I'm wondering how many seats the GOP is going to win this fall. Seriously.
If you would've asked me two months ago, I probably would've said quite a few with the distinct possibility of taking over either the House or Senate. But now, not so much. GOP leaders see very clearly that the Tea Party movement is splintering their party. And this would be why they are moving further to the right on most issues. They are trying desperately to maintain cohesion.
Extremes don't win elections. Getting the vote in the middle does. So, how does the GOP expect to win back a substantial number of seats if substantial numbers are moving further to the right? As I have said many times, the word "compromise" isn't in their vocabulary. More importantly, if they only win back a few or none, this will be the third election in a row in which they have not done well. Honestly, anything less than 5 seats in the Senate and 20 in the House will be considered failure.
Combine this possible failure with the total losses of 2006 and 2008 and one has to seriously wonder if the GOP might need to admit, for the sake of its survival, that, while we live in a center right country, we don't live in the far right utopia in which there is only one way of living...THEIR WAY.
Over the next few months, it's going to be interesting to watch the GOP struggle with itself. Do they want to win which would entail compromise? Or will they stick to their rigidity and lose an excellent chance of taking back more seats in Congress?
11 comments:
Out of curiousity, what "compromises" do you think the GOP should make?
Ironically, Nation is crowing about Stupak retiring because they want to purge the party of "conservadems". So, extremist stupidity is not the sole province of rightie Repubs after all.
Yes, the votes are completely split.
and you're worried markadelphia, don't try to claim otherwise.
I was worried, Scott, but not anymore. I have no doubt that the GOP will win back some seats but, barring some giant catastrophe, their gains will be minimal. They don't have anything to offer that is reasonable in any way.
Juris, I think the compromises should start with simply agreeing with the president on the same things that Reagan would have done (nuclear treaty, diplomacy, AfPak). It would also behoove them to curtail the "Obama is Hitler" garbage and illustrate their honest solutions to our country's economic issues.
Well, what your side is offering while in charge isn't reasonable either. What your side delivers is going to be the measuring stick that will be used, or are we just supposed to ignore deficits and high unemployment rates (like you love to do) and focus on who paid for some rally Bachmann or Palin goes to (as if anyone outside of us political junkies really cares about that). It will be a referendum on Obamas policies and since you don't talk about his policies much, I agree with Scott that you are worried.
I've spent some time scanning back through this blog since I just started reading. I don't understand all the grief Mark gets for "not" talking about policy. This entire blog is about President Obama's policies. Just recently, Mark commented on the new oil fields that have opened up. He does make comments about other things but this is a political blog so you are off base rld.
Just take a look at the front page of the blog right now moron.
Talking about who funded a Michelle Bachmann rally.
Talking about cohesion between republicans and how they don't compromise.
Posting a Jon Stewart video.
Talking about Sean Hannity interview of Palin.
Talking about how the media apparently isn't liberal.
Makes fun of Fox News.
Talks about Republican Senator Coburn.
Talked about Ronald Reagan.
Yeah, plenty of discussion of policy going on. Better keep scanning back.
(nuclear treaty, diplomacy, AfPak)
Interesting that you should mention only off-shore subjects. But even there, what big objections have the Repubs raised on those (and I mean the Repubs in OFFICE - not some stupid talking head on TV). This might be difficult, since the Repubs don't seem to have any leadership these days - I imagine you could quote some Repub as either violently opposed or in blissful agreement, let alone somewhere in between.
Mark, why do you need the gop to "illustrate their honest solutions to our country's economic issues"? Why don't you provide us with an illustration of the economic issues we are facing and right after each point, tell us what the people you voted for are doing to solve the problem. After that, give us a timeframe for the proposed new solution to take effect. According to many of you, the smart, educated ones are in charge now so let's have your reasoning as to why there are still economic issues in this country with your party controlling the house, senate and white house.
(here's the point where we see a "Don't do it Mark!", a member of the one line insult crew drops in to call me a name, or someone goes on a rant about gwb, Reagan, or Palin.)
I don't need the GOP do anything. If they want to continue with their current strategy, fine by me. I guess part of me wishes that we had some substantive and intelligent conservative counter balance to the "liberal" ideology we have running our government. I'm not going to fall in lock step with everything the Democrats do.
As to your other suggestion, I do that all the time...just not enough to you liking. If there's one thing I've learned about the themes of my posts...no matter what I do...your opinion has already been formed that I don't talk enough about policy. I will never change your mind no matter what I post or don't post so I'm going to continue to talk about what's on my mind and what inspires me to write.
So you won't answer a question simply because you can't change someones mind? What about the other people who read your blog?
Maybe what I was looking for is proof that Obama is in the process of changing the world.
Go to the archives of this blog to Jan 30, 2007 in your entry Origin of the species where you said "Make no mistake about it. Most of these problems have simple solutions and if it were left up to liberals, most of them would be either by solved or on a path to solution."
Just want to know how that path looks.
I didn't fall in lockstep with everything GWB did either, yet (only on this blog) us GWB voters were held responsible for each and every thing that happened under his watch. Problems at the VA were his, as well as the people who voted for him, fault, gay people being held down was our fault, and dead Iraqi children...yep our fault.
That's the measuring stick used on here. We didn't fall in lockstep with everything GWB either but that never stopped you.
Hell even global warming was our fault. This blog, Wed Dec 15, 2007...
"They usually tie in to these stories accusations of threats, made by people like Al Gore and the IPCC, to those scientists who don't agree, oddly spinning this fantasy into a realm of complete unreality. It's quite obvious, and I especially hope so after this report, that the only information doctoring and threats being made are actually by the Bush Administration and conservatives."
I think we know now who was doing the information doctoring. Along those same lines, why was the comment section of the Feb 12, 2007 (De Plane!, De Plane!) entry taken down? I recall a lively discussion we had that even involved PL and John Waxey.
It's way past due for a Dick Nixon or downtown insult in this thread.
http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15905891
Post a Comment