The last time we wrote one of these things was a few months after the start of Obama’s first term: Open Letter to the Republican Party. At that time we deplored the Republican party’s obsession with sex and religion, and we called for dropping those issues from our political discourse.
We had to post a follow-up to explain that we weren’t advocating “selling out” and pitching a “big tent” to embrace ideas we oppose (see “Big Tent” Addendum). Our position was that the party should return to its traditional concerns — the Constitution, the rule of law, national defense, free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, balanced budgets, and individual rights — and the “social” issues should be dropped because: (a) constitutionally speaking, they’re not federal government issues; and (b) they’re losers in a national election.
Now that the 2012 presidential election is over and we got our heads handed to us again, we have more to say. As before, the party won’t pay any attention, but we’re going to have our say anyway, so here it comes:
My fellow Republicans:
In the aftermath of yet another catastrophic presidential election, we see the experts offering the opinion that our party failed because we didn’t recognize that there’s been a change in the demographics of the nation, and the Democrats are better at reaching out to those new constituencies than we are. The experts specifically mention the voting patterns of young people, women, blacks, Hispanics, etc. The experts say that we need to do better in attracting their votes.
But this expert analysis overlooks something — the demographics of our nation have always been changing. There was a time when the original Dutch settlers deplored the arrival of the English. We are told there are still rarified social circles in New York — which we imagine consist of people with names like Van Buren, Roosevelt, Vanderbilt, and Van Rensselaer — where, only half in jest, it’s disparagingly said that being Anglo is nouveau. After the colonies became overwhelmingly British, which required some adjustments, there was a massive influx of German speakers, but that demographic crisis settled down too.
Then came wave after wave of immigrants from other countries, each one deplored by those who, at the time, considered themselves to be the “true” Americans, yet each new group became assimilated into the national fabric. Immigration continues today, and it’s unlikely to ever end. But despite all the immigration that was going on, the Republicans were a successful national party for more than a century. Our ideas appealed to everyone (well, almost everyone), regardless of demographics. So what’s the problem now?
Our party’s problem isn’t that the nation’s demographics are changing — that’s nothing new. It’s the issues we represent. For the last generation, our party has been talking about sex and religion, and all too often those are the issues that dominate our campaigns. Frankly, political concern with such private matters isn’t only unconstitutional, it’s also repulsive. And therefore so is our party.
That hurts, doesn’t it? Well, I don’t care if it hurts, because it’s the truth. It’s not enough to promise that we’ll stay out of the people’s pockets; we also need to reassure them that we’ll stay out of their pants. Live as you like and raise your families as you like, but that’s where the line must be drawn. If you threaten to step over that line to tell other people how to live, no one will trust you with political power. Nor should they.
Look at the results. We had a presidential candidate who, despite what was said in opposition commercials, never seemed obsessed with sex and religion. We watched his campaign carefully, and neither he nor his running-mate pandered to that constituency. They reached out to everyone with traditional Republican issues, as our party always used to do. Yet, because so many other Republican candidates had made literally insane comments about personal, private subjects, the party’s franchise was hopelessly soiled and we lost the presidency — in a year that was made for a successful challenge.
We’re not all crazy, so why are so many of our candidates obsessed with sex and religion? It’s because the party machinery virtually assures that only people who either hold those views or who pander to them can get nominated. That’s why we end up with embarrassing candidates who routinely lose in races that should have been ours to win. What can be done about these ideological gate-keepers? We don’t know, because they control the machinery so at this point they literally are the party.
How did this happen to us? There was a time when the social conservatives were mostly Democrats. After they were “betrayed” by Johnson’s support for civil rights legislation, Nixon reached out to them and attracted them to the GOP (see Southern strategy). Barry Goldwater was appalled at what was happening. At one point he made a statement (regarding abortion and the nomination of a Supreme Court justice) that summed the whole situation up: “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” See Conservative pioneer became an outcast.
But Goldwater was ignored, and now the party is run by people he described as a ”bunch of kooks,” (same link as above). The result is that we just lost an election that seemed impossible to lose — except that our party is perceived as being run by theocratic maniacs — which is largely true. Life was easier when those people were Democrats, fans of William Jennings Bryan, and their national party ignored them. Alas, Nixon not only invited them into the GOP, he gave them a seat at the table. Now they run the party — but they’re unlikely to ever win a national election.
In conclusion, the experts are wrong in their analysis of why we lost. It’s not about demographics — that’s putting the blame on them. It’s not them, it’s you! And that’s why I’m seriously considering re-registering as an Independent. No, of course I won’t go over to the other side, but I don’t like what you’ve done to my party. More importantly, the country doesn’t like it either.
/s/ The Curmudgeon
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
I agree, but you knew that.
Unfortunately for the republic, the Republican Party, guided by their masters in the religious right, have crafted the outlines of a government so small that it can easily fit into anyone’s bedroom.
The Republican Party of Barry Goldwater and earlier Dwight Eisenhower, has been transformed into a nest of theocrats and babbling, reality denying science haters. Let them wallow in ignorance and continue to marginalize themselves.
I would welcome the kind of Republican party that you seem to prefer. As an independent, I might even vote for them on occasion.
I disagree with most of your post. The analysts were correct to point to the changing demographics. Your own analysis would have been correct if you were talking about the imaginary Republican party that you would like to have. But the actual Republican party, the one that participates in national elections, has been very clear that it is the party of racists and of religious extremists. And for that actual Republican party, the point about changing demographics is important.
The actual Republican party must either adapt or die. That’s a simple fact of natural selection.
Doctor Stochastic says: “I agree, but you knew that.”
We are so few.
What I find dreadfully wrong with both parties is even more fundamental than sex and religion. But it is what makes sex and religion want they are. Sex and religion sell. With politicians, more than ever, it’s all about the almighty sales pitch. Which depends on lies and half-truths to peddle a product or service that’s not good enough to sell itself. For years I have been saying that an election is where 2 or more salesmen compete for the job of serviceman – and the best salesman wins. This year was beyond insane – I received about a dozen robo-calls, and 2 door-to-doors. I lost it with the last one who, was approaching my door just after I voted late Tuesday afternoon. The saddest part was that he had the name “Romney” on his jacket.
Dear Curmudg,
I think you are missing the point. There are no political parties worth the name anymore. There is no Republican Party, just a “Republican Brand.” The “movers and shakers” are neither moving nor shaking. Because there is no one in control, political campaigns are run by the campaigners and the party be damned.
If the parties had any control they would have weeded out the nut jobs and won the senate seats in Indiana and Missouri. The “party leaders” (with no party, there are no effective party leaders any more) tried to get the guy in Missouri to drop out and what happened? Nada. Because the party’s “behind the scenes guys” are impotent.
And your point about the demographics always changing is moot because people weren’t complaining about the change, but that the Republican campaigners apparently didn’t notice the change, due to getting all of their news from Fox.
I feel for you, because we need a strong two party system and for that we need two strong parties. But then I remember the GOP being counted out in 2008 and what did that last? Two years? There is hope, but like us Darwinists say, it is not in denying reality.
Although my views are split between party policies I think it would be bad for everyone if all the sane people abandon the republican party. The only way it can be fixed is from within. The religious lunatics must be kicked out of all major parties. Let them have small pockets of crazy. If the republican party relinquishes control to the theocrats instead of kicking them out we will wind up as a single party government.
Curmudgeon’s points were why I became an independent. I vote a ticket with a few candidates from both parties (and even a libertarian this time) based on who I think is rational and would be best for the job at hand. However, it’s been hard to vote for Republicans in policy-making positions for the reasons cited, plus their general aversion to science (such as understanding global warming).
One possible solution would be an open primary system, where all voters can vote for candidates in both parties. If primary candidates have to meet the challenge of appealing to the whole electorate in their race, the more moderate and electable candidates would logically prevail. California has a version of this in their Prop 14 “Top Two Candidates” act, where all candidates appear on the same primary ballot. I believe they had situations this year where the final election was between two candidates from the same party. In TX, that might result in some final elections between two Republicans, but it would be an opportunity for the full electorate to chose the more sane of the two for office.
Also, I think we need a federal non-partisan election office to establish some sort of nation-wide standards for running elections, validating voters, and so on. There should be a single, efficient and effective system, with trained people, rather than the hodge-podge of widely varying systems used now by the states. That would hopefully solve many of the problems that occurred during this last election.
In the Teabagger’s infancy I just knew that it was a
flash in the pan. A backlash from the most racist in this
country. Boy, was I fooled.
Perhaps it is appropriate to reference Rachel Maddow’s comments on this topic, noting that it is probably neither sex nor religion per se rather fact denying dogma elements and myopic insular ‘bubble’ attributes. As she offers:
“… listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. because in this country, we have a two- party system in government. and the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. they both propose possible solutions to our real problems. and we debate between those possible solutions. and by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. that competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. and the if the republican party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is snuck a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived as a nation of the constructive debate about competing feasible ideas about real problems. last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had no idea it was coming. and we saw them in real time, in real humiliating time, not believe it, even as it was happening to them. and unless they are going to is secede, they are going to have to pop the factual bubble they have been so happy living inside if they do not want to get shellacked again, and that will be a painful process for them, but it will be good for the whole country, left, right, and center. you guys, we’re counting on you. wake up. there are real problems in the world. there are real, knowable facts in the world. let’s accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. let’s move on from there. if the republican party and the conservative movement and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation. and in that spirit, congratulations”
The jury is still out on whether the Republican Party will admit its underlying fallacies and disentangle itself from the fact challenged extremist reactionary elements. As Ms. Maddow notes, logical discourse ultimately serves all Americans – and we as a nation need you to contribute. One can only hope.
Goldwater was right about the kooks. More importantly, there are no Republican leaders. I was never a Reagan fan but at least he stood up, head held high, chin out and declared his principles which he held steadfastly. He didn’t let the party lead him, he led the party. Same with Thatcher in England.
Who do the Republicans have? Nobody! Actually, the closest thing to a leader was McCain, the young McCain before he gave in to the pandering. There was a time when McCain would have called his own party a bunch of kooks, dumped The Base (which, ironically, means al-Qaeda) and moved on collecting moderates and independents and re-shaping the GOP. But, he sold out and that was the end. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs when those leading the GOP are Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly – clowns. Oh, and Beck who, at least, was a paid as a rodeo clown. The GOP – the Entertainment Party.
Romney never had a chance because he has no leadership qualities at all. He really doesn’t have anything. Romney is the son of a rich guy and little else. I do believe that if Hypothetical Romney had taken charge, dumped the kooks, built a moderate platform and campaigned from the heart on a theme of real hope and real change he could have won or at least presented a credible alternative. But, he doesn’t have the right stuff to be President, he only wanted another bullet point on his resume.
You want to talk conservative? I voted for Nixon. Twice. My advice to the GOP is to dump all the kooks and if that means the South then fine. Dump all the Family X foundations, Eagle X foundations, the God Squad, the rednecks, evangelicals. Dump them all. Screw them. Let those nuts form their own party. Then rebuild on true conservatism: Roosevelt conservatism and I mean Teddy. Conservation of the environment, energy, money and government. The mantra should be stewardship based on reason, science and education. The GOP should be the party of the best not the adequate, the party of excellence, not mediocrity.
Wow, I almost believe it myself!
For the Republican party to survive it is necessary for the leadership to differentiate between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives. Pandering to the Christian Taliban is a losing strategy and they unfortunately appear to be a significant segment of the Tea Party, the very same group that was to energize the GOP. Your point is well taken and intellectually consistent in that we really don’t want the government in our wallets or in our pants! It’s too bad that whereas most Republicans don’t trust in our government, and for good reason I might add, but don’t question for a moment their trust in their imaginary friend.
I freely admit to being a social liberal and an economic centrist. Make of that what you will.
What I see as the biggest problem for both parties is the almost non-stop demonization of both sides. According to many liberals, conservatives are lock-step, uneducated fascists bowing continually to their invisible sky friend and demanding that everyone else do the same. According to many conservatives (and sadly, many that appear to have a large audience), all liberals are communist freeloaders who hate their country. Neither of these positions is remotely true. Good ideas come from both sides, and both sides need to be willing to hammer out deals, work through compromises, and find ways that support the best of both parties. Until we can remember this, we’re not going to get a lot done. Dialogues like this one help, and need to be continued and replicated and expanded.
SJHoneywell, what’s an “economic centrist”?
I too agree with your post, as does Dr. S., and I also agree with stephenpruis’s assessment.
I’m sure you would agree with syndicated columnist Froma Harrop’s op-ed piece titled “Remaking the GOP”. (It appeared in today’s Panama City News Herald, where I happen to be at the moment. I don’t know when it originally appeared.) She quotes Steve Schmidt (GOP strategist turned MSNBC commentator): “We have given away five U.S. Senate seats over two election cycles by nominating loons. I mean, people who are fundamentally, manifestly unqualified to be in the United States Senate.”
According to her column, Schmidt also said on Wednesday that the likes of Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh need to be “shut down.”
I couldn’t agree more.
I appear to be stepping into a conservative stronghold here…but I’m going to comment anyway…
Only out-of-touch Republican pundits thought it was Romney’s election to lose. Everyone else (ie. People who looked at the polling statistically) were 90% sure that it was Obama’s in a done deal (and for over a year in some cases).
Also, it was more than just the moralising that ‘lost it’ for you guys. The majority of the population are coming to realize that Conservative economic policies just plain *don’t work*, let alone that they’re bad for the globe and most of the people on it. Trickle-down doesn’t work, reducing taxes on “job creators” doesn’t create jobs (hah! what a joke that term is, what jobs would Romney have created with the massive tax cuts his policies would have given him? I ran a small business for almost 20 years and never once did tax rates influence my hiring decisions), and an unregulated free market is a disaster for everyone except those who end up on top (unless you’re a corporate feudalism enthusiast you’d hate unregulated free market capitalism). Almost everyone (even those with money) realizes that safety nets are a good thing (and you’ll find most people who haven’t inherited bag-loads of wealth have used them at one time or another). I could go on…but…
Basically, the entire Republican platform is out of touch with reality, or to quote Colbert “reality has a liberal bias”. My prediction: Republican extinction, unless they evolve on all their policies. 😉
Sauce on, Pasta Man!
By all accounts I should be a job creator, but I’m not. I stash away my wealth in investments which I buy and sell with gay abandon! Well, not that bad, but I don’t have any loyalty to any company. I even sold my precious HP because I don’t think Meg can pull it out.
Nobody was fooled by the Rethuglicans casting the American gentry as “job creators.” They thought they fooled the public but they only fooled themselves. Even when Fox Noise was questioning Dick Morris nobody had the gonads to tell the toad to shut up and go away. It’s a sad state of affairs and I don’t see it getting cleaned up soon.
Already Boner and the rest of the d1cks are plotting to obstruct O for another four years and I hope he Executive Orders them to hades.
Perhaps it is also appropriate to offer this regarding the fallacy of “trickle down“ and “Reaganomics”:
“The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
Click to access CRSTaxesandtheEconomy%20Top%20Rates.pdf
Sorry, for what is essentially a double-post, but I forgot to put my main concluding comment in.
It was actually the “Moral (no longer) Majority” that kept the race close. Romney got the highest ever vote among Protestants for a Presidential race (72% from memory), and one of the highest votes among church-going Catholics (65% also from memory).
Without them Conservatives would be even crispier TOAST than they already are. Of course, this will all change if they start running centrists instead of hard-line fiscal conservatives.
By “economic centrism” I meant only that I subscribe neither to right or left policies in general, but attempt to judge each one on its own merits regardless of the affiliation of who created it. I’m not a tax-and-spender nor am I a “taxes raised never” follower. I probably should have been more clear.
The reality is that America needs to overhaul it’s electoral process. The current system does no encourage cooperation or even accurate representation.
However it’s doubtful that the current parties would consider changing it. They have too much to lose.
@docbill1351
You make some good points there… ‘Fox Noise’, ‘job creators’ et al. Mitt just didn’t cut it and the election was all over the media here underside for days. The GOP, as SC has said, need to get away from sex and religion.
Now (off topic) we have a period of calm underside … test cricket. A guy Stateside said a while ago, “You have a game that goes for 5 days and there may not be a result?” Yep, it’s the journey.
No worries Pasta, there are plenty of us Liberals lurking about here too. Thoughtful comments are always appreciated.
Good post Curmie, and some really excellent comments from everyone else. I find it difficult to believe this will not be a wake up call the the Republican Party, and that something better wont come of it.
pastasauceror: “Of course, this will all change if they start running centrists instead of hard-line fiscal conservatives.”
I doubt it. The radical paranoid religious types want their own “nanny state” for their religions, and any associated pseudoscience. They don’t really care much about economics, and many will even admit that hard-line capitalism is unacceptably “Darwinian.” If Republican and Democratic politicians took a less activist role in social causes, many, if not most of those people would switch parties.
How can republicans call themselves the party of ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government while they’re constantly using and trying to use government (laws) to tell everyone what to do and not to do, including (but not limited to) what kind of sex consenting adults can have and who consenting adults can marry?
The democratic party is far from perfect but the republican party is, well, let me put it this way: I can’t say what I really think of the republican party here because it wouldn’t get past the filters and I would likely be banned for life.
The USA needs a complete overhaul of its so-called “two party system”, and the media in the USA needs as much or more overhauling as the political crap. I haven’t felt proud of this country (USA) for a very long time and whatever pride I felt when I was younger was probably only because I was too young and naive to realize how screwed up this country was even back then. I’m more aware now but I’m also less and less proud to be an American as I watch dictatorial, dishonest, greedy, stupid, hypocritical, insane, power hungry, massively arrogant, scientifically ignorant, self-serving, self-righteous religious loons (republican politicians and their supporters) do every corrupt thing they can to crush rights, happiness, and health (except their own of course), to stymie scientific research and education, to control every thought and action of everyone (except their own of course), to destroy the environment, to line their own pockets with as much money as possible, to manipulate and brainwash the public, to wreck our reputation with the rest of the world, to demonize and exclude anyone who isn’t just like them, to wage war, to increase paranoia, and a lot of other negative things as they block or try to block virtually any attempt to make the USA and the world a better place.
The whole truth said:
Couldn’t agree more. What we’ve got is a duopoly. It’s very similar to those who have only two choices for broadband internet. They find that the packages offered by both is strangely identical, including the price. Yet, for those people with more than two choices, all of a sudden, the price comes down and the value (bit speed, throughput, latency) goes way up. The problem is that the other party choices are even crazier than what we have now. For example, the Libertarian party would demand a declaration of war for every time we deployed troops. Some people would say, “Hell, yeah! That will ensure we stay focused!” The problem is that war declarations typically give powers to the government that we would have a REAL hard time with, such as censorship of the media.
Nope. What we, the people who watch the media, needs is to change what we expect from the media. I knew there was a problem with my family when they stopped reading from a large, Midwestern newspaper because they said it was “too liberal”. Yet, from my point of view, having lived on the Least Coast for over a decade and a half, that newspaper was as conservative as they come. In other words, we’ve come to shoot the messenger. We don’t like what we’re hearing, so tell me what I want to hear! Hence, Rush and Hannity and Beck and Breitbart and Fox Noise (Like that one, Doc Bill!) have made such inroads. The people who watch and listen to that stuff have no idea they’re now inside of a large echo chamber. The pundits just keep repeating what the audience wants to hear. It’s almost as if a large part of the country needs a serious intervention, or de-programming.
Ever been overseas? I have. Many times. To some nice places and not so nice places. Guess what? Every time I returned, I was glad to be home. I hear this from both right and left, the “I’m not proud of my country” or “I’m so ashamed of my country”. What?!?!? (Yeah. You’ve hit one of my hot button topics, in case you couldn’t tell.) Yes, we have problems. But, please, keep some perspective. So we have some idiots in power. Here’s a little secret (looks both ways to ensure we’re not being overheard): Everyone does. That’s right. Every other country in the world has little, petty tyrants in positions of power. Tyrants are drawn to power like a moth to the streetlight. It’s just the way it is. So if you want to tell me how unproud you are of America, (a) you’d better be specific as to what is making you so unproud and (b) you’d better tell me what your plan is for making you proud again.
I don’t mind opening up the two party system. A political buffet could have it’s advantages, but I’d like for there to be a really good sneeze guard in place.
Tomato Addict says: “I don’t mind opening up the two party system.”
It’s all about who gets on the ballot, and that’s controlled by state law. The two parties are always there, and minor candidates have to jump through hoops. That said, I’m all for a bible-believing, theocratic, anti-sex party. They’d need a snappy name, but if such a party existed (it practically exists now, but I’d rather not think about that) all the people I don’t want in the GOP would flock to it, and things would be back to the way they used to be.
pastasauceror – I will echo what the Addict said – there are many independent, liberal, whatevers, here, but labels have become virtually meaningless as descriptors of substance. We jhang out here because Curmy keeps such close tabs on a subset of loonies [that unfortunately are mainly Republicans]. As a Colorado independent, I am shut out of primaries, but ultimately choose a person with a vision similar to mine. If there were any Republicans around these days like Curmy describes, they would get a lot of independent votes. But the loonies are currently in charge of the asylum, trying to figure out why there “aren’t enough angry white guys” to carry the electoral day [Lindsey Graham]
And here is what our libertarian son has to say 🙂
The wailing and gnashing of teeth followed by soul-searching and prescriptions for how to change the party are usually firmly rooted in a false premise:
The result is that we just lost an election that seemed impossible to lose
And there it is. This was an election that seemed impossible to win, unless you are listening to Dick Morris or Rove.
Obama is popular. An incumbent president hasn’t been voted out for decades. People don’t care about unemployment when you can get benefits for 99 weeks. People don’t care about the deficit if inflation hasn’t hit yet. Tell me again why this should have been an easy win?
Hold this economy, add in 15% inflation, and run Hillary in 2016. Then we’ll talk about an election that should be impossible to lose.
Douglas E “An incumbent president hasn’t been voted out for decades.”
George H. W. Bush, 1992 — exactly two decades ago. So you are right — it has been decades. How time flies when you’re getting old!
“Hold this economy, add in 15% inflation, and run Hillary in 2016. Then we’ll talk about an election that should be impossible to lose.”
Shh! Don’t jinx them! Besides, it kinda depends on who’s running, doesn’t it?
>”Shh! Don’t jinx them! Besides, it kinda depends on who’s running, doesn’t it?”
CURMIE 2016
Tomato Addict says: “CURMIE 2016”
I haven’t made the decision yet. When you see me running around shaking hands in Iowa, then you’ll know.
“I’m all for a bible-believing, theocratic, anti-sex party. They’d need a snappy name, but if such a party existed (it practically exists now, but I’d rather not think about that) all the people I don’t want in the GOP would flock to it, and things would be back to the way they used to be.”
Do this, and you’d have a GOP that I’d respect and sometimes vote for.
docbill, Cogito, Tomato, Frank J, Douglas E
Interesting comments all. As you can probably tell, I’m not from the US (.au actually), but I’ve had a great interest in the political system there for a long time. Thanks for your corrections, I don’t really know the finer points of the voting “blocks” over there, I was drawing most of my conclusion from the stats.
I’ve been reading here for a while but I can’t remember if this is the first time I’ve been compelled to comment, I think it is. (What can I say, I love the 2 forbidden topics Politics and Religion) I don’t do the +1 and I agree posts, so I guess this must be the first time I’ve had a difference of opinion with The Curmudgeon great enough to get me to de-lurk…haha.
As for Curmie2016, I know this isn’t a political blog (apart from Creationist attempts at politics of course) but I’d love to hear what “Republicans…like Curmy describes” (Douglas) actually are, I’ve only seen the current breed up close having really only taken an interest during and since Reagan’s reign. 😀
pastasauceror says:
They still exist. Romney may have been one. Before that, maybe Bush the Elder.
SC said:
Don’t forget to hand out Curmudgeonite!
Curmudgeon says:
I’ll give you Bush elder. He had some problems, and I certainly don’t agree with all of his policies, but he did do some things right, like PAYGO, which was later used by the Clinton administration (and allowed to run out by Bush 2). But Romney? I disagree. At the very least, we really don’t know, because he never really made his plans clear…
New Hampshire or bust. Enlightenment Conservatism or Die!
Interesting coincidence is that Wikipedia has a front page story on Curmie’s “favorite” Democrat – William Jennings Bryan.
We of the Curmudgenite Corps salute you, .au, for your gift to us of Ken Ham, Esquire, and all his Answers. Without Curmie regaling us about old Hambo I would have no doubt succumbed to surfing porn sites instead. Curmie Saves!
So, here’s to you, PS.au, may your digeriedoo never barnacle and may your dags hang proudly and may your roo forever be tied down. G’day, Bazzer!
I’m done with the GOP until they make some changes. But right now, if the posters over at Hot Air are signs of anything, the party members are too busy claiming that the GOP did its job but that those crazy stupid voters dropped the ball and failed to do their job in saving the country — so I won’t be holding my breath waiting for the GOP to rethink its strategy.
So I’m left despising both parties.
Where were you born, Curmie? Can you prove it? If the answers are U.S. and “yes”, you’re a shoo-in.
retiredsciguy asks: “Where were you born, Curmie? Can you prove it?”
Oh, I’m qualified to run. But I don’t think I could put up with what has to be done to run. However, if the Electoral
CollageCollege chooses me, I’d consider accepting.Electoral Collage: Is that like a dartboard with pictures of senators and representatives? 😉
Oops! Typo corrected.
Curmie is Canadian. Haven’t you seen how he writes “aboot?” He’s a Moosehead, I tell you!
docbill1351 says: “Curmie is Canadian.”
That’s really outrageous! I ain’t no kin to no walrus.
Well, Curmie, if you say you’re qualified to run, that’s good enough for me. If it worked for Obama, it should work for you.
You’ve got to save your party!
I like the Democrats, Curmudgeon, but the party is far too stupid to run the country alone. As funny as it is to watch the Republican party implode, it’s just not safe for the country. We need conservatism to act as a ballast or we’ll drift into full-blown postmodern liberal madness.
Amen. Well sort of Amen, you get what I mean there. I consider myself a Goldwater/Buckley/Kilpatrick/Will Republican. It seems that there are about 200 of us left in the Party. I could not pull the trigger for Mr. Romney. His religion is just too weird. A prejudice yes. But I have Mormon cousins. Oh Boy. Just so His Highness will let me keep reading, I voted Libertarian.
We like your open letter, but may we suggest we lose the royal “we”?
Your’s truly, King Mike
BTW, I’m waiting for a large section of the Republican party to go nuts and turn violent. I really expect it to happen. After all, you’ve got Preists, pastors and all manner of religious potentate screaming about how Obama is the anti-christ. You’ve got Fox news, Beck, Limbaugh and a boat load, no, ship load of elected Republicans, including judges and Senators and Members of the House who are saying or said or implying that Obama stole the election, isn’t an American, hates the country, is going to sell it to the UN and bring in black helicopters and setup concentration camps. They say the anti Christian real Muslim anti Christ Baby eating Obama is the most evil person on the face of the earth, worse then Hitler and Stalin.
And a fair number of people believe this tripe. This is the real problem with the Republican party. They have gone far beyond saying “we disagree with the oppositions positions” and are screaming irrational hyperbole.
They are in fact creating a climate of hate and fear and irrationality and sooner or later it’s going to boil over. We have seen it time and time again in history, when people use hate and fear to motivate the mob they get a mob filled with hate and fear.
And when it does boil over it isn’t going to be pretty, and it isn’t going to be good for the USA or the rest of the world.