November 11, 2008

• "Fiscal conservatism, Limited govt, Constitutional rights" sounds like a good start to me. God, I hope this works.
• Dismantle the party. Then dismantle the other one. It's time to grow past this juvenile us vs. them mode of thinking.
• Your type would say that.
• I'm often wrong about this sort of thing, but I'm not sure the party can survive the damage done to its credibility by Bush/Cheney, the excesses of the religious right, and the whole neocon deregulation kerfuffle. If there are enough influential old-school-style conservatives left, I'd like to see them create a viable new party and leave the RNC to die the most dignified death it can.
• The current Republican party is one that acts entirely in the interest of the rich and powerful, but gets the poor and powerless to vote for them by pandering to their religion, their prejudices, their traditions and their patriotism. What I'd like to see is for the GOP to split into two - one party (the Corporatist Party) that is honestly and openly for the interests of the rich, and another (what I'll call the NASCAR party) that is openly and honestly for the interests of conservative rural Americans. Everyone, including rednecks, deserves a voice in government...I'd just like to see them actually get it.
• I wouldn't know where to begin rebuilding the GOP; there are many fundamental contradictions within the party (the Democratic party suffers this too, but to a lesser extent). I'm not certain that it's possible to iron out those contradictions and leave a sufficiently large base. A political party in the U.S. needs to be able to appeal consistently to 30 to 40 percent of voters. The Republicans have put together a coalition of fiscal conservatives, "security hawks", hardline Christians, and other social conservatives, but most of these groups have problems with one another. In the last 8 years, the security hawks have had things very much their way, with few major gains for the social/religious conservatives and a massive letdown for the fiscally aware. Here's an interesting report (in PDF) from the Pew Center that suggests the Republicans have their work cut out for them if they want to increase their appeal. The HTML overview is here. Somewhat related: this piece by PJ O'Rourke.
• What I'd like to see is for the GOP to split into two This may happen. Currently more moderate conservatives (believers mostly in fiscal conservatism, full stop) are feeling alienated and ostracized from a party that's been hijacked by religious extremists who value ideology even at the expense of ability or intelligence. Witness all the conservative intellectuals who, if they didn't jump ship and endorse Obama, were at least intensely critical of McCain/Palin and voiced a strong disgust with the party this go-round. The religious right's reaction was essentially "fuck you, this is our party, now be a real conservative or go away". If the more sensible wing of the party regains control of it, you may see the theocrats working for a new party. If the party stays with the wingnuts, they'll more likely cross the aisle and try to change the economics of the Democratic Party from within.
• Personally, I like the trucknutz idea.
• I'm with Mark Twain's "reports of my death are premature" on the imminent demise of the Republican Party, or even a permanent schism. The two-year cycle of Congressional elections really hampers any sort of meaningful change at the national level. They are barely through one election before they have to get ready for the next. Consequently, party change happens at the bottom, not at the top. The religious conservatives began their grassroots efforts in the GOP after Nixon's resignation and did not see any national-level results until 1994, even though their influence began to play an important role in presidential politics as early as 1980. For the Republicans to really make progress, it will take a similar 20-25 years, carefully weeding out those same fundies and replacing them with traditional Republicans at the lowest levels of electoral office, then eventually nursing them at the Congressional level. I, for one, do not believe that the Democrats have turned the direction of the country around or any such thing. They are the beneficiaries of a backlash. They've barely begun to rebuild their base. That leaves them vulnerable to sudden star-of-the-moment candidates like Palin (though probably not her specifically) in 2012, or (more likely) the fickle temperament of the 30% of voters who are not party regulars and swing from one side to the next with each election.
• How about a Palin-Gingrich-Plumber (as in Joe T.) triumvirate?
• Discard the notion of tax cuts followed by spending cuts. Cut spending and reduce taxes, only if the budget allows. Forget the idea that "Deficits do not matter." A highlight of the Reagan and Bush administrations was tax-cut-and-spend foolishness. Rescue the party from the impression that it is based on telling lies. Science lies, money lies, war lies, lies on the radio, etc. Reject meanness and obstructionism.
• The next RNC Chairman should... protect the white women!!! President Obama will steal our women! comment | by Nickdanger | created less than a minute ago
• Protip for those of us with REALLY GOOD IDEAS: they don't confirm the email address before allowing you to vote. One could, theoretically, make up a bunch of fake email addresses and, theoretically, vote up the "best" suggestions until the PALIN/TRUCKNUTZ ticket sweeps the 2012 election. THEORETICALLY.
• The problem with your idea as I see it rocket88 is that America has a pretty well designed democracy, so for the numerically small number of rich there's always going to be a need to obfuscate their true intent and co-opt other constituencies to command a majority at the polls, so long as they're not willing to make real compromises of the kind seen in the social democracies of Europe (and in the post-war US if my shaky knowledge of that isn't worng).
• "numerically small number" oh dear
• Analogy for wealth distribution in the U.S. A group of 100 people has $100:    ➨ 50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel.    ➨ 40 each have $0.70 of wealth.    ➨ 9 each have $4.00 of wealth.    ➨ 1 has $33.40. So, the 1 needs the 9 to help protect him/her. This is easy enough: they have a common interest as they all have more than a "fair" share. The 10 need to convince 25-30 of the 40 that they might someday join the ranks of the overendowed or that voting for the Republicans is the only way to prevent their $0.70 being shared with the bottom 50% so that everyone gets about $0.39. It's not so much presenting it as a "party for the rich" but more as a party that will help maintain an unequal status quo, while opening the possibility that those in the underendowed 90% might some day join the ranks of the overendowed 10%.
• Followup: Trucknutz was in the lead, but then the GOP went ahead and erased their most popular idea. They are Out Of Touch with the American people.
• The current Republican party is one that acts entirely in the interest of the rich and powerful, but gets the poor and powerless to vote for them by pandering to their religion, their prejudices, their traditions and their patriotism. I watched this excellent Lee Atwater documentary last night on PBS, and this was one point that the film made well; In Atwater's case, he knowingly pandered to the "poor and powerless", and ran with it to help pull out Bush #1 victory over Dukakis.
• I never understood why the people most likely to get screwed by the Republican party always seem to be the first to bend over for them.
• Because Democrats are godless fag-loving surrender-monkeys?
• Monkeyfilter: godless fag-loving surrender-monkeys. Oh, come on..!