Quote :

"Despairing Republican friends have been asking me what I think we should do to rebuild the GOP and begin our certain and inevitable comeback. My answer disappoints them: "Build an ark." I say this because I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way. Demographic change is irritating to politicos, since it works on elections much as rigged dice do on a Las Vegas craps table: it is a game changer. For years, Republicans won elections because the country was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever on Election Day. Today, however, that formula is no longer enough. (See pictures of Republican memorabilia.) It was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing. In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow. Rather than face up to all this, too many in the GOP are stuck in a swoon of nostalgia. Most of our party leaders come from bloodred GOP states or safe districts, so they are far more at home in the tribal politics of Republican primaries than in those of the country as a whole. You could say their radio dials are stuck on AM. The result is we hear a lot about going back to "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Well, I love Reagan too. But demographics no longer do. In 1980, Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by 10 points. If that contest were held again today, under the current demographics of the electorate per exit polls, the election would be much closer, with Reagan probably winning by about 3 points. (See pictures of polarizing politicians at LIFE.com.) It is true that attitudes change. A magnificent Republican renewal may still be possible. Conservatism is traditionally energized by a reaction to liberal excess, and the unabashedly leftish tilt of the Obama Administration's domestic agenda does give hope. But demography is a powerful force. Waiting and hoping didn't do much for the Whigs. I prefer a Republican reformation right now. Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House. The pro-life movement can still be a central part of the GOP — it has support among all ages (and a slim majority of Latino voters) — but the overall GOP view on abortion must aggressively embrace the big tent. Latinos need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration. That shouldn't be a hard lesson for the GOP to learn; every 2008 presidential-primary candidate who went for the cheap applause of the anti-immigration right couldn't win even the Iowa caucus, let alone the nomination. Instead, the GOP should support practical immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. Republicans should differentiate themselves from the left by heating up the lukewarm American melting pot with a firm insistence on learning English and a rejection of the silly excesses of identity politics. A smart GOP would be deeply in the microloan and free-English-lessons business in immigrant communities. Illegal immigrants can't vote. Their children will. Much of this is still heresy to the party as it stands now. Many will support an alternative strategy: stand pat, fight it out on fiscal issues on which the GOP has strong support and exploit liberal-Democrat excess. In the short term, that could work, but eventually the demographics will win out. Saving the GOP is not about diluting conservatism but about modernizing it to reflect the country it inhabits instead of an America that no longer exists."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html

6/16/2009 12:32:29 PM

without reading this, it has to be from mike murphy

6/16/2009 12:33:37 PM

Quote :

"was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever "

this made me laugh out load in my office

Quote :

"Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights"

Unless you are LBGT I do not think many "young" voters that would be on the window of voting republican instead of democrat
really give a fuck about the gay issue. The socially libertarian part as a whole though I do agree with.

Quote :

"need to see a quick end to the Republican congressional jihad on immigration"

After visiting SoCal in April I definitly disagree with this. While i feel that trying to systematically deport illegals is impractical;
I think we definitly need to nip the "benefits" that make illegally sneaking into the country so enticing. For one Juanita's 10 children
should not get a "free pass" for being a US Citizen just b.c she smuggled herself into the country.

6/16/2009 12:48:35 PM

6/16/2009 12:58:08 PM

Quote :

"this made me laugh out load in my office"

do you dispute it?

Quote :

"voters that would be on the window of voting republican instead of democrat really give a fuck about the gay issue"

wth does that mean?

the idea is to attract voters, not alienate them.

Quote :

"After visiting SoCal in April I definitly disagree with this."

You can disagree with it on principle all you want...but it would be helpful for the party as a whole, which was the point being made.

6/16/2009 1:08:23 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=568840

6/16/2009 1:34:05 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=558028

6/16/2009 1:34:07 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=560197

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ]

6/16/2009 2:03:23 PM

Dems, enjoy the back slapping while you're on top of the hill. It won't last.

6/16/2009 2:05:35 PM

What is with all this bullshit popping up again and again. OMFG the Republicans lost an election after having an extremely unpopular president the past few years and a recession starting the year of the election! The end is near! Not 10 years ago, the Democrats were out of the White House, didn't control either branch of the legislature, and were the minority party in most state governments. Jesus, people are fucking stupid/crazy. Within 6-8 years Republicans will either have the Presidency back, or will control the legislature. Not that it will make much difference in how the government is run. Seriously, how different has Obama been than Bush, other than good PR?

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2009 2:11:12 PM

his attitude duhhhh

6/16/2009 2:19:06 PM

^^ There's quite a bit of difference between Obama and Bush.

6/16/2009 2:25:42 PM

no need to do anything of biblial proportions. just let inflation creep in, then all the GOP has to do is sit back and say 'i told you so'

6/16/2009 2:30:54 PM

Quote :

"Dems, enjoy the back slapping while you're on top of the hill. It won't last."

the article was written by a Republican (if you even bothered to read it), and there is no back slapping going on here.

Quote :

"Seriously, how different has Obama been than Bush, other than good PR?"

wow talk about losing all credibility on a subject

6/16/2009 3:20:50 PM

Quote :

"no need to do anything of biblial proportions. just let inflation creep in, then all the GOP has to do is sit back and say 'i told you so'"

This is how it worked out last time. While running for office, did not Ronald Reagan call inflation “our No. 1 enemy”?

6/16/2009 5:28:07 PM

Yeah, I predict this "Ice Age" will last all the way until 2010--at which time, significant thawing will occur.

6/16/2009 7:28:46 PM

Quote :

"^^ There's quite a bit of difference between Obama and Bush."

You're right.

Bush would have escalated our involvement in Afghanistan by now. And he would have at least maintained all our commitments in Iraq. And he would have been spending piles of money we don't have in bailouts. And he would have continued our warrantless spying programs, kept torture alive and well along with extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay.

He would have come up with a number of dumbshit proposals to make our SS and Medicare problem worse. He would have continued to take on about 1023845 jobs that are not given to him in the Constitution. And we would all be poorer and less free because of it.

Oh. Wait. Nevermind.

The differences between them are trivial.

6/16/2009 8:13:50 PM

Quote :

"do you dispute it?"

No i don't dispute it. I laughed b.c its so humorously true. There are plenty of dems that do this too though.

Quote :

"Bush would have escalated our involvement in Afghanistan by now"

Last time i checked Obama was escalating Afghanistan. Not that i necessarily approve at writing a blank check to our ongoing defense
spending on playing World police.

Quote :

"The differences between them are trivial."

Agreed.



[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 8:20 PM. Reason : L]

6/16/2009 8:16:28 PM

^^ good post

Everything runs in cycles in washington. The GOP is not going anywhere, and definitely does not need to become more centrist. The reason they lost last time was not because of their principles, but because they did not stick to their principles. They expanded government and spending, both of which will get you ousted in a reelection after years of doing such things.

6/16/2009 8:46:20 PM

I would be more willing to support a Republican party that didn't tow the line for the religious right, and was actually fiscally conservative. Needless to say, things aren't looking good. Of course, the Democratic party will continue to throw away money and pay off their supporters, while not actually improving civil liberties, so I could never support that.

I think once people start to realize how fucked we are, we can work on having a real conservative party. You know, people that embrace reality and accept that we can't just print and spend money without serious consequences. Then again, that kind of talk might be considered "fringe."

6/16/2009 9:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Not that i necessarily approve at writing a blank check to our ongoing defense spending on playing World police"

do what? you seriously think we're playing "world police" in Afghanistan?

Quote :

"And he would have at least maintained all our commitments in Iraq."

i see what you're trying to do, but if Obama were in office during 9-11 we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. that's a pretty huge damn difference for starters...

Quote :

" The reason they lost last time was not because of their principles, but because they did not stick to their principles. "

i love how they lost because they "didn't stick to their principles", vs they lost because the democratic party's candidate, message and machine were far superior AND the fact they were coming off one of the most unpopular presidents of all time...and that unpopularity had nothing to do with "not sticking to their principles" and everything to do with foreign policy.

6/16/2009 10:09:36 PM

Quote :

"i see what you're trying to do, but if Obama were in office during 9-11 we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. that's a pretty huge damn difference for starters..."

I wouldn't bet on that. And even if you're right about Iraq specifically, there would be some equivalent boondoggle in the name of peacekeeping in Sudan or elsewhere.

They have no difference in principle. They oppose the the particulars of one another because that's how you get elected. The operating principles, however, are identical. Regardless of what Barack Obama says, he has no problem with pre-emption, and he has no problem with occupations and de-facto empires. If he did, he would have already started dismantling them.

In particular cases, the difference is in degree, not substance.

[Edited on June 16, 2009 at 10:15 PM. Reason : a]

6/16/2009 10:14:57 PM

^ Well said, thants.

6/16/2009 10:22:18 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't bet on that"

Wait are you joking right now...I seriously can't tell. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Quote :

"some equivalent boondoggle in the name of peacekeeping in Sudan or elsewhere"

hey is this the new game all the kids are playing? pulling shit out of their ass?


that post is so logic fucked i can't even begin to pick out all the issues. if you actually look at policy (gasp), the differences are pretty major.

now if you're some internet forum based crazy talk spouter...then yeah they might look the same. but if you are a logical freaking human being who is capable of rational thought, the differences in their policies are huge.

6/16/2009 10:29:07 PM

yes.

Obama likes to give our money to laquisha.
Bush likes to give it to King Hussein.

big difference

6/16/2009 10:32:28 PM

To d357r0y3r: It's toe the line--not "tow the line." Just FYI.

But as I indicated:

Quote :

"Yeah, I predict this 'Ice Age' will last all the way until 2010--at which time, significant thawing will occur."

Here are just a few bits of evidence to support my thesis:

Republican Party plans comeback
April 30, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/30/gop.rebrand/index.html

N.J. GOP sees Corzine as vulnerable
June 16, 2009

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/nj-gop-eager-to-oust-corzine-as-ratings-slump/

Return of the 'Yankee Republican' in 2010
By John A. Tures
Associate Professor of Political Science
LaGrange College
June 15, 2009

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_615_904.aspx

Republicans may gain ethics issue
June 15, 2009

http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/articles/2009/06/15/opinion/srv0000005594966.txt

Poll: Republicans Trusted More Than Democrats on the Economy
Posted: 06/14/09

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/14/poll-republicans-trusted-more-than-democrats-on-the-economy/

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2009 12:51:00 AM

Quote :

"There's quite a bit of difference between Obama and Bush."

Quote :

"You're right. Bush would have escalated our involvement in Afghanistan by now. And he would have at least maintained all our commitments in Iraq. And he would have been spending piles of money we don't have in bailouts. And he would have continued our warrantless spying programs, kept torture alive and well along with extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay. He would have come up with a number of dumbshit proposals to make our SS and Medicare problem worse. He would have continued to take on about 1023845 jobs that are not given to him in the Constitution. And we would all be poorer and less free because of it. Oh. Wait. Nevermind. The differences between them are trivial."

...

Quote :

"i see what you're trying to do, but if Obama were in office during 9-11 we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. that's a pretty huge damn difference for starters..."

Quote :

" wouldn't bet on that. And even if you're right about Iraq specifically, there would be some equivalent boondoggle in the name of peacekeeping in Sudan or elsewhere. They have no difference in principle. They oppose the the particulars of one another because that's how you get elected. The operating principles, however, are identical. Regardless of what Barack Obama says, he has no problem with pre-emption, and he has no problem with occupations and de-facto empires. If he did, he would have already started dismantling them. In particular cases, the difference is in degree, not substance."

TULIPlovr: 2
Idiots: 0

6/17/2009 8:21:31 AM

wow

i've never seen such high quality discourse.

6/17/2009 9:17:42 AM

And the GOP glacier gets bigger....

Quote :

" Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), considered a rising star in the Republican Party, yesterday acknowledged an extramarital affair with a former campaign staffer who is married to one of the lawmaker's former legislative aides. 1998, as a House member running against Reid, he called on President Bill Clinton to resign after revelations about his affair with a White House intern. "He sent taxpayer-paid staff out to lie for him, and that is a misuse of office," Ensign said, adding that the president had "no credibility left." In September 2007, Ensign called then- Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) "embarrassing" after Craig was arrested in an airport men's restroom and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a sex sting. Ensign played the leading role in an unsuccessful effort to force Craig into resigning from the Senate immediately. Ensign's affair began a few months after he called for his colleague to resign, according to a timeline provided by his office. "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions," Ensign said, reading from a prepared statement and leaving without taking questions. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602746.html?hpid=topnews

6/17/2009 10:53:04 AM

surprised no one has mentioned the republicans threatening to vote against war funding supplemental only a year after claiming that the exact same no vote from democrats a year ago was anti-american and hurting our troops.

6/17/2009 10:56:47 AM

There's a real vacuum in the GOP at the moment. I heard that 52 percent of registered Republicans cannot identify who the voice of the party is.

As for the run to the center or die rhetoric of the writer, these things tend to go in cycles. The Dems will screw up at some point. The answer is to clearly and openly embrace the latino community and their social values, which are more in line with conservatives than liberals.

6/17/2009 12:22:12 PM

Quote :

"To d357r0y3r: It's toe the line--not "tow the line." Just FYI."

You do realize constantly pointing out these types of errors point to an extremme lack of maturity right?

6/17/2009 12:25:27 PM

hey look ma, a troll

6/17/2009 12:38:49 PM

speak for yourself dipshit

6/17/2009 12:47:46 PM

Quote :

"registered Republicans cannot identify who the voice of the party is."

that's an easy one

6/17/2009 2:12:08 PM

A recent gallop poll says otherwise.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120806/Limbaugh-Gingrich-Cheney-Seen-Speaking-GOP.aspx

Rush and Newt had 10 percent each, with Cheney at 9 percent.

[Edited on June 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/17/2009 2:35:29 PM

I bet Cheney will die out...he's only 9% because he did a flurry of talk shows defending bush's/his policies

And that 10% tie is only among Republicans...if you look at all respondents it's 13% for Rush and 10% for Cheney

Quote :

"Susan Page wrote in USA Today that the "dominant faces of the Republican Party" happen to be "all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP.""

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/15/who-speaks-for-the-gop-who-car

6/17/2009 2:40:29 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/Republican-Base-Heavily-White-Conservative-Religious.aspx

6/17/2009 3:39:08 PM