GOP Recovery [Archive]

LaoTzu

03-28-2009, 08:46 PM

I tend to think that the GOP knew they were going to lose after Bush, and did all they could to bankrupt the country for the next 4 years (or more....)
The Dems take over, all is in shambles... the GOP blames the Dems... they win the next 12 years at least... kind of a rewrite of the Regan/Bush era. Hell....even Clinton leaned more to the right than the left... the GOP basically ran the show for the last 28 years.

Obama has no real chance to do anything 'drastic' in a lefty kind of way...there's no money left. And given 4 years, and conservative domination of the media; it will soon enough be 'all his fault'. Personally I think the GOP tipped their hand too soon, as they are wont to do... blaming Obama in frikkin' November last year for crying out loud :P

Obama has to do one hell of a job, if the Dems are going to be players in the next decade. This jury is still out... but from what I've seen so far, it's still more likely than not that he will do as well as can be expected.

darynthe

03-28-2009, 08:52 PM

And given 4 years, and conservative domination of the media; it will soon enough be 'all his fault'.

The media is conservative? Are you talking of internet blogs by that? I mean, not even there!

qwerty123

03-28-2009, 08:55 PM

I tend to think that the GOP knew they were going to lose after Bush, and did all they could to bankrupt the country for the next 4 years (or more....)

I would agree, there has clearly been a trend of increasing deficit to reduce ability to delay boarding the "socialism express".

Obama has no real chance to do anything 'drastic' in a lefty kind of way...there's no money left. And given 4 years, and conservative domination of the media; it will soon enough be 'all his fault'.

I'm wondering where you're from in the country, because I have not seen a lot of conservative news. Examples? (besides fox)

So would you say that the GOP plays the muss up and wait game?

eternaltriangle

03-28-2009, 09:07 PM

I think you guys are right, but thinking too small about the problems facing the GOP. Folks like Limbaugh are right that the party no longer knows what it stands for, but wrong in their prescription (running to the right of Attila the Hun).

Demography is destiny. America's Hispanic population is growing - most Republicans have engaged in scaremongering. America is getting better educated - the Republicans just ran the most anti-intellectual campaign in recent memory. Americans are less religious than ever - yet Republican candidates must sit at the pews of the extremely religious in order to win their leadership.

Simply put, the coalition of voters that enabled Republican victories since 1968. Nixon had a party that consisted largely of affluent northerners. He exploited the segregation issue, and the hippie elements of the Democratic party to win over white southerners and more socially conservative working class voters. This basic coalition won lost only 3 elections in 40 years.

The notion that the Republicans must "return to their roots" is foolish. The Republicans of 1945-1980 were cautious moderates. The Republicans of the earlier 20th century were isolationists. Not only are the "back to our roots" folks wrong strategically, in calling for a strategy that requires a demographic reality that no longer exists, they are also wrong about history. The values of the party, like those of the Democrats, have always evolved.

In order to win again, the GOP must ask: who is now in the Democratic camp that might switch to the GOP? Why aren't they switching already? I would suggest a few ripe targets.

1. Affluent/educated voters
McCain/Palin, and Bush/Cheney before adopted overtly anti-intellectual posturing in their campaign strategy. Today, Republicans in graduate schools generally don't let their political leanings be known (that is, the few that ARE Republican). The O'Reilly's of the world have made rejecting evidence a badge of pride for conservatives. Moreover, the reliance of the party on the religious right for support forces the party to stridently adopt positions that are not shared by most highly educated voters. The Republican record of overspending and short-term thinking on the economy certainly didn't do them any favours either.

How to win back this group? The GOP needs to be a party of ideas, not values. It may need to moderate some stances on social issues (eg. gay marriage/abortion), or at least, not require a litmus test on that issue. They should focus debate towards the economy, since the better off are best-served by right wing policies. They need to be able to market themselves as being pro-science, open to atheists, and ultimately, the party of fiscal responsibility. The obsession with tax cuts is hurting Republican policy - tax cuts funded by deficits are not tax cuts, they mean less government today and more government tomorrow.

2. Minorities
Hispanic and African-American voters are often very conservative on social issues. However, in spite of sharing many values with the GOP, they overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats. Look at the exit polls on prop 8 - in one of the most liberal states, a core constituency for the Dems ended gay marriage. Partly, this reflects their economic interests, but in a very big way, it is also because Democrats talk to them. Republicans have a dark history of late, that involves using coded language to incite the fears of white suburbanites. Open up to affirmative action, community policing (instead of "tough on crime" policies) and emphasize the Republicans as the party of the aspiring class, not the upper class, and success is possible.

There are Republicans (and conservatives) that have had success at breaking through. George W. Bush won a majority of muslim votes in 2000, and made significant headway among Hispanic voters. Before 2000, the Republicans usually won the Asian vote. In Canada, Conservative leader Stephen Harper won in many immigrant communities that the Liberals once had a stranglehold on.

These two strategies are somewhat mutually exclusive, and will probably be debated over by fiscal conservatives (who will favour the first) and social conservatives (who will favour the second). It may be that pursuing either strategy alienates the other group. That said, under the status quo the Republicans will lose, and continue losing.

Monte314

03-28-2009, 09:08 PM

The Republican leadership has been dithering like a bunch of intoxicated Keystone Cops for the last 8 years or more. They were handed a massive mandate (both the Presidency and Congress) in 2000, and they managed to flub the whole thing into the political toilet.

I don't think Republicans as a group have shifted... but their leadership has, leaving their historic constituency behind in a vain search for an "easier sell" than conventional conservatism. This has backfired horribly.

I predict that we will see the emergence of a new group of Republican leaders who rally the electorate around a call for a return to the more conventional social and fiscal policies that have been abandoned by the bozos currently in office.

eternaltriangle

03-28-2009, 09:16 PM

It is just that McCain played all he had in one game of blackjack. He thought he had nothing to lose. He didn't trust himself enough.

I wonder what type he is. ENTP?

I think we may see more of Joe the plumber. I sorta liked him. :p

McCain is sooo ESTP. He is a small picture guy, and his positions reflect that. He clearly doesn't have an ideology (which is more of an N thing), and is pretty at home with cognitive dissonance. He is the sort of guy who picks the policies he thinks are best on their own merits.

As for Joe the Plumber... hell no! That guy is an opportunist seeking his 15 minutes of fame. He lacks the knowledge or tact to be anything more than a campaign prop (and he wasn't even that successful in his role as a prop).

My MBTI's of 2008 candidates
McCain: ESTP
Palin: ESFJ
Obama: INFP
Biden: ESTP
Hillary Clinton: ISTJ
Romney: ISTJ
Huckabee: ENFJ
Giuliani: ESTJ
Paul: ISTJ or INTJ
Edwards: ENFJ

darynthe

03-28-2009, 09:19 PM

the Republicans just ran the most anti-intellectual campaign in recent memory.

Agreed. They did very very poorly.

However, it was Obama who made me feel personally insulted. His ridiculous chanchangechange mantra was the most basic appeal to people's instinct and emotions. While he is intelligent, he just manipulated the feelings of the voters turning them into slobbering fanatics and adorers.

That wins the game set and match on anti-intellectualism.

darynthe added to this post, 1 minutes and 51 seconds later...

My MBTI's of 2008 candidates
McCain: ESTP
Palin: ESFJ
Obama: INFP

Obama INFP!!!!!!! I have no words.

qwerty123

03-28-2009, 09:53 PM

His ridiculous chanchangechange mantra was the most basic appeal to people's instinct and emotions.

This is very probably a poorly drawn suggestion:

Post WWII Europe needed some fixing up (change/reboot). Generally their countries are socialistic. (Yay for 50-70% of income to Government!)

Maybe the economic crisis caused some to worry enough that it started the panic/reboot mode in people?

"Well if I don't have a job, at least I can get free health care! And while he's changing everything, I might be better off than I am now." (Plus it's stylish to support him, especially if I'm wealthy and likely to be looked at as conservative.)

(Insert lecture on TANSTAFL)

qwerty123 added to this post, 12 minutes and 22 seconds later...

any other insights?

TheLastMohican

03-28-2009, 10:16 PM

I think we may see more of Joe the plumber. I sorta liked him. :p

Well, he does have the best campaign slogan.

eternaltriangle

03-28-2009, 10:18 PM

Obama's success runs much deeper than that. Obama was successful among white educated voters in particular (both against Clinton and McCain) because of how his candidacy alleviates white/liberal guilt over slavery and racism. The worst thing you could call a white college student is a racist. Visibly supporting Obama, however, was like wearing a badge that said "I am not a racist" (even if many of his college campus supporters never interact with African Americans). This gave Obama the screaming college students that formed the base of his extremely efficient, high-tech organization.

Bill Clinton, once called "America's first black president" was labeled a racist for dismissing Obama's position on Iraq as a fairy-tale. McCain desperately avoided using the Jeremiah Wright tapes in order to prevent himself from being accused of the same. Obama was able to get positive stories, without taking the risk of doing lots of interviews in unfavorable conditions.

What was critical was that Obama ran as a post civil rights African American - he was a guy that just "happened to be black". That he was mixed, and not descended from slaves (possibly descended from slave owners, actually) aided in that. Moreover, beyond that, Obama looked exactly like how the chattering classes likes to see itself in relation to red states. Tall, thin, fit, cosmopolitan, cool, well-educated and smart.

To some (including me at the time) Obama's candidacy seemed unwise for the Democrats because it took them too far to the left. What I didn't realize is the degree to which Americans voted based on cultural affinity, and so Obama won among $200,000+/year voters who thought "that Obama is a guy like us."

What are Obama's weaknesses?
1. His coalition of educated voters and African Americans (plus other traditional Democratic constituency groups) have widely divergent views on social issues. That division can be exploited.

2. Having no record was an asset in the 2008 campaign because it meant one could only attack Obama's personal characteristics - running the risk of being labeled racist. Now Obama will have a record, meaning that conversation can turn to issues. Obama is bad at speaking about specifics and given how beneficial his personal characteristics are, it will be hard for him to put together a good enough record.

3. Obama established very high expectations among voters in the last campaign. He already seems to be falling well below those expectations.

4. The media is starting to ask tougher questions, although they have tended to target Obama's administration, and not the big guy.

5. The economy will probably still be in bad shape during 2010 midterm elections.

Obama also has some real strengths
1. The best organization in the game, and one that hasn't stopped working simply because the election is over.

2. Obama's high approval ratings can ensure that his agenda gets through. The current economic circumstances enable him to spend lots of money to win over swing voters, while the negative effects of that spending won't be felt till after the end of his second term.

3. The economy will almost certainly be in recovery in 2012. Obama will be almost unbeatable, barring a major scandal.

4. Without holding power, the Republicans will be hard pressed to maintain party discipline, much less prevent internecine warfare, and the nomination of an unelectable candidate (like Palin) in 2012.

qwerty123

03-28-2009, 10:25 PM

3. The economy will almost certainly be in recovery in 2012. Obama will be almost unbeatable, barring a major scandal.

4. Without holding power, the Republicans will be hard pressed to maintain party discipline, much less prevent internecine warfare, and the nomination of an unelectable candidate (like Palin) in 2012.

so maybe back to the original question of what, if anything the GOP can do.. even if it is merely preparing for the future? (although I greatly appreciate your insight.)

LaoTzu

03-28-2009, 10:40 PM

Aw for crying out loud man....

How about "He just made sense..."
I mean... after Bush2, Clinton...Bush1, and Regan.... Obama looks like a freaking genius. He's a common man. He came from nothing. He worked his ass off. He's the most unlikely of candidates. He was the underdog. He speaks to the issues, and unlike others, he's actually Working on the issues.

That has more to do with it than race. I know we're talking about the US here, but 'white-guilt' is a myth propagated by ACTUAL racists, and Righty talk-show nutjobs...
I think that by talking about his race, it demeans him. Instead of "there is a capable president"...it's "there's the first black president".... It's sad really.

Bill Clinton, once called "America's first black president" was labeled a racist for dismissing Obama's position on Iraq as a fairy-tale.
(I think it had more to do with 'something regarding a certain Jesse Jackson reference ;) )

McCain desperately avoided using the Jeremiah Wright tapes in order to prevent himself from being accused of the same.

He didn't have to use the Wright tapes....the media did it for him. He tried to play high-ground, like Obama was able to do. In the end, he did try to use Wright....and like most of his campaign, his timing was incredibly off.

Now that I'm done ranting... It's time for more ranting :)
The media IS conservative. Seriously. I'm not just throwing that shit out there begging for it to stick. I started feeling this way watching the lead-up to Iraq, and I have to tell you.... It's not what they say, its what they DON'T say. It's the questions they DON'T ask. It's the topics they DON'T cover. Taken into account, you would have a hard time thinking they have any sort of 'liberal' mindset. It's continued through the years, and as a crazy socialist, I have never seen a news report that made me say "yeah baby! You get 'em!". It's usually "what a bunch of morons....why didn't they ask 'this' "

TheLastMohican

03-28-2009, 10:46 PM

The media IS conservative.

Compared to what?

LaoTzu

03-28-2009, 10:51 PM

so maybe back to the original question of what, if anything the GOP can do.. even if it is merely preparing for the future? (although I greatly appreciate your insight.)

Establish Leadership.
Adopt and promote a new 'Mission Statement of the GOP'
Fight for the little guy (just for election gains, don't panic ... ;) )
Tame the likes of Limpbaugh/Ins-Hannity/Oh'Really, get them on board for the kinder-gentler GOP.

Engage shameless self-promotion.

Wait for Obama to screw up ( and he will.... it's human nature)

EXPLOIT!!!

Voila! You win! (or are at least uber-competitive) ;)

Compared to what?

Compared to anything you might hear outside your border ;)

eternaltriangle

03-28-2009, 10:55 PM

so maybe back to the original question of what, if anything the GOP can do.. even if it is merely preparing for the future? (although I greatly appreciate your insight.)

Lose the battle, win the war.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater lost in one of the most lopsided elections in American history. However, apart from Arizona, all of the states he won (the deep south) were traditionally Democratic states, that have voted overwhelmingly for the GOP since. Once the GOP united behind Goldwater's ideas (Ford was a Rockefeller Republican, and Nixon was between the Rockefeller and Goldwater camps) they were able to put a distinctive stamp on the country with Reagan as president.

Since short term factors indicate a likely defeat for the Republicans, they should use their likely defeat as an opportunity for re-branding to aid in a necessary change in their long-term prospects for victory. That means:
1. Not playing the electoral college game
2. Targeting groups that will probably be resistant to the party at first
3. Probably some internal conflict that won't be resolved immediately
4. It also requires that the GOP is fairly consistent in pursuing whatever strategy it undertakes

An example scenario:
Mike Huckabee (Or Michael Steele or Bobby Jindal) wins the Republican nomination in 2012. Markets his party as compassionate conservatives, while disavowing traditional stances on illegal immigration and affirmative action. Campaigns in poor, urban, and mostly non-white areas Obama would be afraid to set foot in. Campaigns among working class unionized voters.
Result: Huckabee gets wiped out, only winning in the deep south (where he wins in a landslide). However, manages to win 20% of the black vote, alongside gains with lower income voters.
In 2016 legalization of gay marriage is starting to take off in many states. Hillary is the Dem nominee. Huckabee wins the GOP nomination again and forces Hillary to adopt pro-gay marriage stance, alienating African American support, which Huckabee sweeps (aided by memories of Clinton "racism" in 2008 primaries).

Another example scenario:
Republicans nominate Paul Ryan (or Eric Cantor) in 2012, who wins in a crowded field on a moderate libertarian stance (I mean somebody who is more fiscally conservative and socially liberal than the average Republican - not a nutbar like Ron Paul). Obama wipes the floor with Ryan, who alienates the Christian right somewhat, as well as "Reagan Democrats". However, the Republicans fare surprisingly well on college campuses and in the northeast - even winning New Hampshire for the first time in a long while. In 2016, as Gen Y starts having to pay taxes for the first time (amidst spiralling inflation from the Obamadebt), Gen Y abandons the Democrats for a Republican party that facilitates their financial aspirations and fits their values. The Christian right votes for the lesser evil.

LaoTzu

03-28-2009, 10:58 PM

Hell, I'm in Ontario... what do I know.
But I reject the idea the media helped Obama. They kept McCain in the game more than anything. Prior to that they kept Billary in the game. I'm not sure where the 'fear' comes in to play, but I don't care enough to argue my own sanity. :P I'll just say, the media serves it's owners. It's a money game. No story, no Money... simple as that. They thrive on controversy, 'holy-shit' video, and whatever else keeps people watching, and advertising $$$'s coming in.

As far as Palin goes... I can't wait for 2012 to watch her get eaten alive by her own party. GWB is brilliant compared to her, and the Dems couldn't afford to attack her the way her own party will in the primaries. At least, so long as none are damn fool enough to want to keep her around as a running mate :P

darynthe

03-28-2009, 11:07 PM

Obama's success runs much deeper than that. Obama was successful among white educated voters in particular (both against Clinton and McCain) because of how his candidacy alleviates white/liberal guilt over slavery and racism. The worst thing you could call a white college student is a racist. Visibly supporting Obama, however, was like wearing a badge that said "I am not a racist" (even if many of his college campus supporters never interact with African Americans). This gave Obama the screaming college students that formed the base of his extremely efficient, high-tech organization.

Bill Clinton, once called "America's first black president" was labeled a racist for dismissing Obama's position on Iraq as a fairy-tale. McCain desperately avoided using the Jeremiah Wright tapes in order to prevent himself from being accused of the same. Obama was able to get positive stories, without taking the risk of doing lots of interviews in unfavorable conditions.

What was critical was that Obama ran as a post civil rights African American - he was a guy that just "happened to be black". That he was mixed, and not descended from slaves (possibly descended from slave owners, actually) aided in that. Moreover, beyond that, Obama looked exactly like how the chattering classes likes to see itself in relation to red states. Tall, thin, fit, cosmopolitan, cool, well-educated and smart.

Excellent analysis. I am not sure of your idea that the effects of the debt Obama wants to incurr in will be felt in many many years. It is frankly way too much even for the States.

And the trouble here is not the debt per se but how is to be used. When you get long term debt you need to use it to get long term productive assets. Otherwise you end up a third world country.

Another point, I don't think anyone would let Palin near the nomination for the GOP ever again. She got typecast and burntout. Time out.

I think the GOP is dead. No brain waves there. The only thing that may revive it is a new very vocal leader. It will be a one man's job.

About the white guilt, I am not sure people voted for this reason. However, it was a very powerful reason for withholding any criticism of Obama. This is how the election was won.

darynthe added to this post, 8 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Hell, I'm in Ontario... what do I know.
But I reject the idea the media helped Obama. They kept McCain in the game more than anything. Prior to that they kept Billary in the game. I'm not sure where the 'fear' comes in to play, but I don't care enough to argue my own sanity. :P

It seems to me that maybe you didn't follow obssessively the primaries and then the final campaign. It was a hell of a soap opera. Obama won over the media on Supertuesday. They destroyed Clinton. Then they ignored and made fun of McCain. The last part was done by SNL and the leftist politic shows ex. John Stewart and even David Letterman.

Snowdragon

03-28-2009, 11:20 PM

Another point, I don't think anyone would let Palin near the nomination for the GOP ever again. She got typecast and burntout. Time out.

I think the GOP is dead. No brain waves there.

As long as the GOP sticks to the policies favored by GWB, they will get their asses kicked.

The GOP is like the Romanovs. They used to be popular and powerful, now they are highly unpopular, fallen from grace, and must go into hiding. The only way they can resurrect themselves to sever ties with the religious right.

TheLastMohican

03-28-2009, 11:24 PM

Compared to anything you might hear outside your border ;)
Okay, I agree to some extent. Just remember that Europe is is also a lot more liberal than most of the world.

LaoTzu

03-28-2009, 11:28 PM

Okay, I agree to some extent. Just remember that Europe is is also a lot more liberal than most of the world.

I'm 2 hours from ya'll ;)

TheLastMohican

03-28-2009, 11:31 PM

I'm 2 hours from ya'll ;)
I'm not saying you're from Europe, just that when you say "outside your border," you should keep in mind the ultra-conservative countries out there as well as the quasi-socialist and communist ones.

LaoTzu

03-28-2009, 11:41 PM

Again, I don't take such a position lightly. It's rare I even take a position so blatantly to one side of an issue :) I try to stick to the middle of everything.

Try. ;)

Perhaps that's what makes it so obvious to me.

I'll suggest NPR as somewhere in the 'middle' of both sides. CBC (Our version of NPR) here is pretty lefty, even for me; but NPR seems to get it right.
But print/TV/Radio out of the US? ... all I see is Conservatism in it. (Yes, even the NYTimes...)

Rudy

03-28-2009, 11:42 PM

But print/TV/Radio out of the US? ... all I see is Conservatism in it. (Yes, even the NYTimes...)

Conservatism relative to your country? Sure. Conservatism relative to the average of this country? No.

TheLastMohican

03-28-2009, 11:44 PM

I'll suggest NPR as somewhere in the 'middle' of both sides. CBC (Our version of NPR) here is pretty lefty, even for me; but NPR seems to get it right.
But print/TV/Radio out of the US? ... all I see is Conservatism in it. (Yes, even the NYTimes...)

The U.S. media seems conservative to you, but the people here are still more conservative.

LaoTzu

03-29-2009, 12:03 AM

Valid point(s). And fair enough. I will do the math.

But I'm sticking to my guns for the moment ;)

eternaltriangle

03-29-2009, 12:22 AM

I'll suggest NPR as somewhere in the 'middle' of both sides. CBC (Our version of NPR) here is pretty lefty, even for me; but NPR seems to get it right.
But print/TV/Radio out of the US? ... all I see is Conservatism in it. (Yes, even the NYTimes...)

For the record I am Canadian as well - the US media isn't so much "more conservative" than the Canadian media (compared to the average American) as it is more partisan. MSNBC is overtly on the left, Fox, overtly on the right, while CNN has some issue specific stances (eg. Dobbs on immigration). In Canada the CBC is maybe a little left and CTV a little right (and maybe a little less so now that Mike Duffy is in the senate), but they don't have news shows anchored by people that "call out" Harper or Ignatieff.

The evidence suggests that Obama got more favourable coverage than any candidate by a ratio of about 2-1.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that underestimates some key factors as well. Obama could maintain free, and essentially positive news coverage because he "was the story". Because getting face-time with Obama was so valuable, the cost of getting "access" was much greater - people had to accept an environment where fewer "tough" questions would be asked. Thus, Obama was able to run a tightly scripted campaign, and avoid gaffes. McCain, by contrast, had to overtly DO SOMETHING to get any attention, and adopt a large degree of openness to the press (McCain has had favourable press in the past, largely because he is very candid - that also makes him more gaffe-prone).

eternaltriangle added to this post, 18 minutes and 13 seconds later...

I'll suggest NPR as somewhere in the 'middle' of both sides. CBC (Our version of NPR) here is pretty lefty, even for me; but NPR seems to get it right.
But print/TV/Radio out of the US? ... all I see is Conservatism in it. (Yes, even the NYTimes...)

For fun, I will play devil's advocate (contradicting what I said above) and argue that the Canadian media is dominated by the right.

1. Canada has two national newspapers. One, is the National Post, founded by conservative Lord Conrad Black of Crossharbour (now in prison in Florida). The other, the Globe and Mail, is not necessarily socially conservative, but is definitely fiscally conservative. In the last two elections they endorsed the Conservative party. During the constitutional crisis they strongly opposed the coalition taking power. Both newspapers are owned by the same family, the Aspers, which have endorsed the Conservative Party.

Of the major regional papers only the Toronto Star endorsed the Conservative party.

2. Maclean's is probably Canada's most influential news magazine - not as widely read, but definitely read by elite audiences. Its best known writers include Andrew Coyne and Mark Steyn - both of whom are conservatives. The magazine is clearly fiscally conservative, and does not seem to have a single NDP'er, or even left wing Liberal on its staff.

3. Canada has three major news networks - the CTV, the CBC and Global. The CTV has a clearly pro-Conservative bias. Mike Duffy, one of its best-known personalities was just appointed to the senate by the Conservative Stephen Harper. CTV aired a tape of Liberal Stephane Dion stuttering his way through a question, despite agreeing not to air the tape, harming Dion's chances. During the constitutional crisis their discussion of Dion's response to Harper's address revolved around the quality of the tape not the content of the message. Heck, their show, E! Talk Daily even gives employment to Ben Mulroney, son of a former Conservative Prime Minister.

Global news is owned by Canwest, and is part of the Asper media empire. One of its hosts (Peter Kent) is now the Conservative MP for Thornhill.

As for the CBC, its reputation as a left-wing news organization is overblown. Its premiere news show - the National - has been hosted by Peter Kent (now Conservative MP for Thornhill) and Pamela Wallin (Conservative senator). These are the only hosts to have entered politics. While the national itself is fairly neutral, its episodes are capped by Rex Murphy, who is a Conservative. The most watched CBC program is Coach's corner, which gives airtime to Don Cherry, one of the best known Conservative voices in Canada.

Their "left-wing" shows, like The Hour, are not on at prime-time, and are purposely hosted by an obviously stoned not-so-credible host. CBC political comedy - 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce, and the Mercer report has generally been fair and balanced. They devastated Preston Manning in their day, but also helped demolish Stephane Dion.

In closing, there is little evidence to conclude that the Canadian media is left-of-centre, or balanced. Although only about 29-38% of Canadians are Conservative, almost all news coverage is dominated by the political right.

LaoTzu

03-29-2009, 12:23 AM

The evidence suggests that Obama got more favourable coverage than any candidate by a ratio of about 2-1.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain.

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain)."

Sketchy don't you think? :/
The timeline? Post-Wright, and Pre-Ayers (Ayer's coverage overlapped Oct 24's endline anyway...straight up to the 4th...)

And the idea of what constitutes pro vs. con? :/

Maybe I'm wrong, but all I saw was a media interested in keeping the public buying their product. When Obama was looking to walk away with it, they cut him down to size to keep things interesting.

qwerty123

03-29-2009, 12:25 AM

But print/TV/Radio out of the US? ... all I see is Conservatism in it. (Yes, even the NYTimes...)

The NYT recently admitted to hiring a conservative columnist. It could be a relative thing. In the US, the NYT is self-proclaimed left.

eternaltriangle

03-29-2009, 01:14 AM

The NYT recently admitted to hiring a conservative columnist. It could be a relative thing. In the US, the NYT is self-proclaimed left.

Of course left and right in the US have a lot more to do with cultural identity than ideas. The New York post is "conservative" because it is read by people we often consider conservative. Of course it is also (I assume) a leading voice attacking the AIG bonuses (which doesn't seem like a conservative position to me).

In the 50's when we thought of Republicans as being affluent, educated north-easterners, I am not sure the Times would have had that connotation.

dogwoodlover

03-29-2009, 05:02 AM

How is the Republican Party going to recover?

Democrats have 56/100 seats in the senate, and 254/435 seats in the house. Obama is President, and one would expect him to run for a second term.

Is this just a normal part of the political cycle, OR a reaction to Bush?

Did the average US citizen shift left, and the Republicans failed to adjust?

How are Republicans going to recover other than by clear failures in Democrat's policy?

Government and business (in the broadest sense) seem to excel at pissing people off (read, the average citizen). I see the two-party system as a way for government/business to continually shift the blame to "those in power" (i.e. specific senators, presidents, parties, etc.) The implication is always that it's "those bad apples." If people are angry at what is going on, the respective party in power is blamed. The solution then becomes to elect the "other party." Once shit hits the fan again (as it always does), the new party is blamed and the former party is once again reelected to "solve our problems." This process seems to be repeating itself and has been for some time. This "game" that is played appears to be crucial in preserving the system of power and authority that exists. God forbid if anyone were to ever question the way power is organized and concentrated. No... the system is perfect, it's just those "bad apples."

To answer your question, the GOP doesn't have to do anything. If they sit and wait, eventually Americans will come to believe that the Democrats are the cause of all our problems, and the Republicans will once again be reelected.

LaoTzu

03-29-2009, 08:08 AM

....This "game" that is played appears to be crucial in preserving the system of power and authority that exists. God forbid if anyone were to ever question the way power is organized and concentrated. No... the system is perfect, it's just those "bad apples."

Bien! Back in '04 I didn't care who won the election, it was fairly obvious nothing would change either way. I have no doubts that were Canada strictly a 2 party country (It sort-of is, but not really...it's fun...)
we'd be following the same trends. I agree that there is a powerful elite running the show, and elections/ parties are just window dressing.

I liked Obama primarily because I'm not under the impression he's in-hock to corporate interests, the old systems of control , and people of power. Clinton WAS. The Bushies et al. ARE the elite.... Obama, seems like an outsider. Hopefully , he can keep it that way (and not get shot for it).

I'm watching and waiting to pounce if I see him any other way :)

RBM

03-29-2009, 01:59 PM

@ eternaltriangle

3. The economy will almost certainly be in recovery in 2012. Obama will be almost unbeatable, barring a major scandal.

I see some major hurdles in achieving anything I would call a recovery by that time.

Could you provide some examples of what you would call a recovery ?

eternaltriangle

03-29-2009, 02:18 PM

@ eternaltriangle

I see some major hurdles in achieving anything I would call a recovery by that time.

Could you provide some examples of what you would call a recovery ?

I consider a recovery positive economic growth, first and foremost. Unemployment tends to start going down a little bit later. The US will still have massive deficits, and be on course to slower long-term growth, but the short-term recession will be over sooner rather than later. That doesn't mean the US isn't structurally likely to have more problems down the road, given that they haven't solved the regulatory problems that drove this recession, but it does mean Obama is in a good position for re-election.

Here is the historical data on unemployment in the US. As you can see, unemployment often spikes upward, but not for long. At the point when unemployment starts declining, that is when you are clearly in recovery territory, and the government can brag "we created X jobs."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A recovery re-elected Bush the younger, re-elected Clinton, re-elected Reagan, re-elected Nixon and re-elected Eisenhower.

RBM

03-29-2009, 06:25 PM

I'm watching and waiting to pounce if I see him any other way :)

I'd suggest you look at what his 'team players' are saying cause it would be very beneficial:

Obama’s Nobel Headache
Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. He's deeply skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. Why the establishment worries he may be right.
By Evan Thomas

By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring. But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking. The in crowd of any age can be deceived by self-confidence, as Liaquat Ahamed has shown in "Lords of Finance," his new book about the folly of central bankers before the Great Depression, and David Halberstam revealed in his Vietnam War classic, "The Best and the Brightest." Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

This is the 'civilized' arena.

nacht

03-29-2009, 08:16 PM

I'd suggest you look at what his 'team players' are saying cause it would be very beneficial:

This is the 'civilized' arena.

That doesn't say much other than that certain liberal economists disagree. Other liberal--and nonliberal--economists don't. That's not particularly surprising, and doesn't say much about him or his presidency other than that he doesn't fall in lockstep with any one individual or group.

This also doesn't imply that he's right or wrong, it just doesn't say much one way or the other unless you happen to agree with the person making the statement.

HeyZeus

03-29-2009, 09:39 PM

How is the Republican Party going to recover?

They're going brown in baby steps. As soon as Obama became Pres Elect, Minority Leahder Boehner starts showing up everywhere like he just got back from two weeks in Jamaica. Yes, the GOP minority leader is scheduling tanning sessions....simply awesome.

Then, after some speech I didn't watch, the GOP slams some guy Jindal who is from India ancestry to do the opposition spiel. I forgot, the GOP hires an African American party chairman I never heard of. So the GOP is trying double down on brown for mid-term elections. Unfortunately, they are still The Dick Armey + Orrin, Strom, Arlen, Lindsay, and a bunch of other protectionist white guys trying to protect the white american dream, as defined by formerly credible professor Samuel Huntington, whose book White is Right, and other reflections of a man looking resolutely backward into the past. Actual title: Who Are We? The Challenges to America's Identity, or something like that.

The Dick Armey as the secret name of the GOP never before felt so fitting.

Lucid

03-30-2009, 07:06 AM

God, where to begin.

It'd be nice to see the fiscal conservatives split off from the crazy religious/pro-life/creationist/science is the work of the devil people. I know a lot of people who are both fiscally conservative and have brains and I think they're becoming rather disenchanted with the Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley circus. The Republican party has something like a 20% approval rating and I'd say those people are a pretty big reason why.
Oh and Glenn Beck with his "look into my eyes (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)!" craziness.

And Joe the Plumber? That guy is laughable. "It used to be that if you criticized the army you'd just get shot and everyone was ok with that!" (<-- paraphrase) Hilarious.

The best thing the GOP can do for itself is to jettison the crazy. And think of some solutions other than tax cuts. We have a ridiculous amount of debt both from the current Democratic president and from the previous Republican and we are fighting two wars tax cuts are not a feasible solution.
They should push the fiscal responsibility aspects (and now is a perfect time to do so), stop bowing to Rush Limbaugh and put a ball gag on Bill O'Riley.

Tragic Hero

03-30-2009, 07:32 AM

LaoTzu

03-30-2009, 07:44 AM

Dear sweet Lucid, how is it that someone who identifies themselves as a soft Libertarian is so incredibly partisan; not just this post, but nearly every single one is of an attacking nature to my beloved Republicans, of whom I hold very dear.

Are you saying you blindly follow in anything the Republicans do? I mean... since when did common sense eject you from the GOP? :P

Tragic Hero

03-30-2009, 08:12 AM

Are you saying you blindly follow in anything the Republicans do? I mean... since when did common sense eject you from the GOP? :P

If I were saying that, I would have said it. How the hell would I be able to blindly follow anything the Republicans did ever. I don't live in America, I don't ever watch T.V and I don't actively follow american politics.

laserist

03-30-2009, 04:55 PM

The media is conservative? Are you talking of internet blogs by that? I mean, not even there!

The media owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Reporters ask questions, and that's enough to get them painted as liberals... Perhaps the time for entrenched divisive bullshit (i.e. school prayer, the pledge, flag burning, guns, nail files in carry on luggage, xmas decorations on public property, people who can't recite the the ten commandments insisting on putting them up on a wall, who screwed which intern, who's holier than...) is past. Perhaps the time for "money is speech" is past, after all it's worked so well. Maybe it's time to slap down the simplistic morons that think their side has all the answers, especially when they can't or won't even enumerate much less prioritize the problems... All it would require is that the American People take that of/by/for the people thing seriously... ahh, forget it.

rwm4768

03-30-2009, 05:10 PM

Here is my strategy for a GOP recovery:

1. Decrease the emphasis on religion. Obviously, it should not be eliminated entirely, as that would result in an exodus (no pun intended) of the strongly religious Republican constituency. I am just saying that social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not as important in light of the present economic situation.

2. Republicans should stress responsible markets and fiscal responsibility. A whole lot of stupidity got us into this mess. A perfectly competitive, free market (while the most efficient) allows room for certain individuals to work the system solely for their personal benefit. Republicans should continue to support free markets (but with some regulation). Regulation, however, should not be excessive, for that is the domain of the Democrats. Concerning the aspect of fiscal responsibility, Republicans need to return to it. Bush clearly did not adhere to fiscal responsibility, creating a huge deficit, a deficit that will become far greater under Obama. Eventually, people are going to grow skeptical of this unrestrained spending, providing the Republican party with an opportunity to stress fiscal responsibility and distance itself from Bush.

3. The Republican party must find new, energizing leaders, not Sarah Palin. She may have energized the "conservative base," but she alienated moderates who may have potentially voted for McCain. As our country continues to shift more to the left, the Republican party needs to acknowledge this by finding leaders who are a bit more flexible on social issues, perhaps a shift a little more toward libertarianism.

Lucid

03-30-2009, 06:10 PM

Dear sweet Lucid, how is it that someone who identifies themselves as a soft Libertarian is so incredibly partisan; not just this post, but nearly every single one is of an attacking nature to my beloved Republicans, of whom I hold very dear.

Libertarian /= republican, cupcake.

I am rather fiscally conservative, but I'm also really socially liberal. I'm sorry if criticism of the GOP in its current incarnation offends you, but criticizing one party's crazier aspects does not mean that I completely follow the other party.This is a "what should the GOP do to recover" thread, not a "what should the dems do differently" thread. And if you really paid attention I think you'd see that I'm also pretty critical of many aspects of what the dems are doing in other threads where such discussion is relevant.

If you reread my post very carefully, I think you will see that there is very little criticism of anything other than social issues in it, with the exception of tax cuts - and that only in the light of the huge debt we find ourselves in and the fact that we're engaged in two wars. In fact, I say that they'd do well to cut down on the socially conservative stuff and increase the fiscal conservative stuff. So... I'm not really sure where you got lost.

If I were saying that, I would have said it. How the hell would I be able to blindly follow anything the Republicans did ever. I don't live in America, I don't ever watch T.V and I don't actively follow american politics.

So you're saying that you don't know what you're talking about? Maybe you need the Wiki article after all.

nacht

03-30-2009, 06:41 PM

It's going to be very difficult for the republicans to pull themselves out of a hole in 2010, especially at their current rate.

Problems I am seeing:

The Democrats have a structural advantage in the senate in the next election. 20 of the 37 seats in the senate are republican, and at last count 9 of the top 15 candidates for switching parties (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are Republican. By contrast, 8 of the top least-likely-to-switch 15 seats are Democrats.
The Republican party is going to be fighting a few of its own (e.g., Specter), which will burn resources.
They appear to be attempting to go for More Social Conservatism, and leaning on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly as their spokespeople for this.
They have yet to get their act together.

The last point is crucial. They presented an alternative proposal for a budget... with no numbers and lots of handwaving. Several spokesmen said that the 19 pages was symbolic in comparison to the 400+ pages of the actual budget, which contains actual numbers. With the exception of Specter, Collins, and Snowe they refused to compromise on the stimulus package, even after concessions were made in their favor. They are actively lying about the contents of the bailout, stimulus package, and budget. They are treating volcano monitoring as government waste while a volcano erupts in Alaska, and magnetic trains as nothing more than black magic.

Rhetoric continues to trump reason and they are failing to keep the likes of Michelle Bachman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in check, and seem to have no new ideas whatsoever. Their answer when the economy comes crashing down around our ears? What we need is... more republican policies identical to the ones that got us into this mess? Give me a break, at least come up with something marginally different.

Meanwhile they continue to make claims that don't even vaguely pass the sniff test, such as attributing the Great Depression to Roosevelt (hint: Great Depression started in 1929, Roosevelt wasn't elected until 1932).

I believe a large part of the reason why they lost against Obama is that they were running the wrong campaign against the wrong candidate in the wrong election. Until they figure out that the terrain has changed, they are going to be rendered irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Libertarian /= republican cupcake.

I am rather fiscally conservative, but I'm also really socially liberal. I'm sorry if criticism of the GOP in its current incarnation offends you, but criticizing one party's crazier aspects does not mean that I completely follow the other party.This is a "what should the GOP do to recover" thread, not a "what should the dems do differently" thread. And if you really paid attention I think you'd see that I'm also pretty critical of many aspects of what the dems are doing in other threads where such discussion is relevant.

I'm the same. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, quite cosmopolitan and extremely pragmatic rather than ideologic in my approach. After 8 years of big-government, big-spending, socially conservative government I believe that the democrats are the libertarian's natural ally right now, for reasons that lesowijs (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) discusses.

For some reason, republican partisans think this automatically makes me a Democrat, but that simply isn't the case, and you can call me part of the loyal opposition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): I don't believe everything they do is right, but I sure as hell see them as the better alternative right now. Maybe if the Republicans can pull their act together and present a truly fiscally conservative package (as opposed to one that they just say is) and deemphasize the social conservatism this might change in 2012, but I somehow doubt it.

Lucid

03-30-2009, 07:03 PM

Rhetoric continues to trump reason and they are failing to keep the likes of Michelle Bachman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in check, and seem to have no new ideas whatsoever. Their answer when the economy comes crashing down around our ears? What we need is... more republican policies identical to the ones that got us into this mess? Give me a break, at least come up with something marginally different.

Yes, this is exactly the problem. Because the Bush presidency was such a disaster the Republican party is left with only the most hard-core loyalist wing-nuts who get hard ons listening to O'Riley, Bachman, Palin and Limbaugh talk all their bigotry and irrational religious nonsense. This pushes the GOP even farther into the margins. If they could get some leadership capable of standing up to the wackos they've currently got at the forefront and if they could back waaaaay the hell away from the whole ignorant religious thing it would do them (and the country) a lot of good.

I believe a large part of the reason why they lost against Obama is that they were running the wrong campaign against the wrong candidate in the wrong election. Until they figure out that the terrain has changed, they are going to be rendered irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Yes. I would say that the only thing that would bring them back in 2012 is the combination of new and more sane leadership and a failure of many of Obama's policies. Both are possible. But at least the first thing I list isn't looking likely.

Quite frankly having two (or more) active and healthy parties is better for the democratic (little d) system. And gives voters more options.

I'm the same. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, quite cosmopolitan and extremely pragmatic rather than ideologic in my approach. After 8 years of big-government, big-spending, socially conservative government I believe that the democrats are the libertarian's natural ally right now, for reasons that lesowijs (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) discusses.

For some reason, republican partisans think this automatically makes me a Democrat, but that simply isn't the case, and you can call me part of the loyal opposition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): I don't believe everything they do is right, but I sure as hell see them as the better alternative right now.

I will sacrifice some financial conservatism for social liberties, secularism and a respect for science any day of the week. Also, the current incarnation of the GOP isn't actually any more fiscally conservative than the democrats, despite what they claim. Actions always speak louder than words. They're pretty socialist when it comes to treating those in the higher income brackets.

errrzarrr

03-30-2009, 07:19 PM

@eternaltriangle
"most Republicans have engaged in scaremongering"

Wait a second. Republican's main core (and those with the same ideology in other country) IS scaremongering and fear-bringing at is best.

LaoTzu

03-30-2009, 09:43 PM

And being successful in politics requires screwing your base and winning over centrists/independents.

Which is why the abortion debate is still a debate. ;)

(For example...Don't get me started on Bin Laden :D )

Pandemonium

03-31-2009, 05:13 AM

Which is why the abortion debate is still a debate. ;)

(For example...Don't get me started on Bin Laden :D )

Has anyone else thought that Bin Laden is a fictional character?

Pandemonium added to this post, 128 minutes and 17 seconds later...

I actually found something relevant to post. Watch this video called "Outfoxed". It has quite substantial references to the Republican Party.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

jesse

03-31-2009, 05:50 AM

If Obama and his administration is unable to get things improving in economic terms during the first tenure as president, I suspect the GOP will have a good chance of finding itself back behind the wheel. "Look at what those pinko commie liberal, big government and big spending once again is ruining everything! We _promise_ to do the opposite if you elect us back to power!" Oddly enough more of the same is more likely than to have a complete 180 degree turn take place.

Down the line it does not really matter who is "elected" into the senate, congress or even president because more or less they all have these trademarks of mongering fear and uncertainty. Pick me or the end of the world is nigh. Democrats might be more willing to spend big bucks on social programs but not really. Republicans as of late put their money mostly into militarism and its supporting works and to some highly selective faith-based social programs and then take every chance they get to bad mouth that other party.

Has anyone else thought that Bin Laden is a fictional character?
This idea has crossed my mind for at least five years by now. If the military somehow finds Saddam Hussein burried in a hole then why is Osama bin Laden still at large? Who knows, he may be dead, he may be a fictive character altogether to serve as a scarecrow. The amount of contradicting information on the man makes my head spin as it is.

Pandemonium

03-31-2009, 06:29 AM

If Obama and his administration is unable to get things improving in economic terms during the first tenure as president, I suspect the GOP will have a good chance of finding itself back behind the wheel. "Look at what those pinko commie liberal, big government and big spending once again is ruining everything! We _promise_ to do the opposite if you elect us back to power!" Oddly enough more of the same is more likely than to have a complete 180 degree turn take place.

Down the line it does not really matter who is "elected" into the senate, congress or even president because more or less they all have these trademarks of mongering fear and uncertainty. Pick me or the end of the world is nigh. Democrats might be more willing to spend big bucks on social programs but not really. Republicans as of late put their money mostly into militarism and its supporting works and to some highly selective faith-based social programs and then take every chance they get to bad mouth that other party.

This idea has crossed my mind for at least five years by now. If the military somehow finds Saddam Hussein burried in a hole then why is Osama bin Laden still at large? Who knows, he may be dead, he may be a fictive character altogether to serve as a scarecrow. The amount of contradicting information on the man makes my head spin as it is.

Both sides of politics advocate big government. There is no denying it. What ever their ethos or policies are, totally irrelevant. If the Republican party actually started implementing policy in alignment to their ethos, we would not have a media oligopoly or a banking consortium which has caused the TLC (three letter acronym crisis). I don't know where to begin with the Democrats.

Sometimes I wonder why I am interested in foreign politics.

LaoTzu

03-31-2009, 06:43 AM

The Bin Laden family is close with the Bush family. No doubt Osama is chilling in one of the family mansions, free as a bird; without a care in the world.

uncon

03-31-2009, 09:31 AM

My MBTI's of 2008 candidates
McCain: ESTP
Palin: ESFJ
Obama: INFP
Biden: ESTP
Hillary Clinton: ISTJ
Romney: ISTJ
Huckabee: ENFJ
Giuliani: ESTJ
Paul: ISTJ or INTJ
Edwards: ENFJ

Clinton is an INTJ (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)- from an anecdote (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)where she was wearing an "I'm in love with an INFP" button (about Bill obviously). It's anecdotal but it's pretty obvious when you look at her objectively putting aside your opinion of her as a person. She way too conceptual to be an S - Bill said she had a massive plan for the economy, the most complex he had ever seen. Oh well.

Obama is not an F by ANY means. No drama bama? He's prob an ENTP (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Republicans tend to be Ss though - which is pretty obvious b/c Ss tend to be traditionalists and not conceptual.

Here's all the Republicans need to do: wait. The pendulum will swing back and we'll be talking about abortion instead of the economy again.

Regarding the media - it's not conservative so much as it's right wing as all business is essentially right wing (authoritarian and heirarchical). PBS is pretty moderate left but it's partially funded publicly. Just follow the money. The internet media is moderate left mostly but that's b/c it's not funded by deep private pockets - but in those places where it actually IS funded by this you can expect it to be at least slightly right of center.

uncon added to this post, 2 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Both sides of politics advocate big government. There is no denying it. What ever their ethos or policies are, totally irrelevant.

Yes - so obvious. You don't make yourself obsolete, regardless of rhetoric.