Congress: What will the GOP do now?

[Mustard]

So, now that we know that the Democrats will have at the bare minimum, (if they kick Lieberman out of their caucus) 54 members & 1 indy vs. the GOPs 45, and the House will have between 255 and 260 Democrats vs. the GOPs 175 and 180, what will they do?

Option 1) Will the GOP be the obstructionist party, constantly doing whatever they can to stop what will undoubtedly be the landslide of liberal bills that will grace the floor of Congress?

Option 2) Perhaps the GOP will be the part of comprimise, hoping that in effect in the minority they can work to move Obama legislation from the left more towards the center-left?

Option 3) Will the GOP just roll over and take it, hoping that the Democrats push through enough liberal legislation to choke Washington solely on the hope that Americans will overwhelmingly hate it, and that in 2010 and 2012 they can run as they did in '94 on a Contract with America v2.0.

Option 4) Maybe a combination of the above? Maybe something I haven't mentioned?

Look, we all know that the Democrats now have two solid years at the minimum to move the direction in a decidedly liberal direction, and whether or not the American people will think it was a success or failure is contingent upon what they do with this new authority given to them via this election. So whether or not they get four or six or eight years or more will certainly depend on whether or not their policies they set in these first two years will succeed or not, and the GOP remnants can still have a say as to what goes through.

So with that said, what will the GOP of this new Congress do?

[Stax]

Guy on Fox made an interesting point, at this point the vast majority of moderate Republicans have been replaced by moderate Democrats, providing a more moderate majority (as opposed to extreme-right Republicans taking over for DINOs in 94). As such there is only the Republican-concentrate left, the really hardcore base, and they need to find a way to expand because those seats aren't going to get them back into power.

Every Republican should be hoping for Jindal/Romney or Romney/Jindal 2012 if they want a shot at making this less than a full realignment.

[Mustard]

Romney/Jindal would be an interesting ticket.

Palin/(insert name here) would ensure a two term Obama administration.

[mongo]

Palin/(insert name here) would ensure a two term Obama administration.

four years changes many things.


mostly, her second daughters breast size.

[Mustard]

four years changes many things.


mostly, her second daughters breast size.
Four years does change many things.

But not the fact that she is a religious kook who literally thinks man and dinosaur romaed the Earth together.

[Stax]

And the world is only what, 6000 years old?

Despite Chinese being basically that old?

[Mustard]

Well fuck... Sumerian and Babylonian sanskrit go farther back than 6,000 years. The oldest recorded writing was discovered to be approximately 30,000 years old. But facts don't matter when you blindly follow a faith that tells you something different, because you can just shrug them off by saying that it was just Satan putting those things there to fool Christians.

Yeah... what is that about fairy tales?

[TheImpossibleMan]

I think they'll be a combination of obstructionist party/roll over and take it. They'll try to just take a "fuck you" stance on the Democrats but the Democrats will still get what they want through without much trouble, and when that starts it'll snowball until the Republicans are just sucking at the Dem's teat. Depending on how successful Obama is, the Republicans could retake control of Congress/Presidency in 2004 (but not 2002, I don't think there'll a backlash against Democrats until 2004, so Dems up for reelection in 2002 will get a free pass on any mistakes/actions not yet taken, depending on if they come).

Palin is not the future of the Republican party. The politics of Sarah Palin is what put Obama in office.

[mongo]

The politics of Sarah Palin is what put Obama in office.

i beg to differ. i believe it's the politics of bush that put him the the white house.

[Stax]

I think they'll be a combination of obstructionist party/roll over and take it. They'll try to just take a "fuck you" stance on the Democrats but the Democrats will still get what they want through without much trouble, and when that starts it'll snowball until the Republicans are just sucking at the Dem's teat. Depending on how successful Obama is, the Republicans could retake control of Congress/Presidency in 2004 (but not 2002, I don't think there'll a backlash against Democrats until 2004, so Dems up for reelection in 2002 will get a free pass on any mistakes/actions not yet taken, depending on if they come).

Palin is not the future of the Republican party. The politics of Sarah Palin is what put Obama in office.

2004 and 2002 have already happened.

[Titus_Pullo]

2004 and 2002 have already happened.

You have any links to back that up?

[Mustard]

2004 and 2002 have already happened.
You take your liberal fact bias shit and shove it up your ass!

[atoms]

I know we're all screwed when the Republicans go back in time to rig the election...damn them!!....Like the fucking terminator....you just can't kill them.

[rc113943]

I heard on one of the channels that some Democrats didn't want this much power, because of the accountability that comes with it ... now anything that goes wrong in the next 2 years can be said to be 100% their fault

[Kerjack]

Well that will be their own fault then won't it. tee hee

[WigglingWii]

The GOP will roll over and die

[rc113943]

The GOP will roll over and die

aww, how pure and innocent

[WigglingWii]

aww, how pure and innocent

No? Damn it!

[Da Raider]

I'm hoping that the GOP goes back to the platform of small government, reduction in spending, fiscally conservative.

[Stax]

I'm hoping that the GOP goes back to the platform of small government, reduction in spending, fiscally conservative.

That, I think, is their best bet. That's why I think Romney/Jindal is their most dynamic potential 2012 ticket. If they do that they get a serious financially-associated guy at the top of the ticket with at least not completely hyper-crazy Palin/Jindal social positions (that drive away moderates), but also someone like Jindal (who is, I think, a smarter, slightly more experienced, and better-on-TV Palin basically) to keep up whatever religious support is still out there.

[rc113943]

That, I think, is their best bet. That's why I think Romney/Jindal is their most dynamic potential 2012 ticket. If they do that they get a serious financially-associated guy at the top of the ticket with at least not completely hyper-crazy Palin/Jindal social positions (that drive away moderates), but also someone like Jindal (who is, I think, a smarter, slightly more experienced, and better-on-TV Palin basically) to keep up whatever religious support is still out there.

Romney/Jindal 2012! Man, it'd be great to see some more GOP in Congress after the 2010 election and then start campaigning for Romney for 2012!

[Stax]

rc, are you really going to have the oh so clever "nObama '12" in your sig for 4 years?

[rc113943]

rc, are you really going to have the oh so clever "nObama '12" in your sig for 4 years?


i plan on it, is that a problem?

[rc113943]

I'm hoping that the GOP goes back to the platform of small government, reduction in spending, fiscally conservative.


sean hannity is saying that the republicans have become too much like the democrats: big government and spending. He is calling for a return to traditional conservatism.

LET'S START A REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION!!

[taters]

Dont count Franken out, theres a recount, and Colemans lead shrank.

Lieberman is a lame duck. Hes going to be a Repub from this point on, and the people of his state cant wait to vote him out.

[Yelram]

Entrance: The Libertarians.

[taters]

Entrance: The Libertarians.

Beware. Thats what the greens said in 96 after clinton became all repub appeasist. Didnt work well, ala 2000 elections.

The dems and the repubs would probably work together before they allowed viable third party candidates....at least anywhere on the national level. If third party candidates are going to win, they HAVE to start at the bottom (local and maybe state elections). They dont have the power, sway, or legitimacy to try to work from the top.

[Yelram]

Beware. Thats what the greens said in 96 after clinton became all repub appeasist. Didnt work well, ala 2000 elections.

The dems and the repubs would probably work together before they allowed viable third party candidates....at least anywhere on the national level. If third party candidates are going to win, they HAVE to start at the bottom (local and maybe state elections). They dont have the power, sway, or legitimacy to try to work from the top.

I never said as a third party. I mean the conservatives within the republican party will begin to redefine the GOP along a more libertarian model.

[taters]

I never said as a third party. I mean the conservatives within the republican party will begin to redefine the GOP along a more libertarian model.

But havent they been claiming that for, like the past 10 years? Every rightwing pundit on Fox claims or has claimed to be a libertarian.

Weird thing is, a lot of republicans claim libertarian when it comes to things like taxes and their free speech (to say things about others), but forget all about it when it comes to things like abortion, (unpopular) war funding, oppositional free speech, civil liberties (such as not being spied on, for example, something paleo-conservatives raged in fear against during Clintons admin, but then totally accepted and endorsed for Bush).

In all fairness, Dems to it too with 'Green' Policies, or 'Labor' Policies (see Clinton reference).

When true fiscal republicans divorce themselves from the religous right, then Ill believe republicans are actually leaning to libertarianism. I see the possibility of this happening VERY soon, if the repubs want to survive, since the religious right (Bush, Palin) has alienated like 80% of the country (big city people, gay people, women, young people, non religious people, blacks, muslims, hispanics, young people, and students).

[vasili denisov]

The religious element right now is the strongest section of the Republican party, in terms of enthusiasm and organization. They backed an amateur candidate with a table money budget who managed to beat three organization backed candidates with national profiles: Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. While McCain was eviscerated for not being a true conservative, Huckabee and Palin were given a pass for their public spending ideas, her borderline Chavezista plans utterly ignored.

So, religion becomes the major principle of the republican party. Faith is incredibly useful in a political organization, for giving a sense of common purpose and a source of strength. But the context of reform, it's a major weakness; it's much easier for the democrats to make concessions on gun rights or taxes then it'll be for the republicans to change their policy on abortion.

The same financial crisis that cuts down on Obama's maneuvering cuts down on the opposition. Reagan had low enough debts and a high enough income taxes that he had the choice to cut rates, then pile up debt without sufficient cuts, so money went into the economy and people's pockets, though causing longer term damage. The opposition can't put forth long term cuts as a realistic proposal given the huge debts that are there now.

Beyond the strength of the religious element in the republican party, I think libertarian ideas are looking very bad in their field testing right now. Beyond the issues with unregulated credit swaps and mortgage securities, had Bush managed to push through his major domestic plan to privatize social security in '05, you would have had a half-trillion outlay on a program expected to return 6.5% on pensions (ridiculous in '05, lunatic now) which right now would have required more federal money to bail out poor seniors.

So, you're left with an opposition party with a strong fervent religious element that'll concentrate on tactical attacks on the flaws of every Obama plan without being able to generate an alternative economic strategy of their own. Given that this was the McCain campaign's modus (attack attack attack, without even the ideas for an alternate bailout plan), I'd say this is ominous for the republicans and for the political dialectic.

[Da Raider]

Beyond the strength of the religious element in the republican party, I think libertarian ideas are looking very bad in their field testing right now. Beyond the issues with unregulated credit swaps and mortgage securities, had Bush managed to push through his major domestic plan to privatize social security in '05, you would have had a half-trillion outlay on a program expected to return 6.5% on pensions (ridiculous in '05, lunatic now) which right now would have required more federal money to bail out poor seniors.


Whatever anyone thinks of libertarian policies, the fact is that the U.S. has not pursued such policies. Not in the past 10 years. Not in the past century. If the U.S. had truly been the "Libertarian Land", a huge range of policies that have helped fuel the current situation would have been radically different.

In Libertarian Land, banks would not be chartered, defined, and regulated by government, as they have been in the U.S. for over 150 years. In particular, banks would have the right to "suspend convertibility," meaning they could tell depositors, "Sorry, you can't have all your money back right now," during banks runs that threatened bank solvency. This is precisely what banks did in key financial panics during the pre-Fed period, when suspension was illegal but tolerated or encouraged by regulators. By so doing, banks reduced the spread of panics and solvent but illiquid banks did not fail in large numbers.

In Libertarian Land, the Federal Reserve would never have been created. This means the Fed could not have turned a normal recession into the Great Depression by failing to stem a huge decline in the money supply. This decline and the related bank failures occurred because the Fed's existence was taken as indication that banks could not, or should not, suspend convertibility, as they had done successfully in the past. Thus in Libertarian Land, the Great Depression would probably not have occurred.

If the Fed had never been created, Alan Greenspan would never have been its chairman. Thus he would not have given investors inappropriate assurances about the riskiness of derivatives or the long-term viability of the stock market boom of the mid-1990s. Absent the Fed, no Alan Greenspan would have kept interest rates low for an extended period and thereby fueled the housing bubble that has played a key role in turmoil of the past two years. Market participants would have made judgments on their own, and these would plausibly have been more cautious as a result.

In Libertarian Land, the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with financial market regulation such as capital requirements, would not exist. This means investors would have no assurance that government can keep "excessively" risky or fraudulent securities out of the marketplace. Many small investors would stay on the sidelines, leaving the risky investing to those who could afford to lose.

In Libertarian Land, government would not promote increased home ownership, so it would not have created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or encouraged these institutions to extend subprime loans, or implicitly promised to bail them out if or when these loans failed. Thus a key ingredient in the recent financial turbulence would not have arisen.
In Libertarian Land, government would not protect private agents from the downsides of their risky decisions. This means no rescues or bailouts for banks, airlines, or car companies. No deposit insurance, no pension benefit guarantees, and so on.

In Libertarian Land, individuals and businesses would take risks, but they would think long and hard about these risks. Some individuals and businesses would profit handsomely from smart risk-taking, but many would earn modest returns on average because their seemingly "excessive" returns in good times would be balanced by big losses in bad times.

Reasonable people can debate whether consistent pursuit of libertarian policies would have improved U.S. economic performance over the past two centuries. They cannot claim, however, that recent events demonstrate the failure of libertarian policies, since those policies have not been employed.

Nor can they say, that "libertarian apologetics fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong." In fact, by theorizing, anticipating, and underscoring the inevitable failure of mixing free-market dynamics and politically driven interventions into the economy, libertarians explain both what's going on and how to avoid its periodic repetition.

Jeffery Miron, 10/21/2008

[vasili denisov]

Whatever anyone thinks of libertarian policies, the fact is that the U.S. has not pursued such policies. Not in the past 10 years. Not in the past century. If the U.S. had truly been the "Libertarian Land", a huge range of policies that have helped fuel the current situation would have been radically different.
It's a difficult premise to argue with, whether more deregulation would have brought about a more positive situation than what we're in right now, rather than a patchwork of deregulation and government supplements. Whether its a fair assessment or not, I don't think americans would be comfortable with even less government intervention than what's there now, based in part on the events of the recent financial crisis. That may well be as unjust as judging the basis for state healthcare on the quality of a dmv office, but that's the case.

Having said that, I think there are oversights in the list of points, among them assigning a primary role to Fannie and Freddie, when its generous mortgage approval policy was being outflanked by commercial banks, not due to any regulation or benevolence, but because there was a drive for more mortgages which could eventually be packaged into securities.

As for the SEC, they were very hands off when it came to Wall Street firms buying risky securities;the problem lay there, not with the purchase of such securities by small investors, but by these corporate investors who avoided examining the heavy risks of such securities too closely. It would be comforting if irrational behaviour lay with those with low knowledge (those who bought houses with no assets or income, or foolish investors); what's disturbing is that those in the system who had the expertise to assess the risk did not do so, thereby sustaining a false optimism.

[UNC]

GOP doesn't have to do anything...The Dems will fuck this up and by the next election people will be longing for the days of Bush.

[satandole666]

GOP doesn't have to do anything...The Dems will fuck this up and by the next election people will be longing for the days of Bush.

This is the only hope for Repubs. Lay low. Vote for good things, vote against things your base would go nuts about. Stay scandal free. Hope Obama and Congress trips.

Also, I think the Republicans really need a YOUNG leader. If young people made as much of a difference in this election as the pundits claim the Republicans need a young, charismatic, moderate leader.

If Obama doesn't fuck it up somehow none of this will matter though.

[UNC]

This is the only hope for Repubs. Lay low. Vote for good things, vote against things your base would go nuts about. Stay scandal free. Hope Obama and Congress trips.

Also, I think the Republicans really need a YOUNG leader. If young people made as much of a difference in this election as the pundits claim the Republicans need a young, charismatic, moderate leader.

If Obama doesn't fuck it up somehow none of this will matter though.

Okay, I'll do it.

[TheImpossibleMan]

2004 and 2002 have already happened.
Whoops! I meant 2012 and 2010.

GOP doesn't have to do anything...The Dems will fuck this up and by the next election people will be longing for the days of Bush. Bush was only able to take the presidency in the first place because, in 2000, there were no real crises facing the country and so Rove and co. were able to reduce the election to "interesting Texan vs. boring Tennesseean!" In the same vein, Obama is only in office because Bush was such a bumbling failure who saw one problem after another stack up on themselves (because let's get real, I don't think we'd have a black president if everything was hunky dory). If the Republican party trots out Palin/Jeb Bush/Huckabee or some other Bush clone in 2012 they will get crushed, much in the same way they would have in 1980 if they had just trotted out a Nixon clone, despite Carter's unpopularity. NO ONE wants the days of Bush again...or have you not noticed his historically low approval ratings? These elections were a statement that the American people will not tolerate the politcs of Bush and co. any more. Maybe they'll get sick of Obama, but no one wants Bush again, and suggesting they do is asinine.

[rc113943]

Whoops! I meant 2012 and 2010.

Bush was only able to take the presidency in the first place because, in 2000, there were no real crises facing the country and so Rove and co. were able to reduce the election to "interesting Texan vs. boring Tennesseean!" In the same vein, Obama is only in office because Bush was such a bumbling failure who saw one problem after another stack up on themselves (because let's get real, I don't think we'd have a black president if everything was hunky dory). If the Republican party trots out Palin/Jeb Bush/Huckabee or some other Bush clone in 2012 they will get crushed, much in the same way they would have in 1980 if they had just trotted out a Nixon clone, despite Carter's unpopularity. NO ONE wants the days of Bush again...or have you not noticed his historically low approval ratings? These elections were a statement that the American people will not tolerate the politcs of Bush and co. any more. Maybe they'll get sick of Obama, but no one wants Bush again, and suggesting they do is asinine.

I couldn't agree with you more, and I think that's why you'll see the promotion of Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, and of course Jindal who has to be the front runner for the "young" face of 2012. Romney is, imho, the current favorite, but it will be interesting how his religion ties into it. Jindal was on foxnews last night and it was honestly the first time I've heard him speak - I knew him only by name before that. I was impressed, he is an Obama clone as far as speaking ability and charisma ... so we'll see

Either way, I think there are plently of young "superstars" in the Republican Party to carry us in 2012, but more importantly is the GOP finding itself again and getting away from the moderate platform that failed in 2008

[Stax]

I couldn't agree with you more, and I think that's why you'll see the promotion of Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, and of course Jindal who has to be the front runner for the "young" face of 2012. Romney is, imho, the current favorite, but it will be interesting how his religion ties into it. Jindal was on foxnews last night and it was honestly the first time I've heard him speak - I knew him only by name before that. I was impressed, he is an Obama clone as far as speaking ability and charisma ... so we'll see

No, he isn't, cmon now. He's good on TV and he's together, but cmon now.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Right now, there are sort of three parties: the Democrats, the socially conservative Republicans, and the economically conservative Republicans. There is a big rift between the Bush/Palin/Huckabee crowd and the Romney/McCain crowd: Deep South Christians for whom the primary concerns are domestic issues like abortion and gay marriage and for whom religion is a defining part of their politics, and Midwestern fiscal conservatives for whom the primary issue is the economy. I think the real issue for the GOP over the next four years is deciding which half they remake themselves in the image of, which half they embrace. If they put up Romney (a fiscal conservative who is a Mormon) or Palin (a social conservative who is an unabashed redneck) we'll know what direction they're heading in.

[Pox]

Am I the only one who is happy that Vasili posts in the upper secions of the board these days?

[Cornelius]

Right now, ...blah blah blah... Palin (a social conservative who is an unabashed redneck ridiculously hot soccer mom.) we'll know what direction they're heading in.

I kinda like Alaska's Caribou Barbie. STFU

[mongo]

isn't the reign of the right over for now? can't you fucking leftist fools let it rest? i mean, you are the same people who say that the right is poor losers cause they keep bringing shit up. let.it.fucking.go.you.faggots.

[Cornelius]

isn't the reign of the right over for now? can't you fucking leftist fools let it rest? i mean, you are the same people who say that the right is poor losers cause they keep bringing shit up. let.it.fucking.go.you.faggots.

Cheers.

[Mustard]

isn't the reign of the right over for now? can't you fucking leftist fools let it rest? i mean, you are the same people who say that the right is poor losers cause they keep bringing shit up. let.it.fucking.go.you.faggots.
What.in.the.fuck.are.you.talking.about#