party has an incumbent seeking a second term, this always happens. For Republicans it is a battle between Republican moderates and conservatives. For Democrats it is a battle between liberals and Democrat moderates.

What is meant by "tea Party extremism?" Is wanting a more limited government extreme? I'd call wanting single payer health care, and cap and trade as extreme, but I wouldn't call being against those things as extreme.

I think very few Democrats are truly Occupy sympathizers. I think in the beginning they were pandering to that crowd, but that had dramatically shrunk afterwards. The Occupy group is mostly a group unto itself and holds little influence.

rocket88 said:

I don't think there's a civil war there yet. At the end of the day, you've got people trading the normal barbs in a primary, but assuming that Ron Paul doesn't come out of nowhere (which seems quite unlikely), what you're going to get is an establishment candidate. Despite Newt's protestations, he is very much in the Republican mainstream.

The base will coalesce in the end. Given the choice of Romney or 4 more years of Obama, not many are going to pick the latter. Some will vote conscience for a 3rd party, but most people realize that the Libertarian candidate isn't going to win, and splitting the Conservative vote is a quick ticket to Obama's second term.

Click to expand...

Republicans tend to go with whoever has been standing in line the longest. Gingrich has been around longer, but Romney has been running longer.
It is now a contest between losers. Which candidate would Republicans prefer to lose with?

The actual target of Republicans should be Congressional and Senate seats. They can't win the Presidency. But they could capture the House more solidly than now and possibly obtain a Senate stalemate.

danarhea said:

5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.

Click to expand...

In fairness, Tea Party may have started out as grass roots, but when the Koch Bros and Fox News got hold of it, they used the Tea Party mindset to achieve a power grab in the House of Reps. Almost immediately, people realized what a huge mistake they made as union-busting, deregulation of coal and chemical businesses, and keeping the status quo with regard to taxes and tax loopholes was relieved to be the real agenda.

As Dems, moderates, and some republicans start talking specifics about how the tax code actually works for the upper 1% -- people are less likely to be fooled by industry-funded partisan rhetoric.

No one, left, right, or center believes that corps and wealthy individuals should have access to so many loopholes and subsidies. Everyone wants those drastically scaled back or gone completely. That's a place to start.

hazlnut said:

In fairness, Tea Party may have started out as grass roots, but when the Koch Bros and Fox News got hold of it, they used the Tea Party mindset to achieve a power grab in the House of Reps. Almost immediately, people realized what a huge mistake they made as union-busting, deregulation of coal and chemical businesses, and keeping the status quo with regard to taxes and tax loopholes was relieved to be the real agenda.

As Dems, moderates, and some republicans start talking specifics about how the tax code actually works for the upper 1% -- people are less likely to be fooled by industry-funded partisan rhetoric.

No one, left, right, or center believes that corps and wealthy individuals should have access to so many loopholes and subsidies. Everyone wants those drastically scaled back or gone completely. That's a place to start.

Click to expand...

This folks, is a propagandist hard at work. Hazl, get a new prism, yours is warped.

Barbbtx said:

What is meant by "tea Party extremism?" [...]

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

This folks, is a propagandist hard at work. Hazl, get a new prism, yours is warped.

Click to expand...

Karl said:

.......Romney is very chameleon-like.......

Click to expand...

Mitt Romney is the ultimate flip-flopper.

johnny_rebson said:

Mitt Romney is the ultimate flip-flopper.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if you needed a model to poise for a mannequin for a Rodeo Drive older gentlemen's suit shop, he's perfect.

Romney is an example of a disputed slogan: "Money can't buy you love." But it can buy a woman or even a wife - or possibly even a presidential nomination.

If Romney has the identical amount of money as the other candidates this would be a very different contest.

But, I suppose, in a "capitalistic" society why shouldn't the nomination be for sale?

Maybe Republicans should rewrite their primary rules. Just sell each state's delegates - a delegate at a time - to the highest bidder? Then the Republican party could use all the money for the general election. They could claim this method would prove their candidate is the most skilled at capitalism. Whoever has the most money obviously is most qualified.

Fiddytree said:

I think very few Democrats are truly Occupy sympathizers. I think in the beginning they were pandering to that crowd, but that had dramatically shrunk afterwards. The Occupy group is mostly a group unto itself and holds little influence.

Click to expand...

I'm a Dem. If I was a little younger, I'd be out there with Occupy myself. The regular citizenry needs desperately, a group of lobbyists to do the work that needs to be done if economic parity can ever be achieved again.

joko104 said:

Yes, but if you needed a model to poise for a mannequin for a Rodeo Drive older gentlemen's suit shop, he's perfect.

Click to expand...

Mitt isn't my flavor of the day but there is no shame in changing your mind. Intelligent people change their minds when they find reason to do so. It seems to be a "thing" with the GOP, that if you become enlightened on a subject and do change your mind, that's it's some kind of tragedy. How strange.

Objective Voice said:

"It's the economy, stupid!" plus who has the better plan for the immediate future (and for Americans "immediate" generally means the next 4 years) that will matter most.

So far, all we've heard from the GOP candidates is "who can debate better" or "who the better job creator" yet neither candidate has really said anything of a positive nature that's better than what the current President has done, is doing or has presented. Besides, if those on the Right were honest with themselves they'd listen to their party leadership (i.e., those in Congress, as wells as, respected party members like Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Daniels) and accept the "hint" Republicans are throwing at the country, "the Republican party is in no position to govern".

Heed the warning, ladies and gentlemen...

Click to expand...

Obama is already voted out, if that's the case.

johnny_rebson said:

Mitt Romney is the ultimate flip-flopper.

Click to expand...

He's also the only candidate to have been a governor, and the only one to be a success in business. I'd take his resume over Gingrich's any day. And Santorum's not even close to Newt, much less Romney.

However, go ahead and don't vote for Romney. That's what Obama will tell you.

Uzidoesit said:

Mitt isn't my flavor of the day but there is no shame in changing your mind.....

Click to expand...

Romney changes his political stances more often than he changes his underwear.

hazlnut said:

In fairness, Tea Party may have started out as grass roots, but when the Koch Bros and Fox News got hold of it, they used the Tea Party mindset to achieve a power grab in the House of Reps. Almost immediately, people realized what a huge mistake they made as union-busting, deregulation of coal and chemical businesses, and keeping the status quo with regard to taxes and tax loopholes was relieved to be the real agenda.

As Dems, moderates, and some republicans start talking specifics about how the tax code actually works for the upper 1% -- people are less likely to be fooled by industry-funded partisan rhetoric.

No one, left, right, or center believes that corps and wealthy individuals should have access to so many loopholes and subsidies. Everyone wants those drastically scaled back or gone completely. That's a place to start.

Click to expand...

Tea Party is still grass roots. There are portions of it that are not. Fox News doesnt "have a hold of it", the organization largely does not have a leader and is not effective at a national level. Local races is where impact is made.

Union busting, deregulation of coal and chemical and keeping the status quo with regard to taxes and tax loopholes? New coal regulation is going to cost some half a billion in payroll. People want jobs. Over regulation is doing the opposite. Union busting? Unions themselves have over reached in the private sector. Cities, counties, states and the federal government are going freaking broke because of the unfunded liabilities in pension plans voted in by democrats for democrats. Its an endless loop of elect democrats, get fat labor concessions, donate money to union, union helps elect dems. The tea party is about controlling spending. Always has been.

As Dems, moderates, and some republicans start talking specifics about how the tax code actually works for the upper 1% -- people are less likely to be fooled by industry-funded partisan rhetoric.

Click to expand...

This is doubling down on a lie---"industry-funded rhetoric" with a strawman "people are less likely to fooled". Or as some would call it: propaganda. Lies and half truths blended with an opinion passed off as a prediction.

No one, left, right, or center believes that corps and wealthy individuals should have access to so many loopholes and subsidies. Everyone wants those drastically scaled back or gone completely.

Click to expand...

So now he speaks for the left, right and center and sets up ANOTHER strawman. "Everyone". Heh ok.

Hazl's post is partisan crap. It contains nothing backing its claims. It uses one fallacy after another and it just reeks. This is a disinformation hit piece on the Tea Party and frankly, its annoying as crap that it was let fly as being on topic.

Karl said:

Click to expand...

LOL suppoting our 2nd amendment rights and holding a sign is extreme? The tea party has never even had any arrests to my knowledge. Yet they are called extreme. Extreme would be if they were promoting communism, socialism, anti-semitism, vandalism, economic destruction,..........Hec, they don't even litter