What the hell is going on in the Republican party?

I thought the Republican party was a champion of civil rights. Why then are Republican senators accusing other senators and congressman of being Anti-American? What's going on?

I believe it's a classic divisive technique that has been used for many years. Divide and conquer. It's a move of desperation when the GOP feels they are losing the election. An interesting article on it:

Some Examples

GOP Rep. Robin Hayes, Saturday:
Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.
...
Gov. Sarah Palin, last Wednesday: We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.
...
GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann, last Wednesday: I'm very concerned that he [Obama] may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about. . .

It's not new. Liberals and Democrats have been accused of being anti-American and unpatriotic for some time now.




[edit on 23-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

It's part of the game.

Liberals use these exact same tactics. Take Murtha calling his own constituents racists and rednecks for example.

At some point both parties will use the class envy card as well in each election cycle. Then we'll get the same tired accusations that the other guy wants to cut medicare and social security.

It's the old political playbook at it's best.

Everyone uses it, not just the GOP.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


As Nyk537 pointed out, these political jabs have been going on for a long while. The "Daily Show" did a spot on the gaffes of the Democrats. Rep Murtha was included along with Joe Biden. They all say really dumb things at one time, and they need to keep their mouths shut. Most of it doesn't hurt the ones running for president, but if it is bad enough, can hurt the person saying it. Rep Murtha has been in a long time and has a lot of power. His constituents will look at that and re-elect him with ease.

Rep Bachmann may have crossed a line with her constituents, but they may forgive if she brings home the pork.

The separating of Virginia into two parts may have cost the Republicans that state. That is the main reason Sen McCain is working so hard to win Pennsylvania and keep Florida red.

I am sure there are many who are running the campaigns who watch these flubs and just stare at the TV wondering why they picked their job.

From my somewhat partisan perspective it looks like the Republicans are self-destructing this time around. They began with a candidate who did not appeal strongly to the base of the party nor especially to the moderate conservatives either. Then they brought in Sarah Palin to energize that base, but that's a puzzling choice. After repeatedly attacking Obama for his alleged lack of experience, they bring in an inexperienced v.p. candidate who would be only a heartbeat away from the presidency. As energized as the base may be, McCain needs to appeal to a wider cross-section of the population.

McCain's reputation is one of a certain amount of independence (something I liked) though he seems to be cleaving to the policies and tactics that have won elections for the hard right in the past. He purports to be the candidate of change, but has not sufficiently demonstrated how he would be significantly different from the rest of his party or from the present administration.

Add to that what looks like frequent changes in strategies and tactics and a campaign that is divided and in disarray. It's as if the Republicans are unsure of just how to go about it this time around. They seem to be focusing on attacks on Obama's character and alleged associations (I really don't think the Democrats are doing the same--the only real charge they bring against McCain is that he is Bush all over again) but these have not worked as well as they did for them in the past. The Republican party is again using fear (of terrorism, of foreign enemies, of domestic unreast, of the candidate) as they have many times in the past but it doesn't seem to stick as it usually does.

My overall impression is that there are real divisions in the party and a lot of floundering going on, combined with a stronger competitor than the Democrats have run for a long time.

But "it ain't over 'til it's over" and it's too soon for the Democrats to be complacent. The Republican party faithful will flock to the polls as they usually do and even some skeptics among them will put aside their misgivings for the good of the party. It's still possible to win.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Sestias]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Sestias]

I'd really love it if someone did a non bias look at the attack ads from dems vs the attack ads from republicans. And see who sinks lower.

I have an idea of who would be more guilty, but I think a view and recount from a non bias source is in order.

Originally posted by Sestias
From my somewhat partisan perspective it looks like the Republicans are self-destructing this time around.

I think you're right. With the onset of the Bush years, everything looked rosy but the party began to split into 2 clear factions. The "real conservatives" and the "evangelical extreme". This "evangelical extreme" is popular for the attitude of "You're either with us or against us" that fosters the attacks of anti-Americanism, anti-patriotic and anti-country we're seeing.

I believe the Republican party has been hijacked or kidnapped by these extremists. And unfortunately, they are a fairly large segment, inspired by "righteousness" and the power of the televangelist and a "Pro-family" (read anti-diversity) segment. They are anti-gay, anti-personal right, anti-freedom and anti-choice. And they are vocally turning real conservatives, independents and the left into the "enemy".

I can't find a link, but I heard on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that there is a major Republican meeting scheduled for shortly after the election, that is suspected to discuss the direction and re-claiming of the Republican Party.

I hope so. It's the first step to all of us working together in the coming years. Extremists of any flavor should not be permitted to "take over" a party or government.

Just my opinion.

The bush presidency has left such a sour taste for politics and political candidates that now even politicians are fed up but unable to undo the damage done to our nations political system.

I believe that is still a guilty feeling after passing the biggest scam in history to the American tax payer and one that will bring our nation to its knees the bail out to wealthy in the nation.

The Republican party is in trouble this elections but the Democrats will not be be spared the anger of the people either, Truly believe that our own government is very afraid of what is heading our way.

reply to post by bknapple32


The Democrats actually started the attack ads in the 1964 race when LBJ had the commercial with the little girl and then the nuclear explosion. That was done to try and convince people that Sen Goldwater was a warmonger. It worked, and both sides have been using attack ads ever since.

I think this time the personal attacks were at an all time low. This is the people behind the scenes who suggest them. Hillary Clinton's campaign for the nomination started this, and it did keep her in the race until June. The tactics did work, although in the end cost Sen Clinton her respect among many people.

On the Republican side of the race, Gov Palin is putting herself in place for a 2012 or 2016 run for office. She is not the only one to have done that, and will not be the last. Mike Huckabee had a good chance to win, but Fred Thompson took away many of the conservative votes that would of gone to Gov Huckabee. I see him also pondering another run. I don't know about Mitt Romney, but he may try again too. If Sen McCain does win this, there are rumors he may only serve one term.

The Republican party to put it simply hasn't grown with it's base, it instead has tried to tell it's base how to think.

There is a new bread of conservative out there that the GOP needs to address and actually listen to, instead of preaching to. New conservative values in this country are different than conservative values were back during the Regan years.

The Grand Old Party is getting long in the tooth and it really needs fresh blood that apeals to the majority of American conservitives in this country.

Frankly using 20th century tactics and values in a 21st century world just isn't going to cut it anymore.

Americans are tired of trickle down economics of the Regan administration and they are tired of the less is more mentality, what they want the government to do is more with less. They want the government to work harder with less impact on their personal lives and more importantly less impact on their paychecks.

The GOP as of late has been less government but more military. Conservatives in Washington have been for the last couple decades been screaming for more military spending and less spending at home.

The GOP needs to realize that while a strong military is vital for our national interests abroad it's is equally vital to protect investment at home so that our economy can grow. Giving tax cuts only to the wealthy won't grow an exonomy, it's just giving more money to people with money.

As we have recently seen this trickle down theory of Regan doesn't wash. Small business owners need to be helped as well to grow their business and thus grow the GNP

There are three types of Republican Party: the fiscal conservative, the social conservative and the libertarian. The libertarian and the fiscal are usually the same type as they want low taxes and less government. They also don't want the government to preach values and think the government should stay out of the bedroom. The social conservative is the larger of the base of the party, and they would like to see government get involved with "family values".
The problem is to attract both types without alienating the other. The Republican Party has had a very unpopular President and Congress, so there is always a "house cleaning" in politics.
Here are some problems with the political parties:

1. Addressing the base only. Democrats would only have liberals and did not even go to rural areas. Sen Obama changed this by going after the rural vote. Gov Dean of New Hampshire told the Democrats if they want to win they had to go after everyone, not just the base. The Republicans thought that the base would be strong enough and they would get enough independents to get them the victory. The Republicans have to find a way to open their tent to more urban areas if they want to do well.

2. It's the candidate, stupid. I really like John McCain and voted for him in the 2000 election. He did not tow the party line, and was a true maverick. He was the complete opposite in 2008, and that cost him a majority of the independent vote. John Kerry was the same in 2004: Not a very strong candidate (although he did rather well considering he was not very well liked).

3. Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney will be the ones who will try to get the 2012 nomination. The three of them are very different, and it will be interesting to see who will win the fight. It is not in the bag for Gov Palin (nor any of the others).

4. As whatukno stated there has to be a new definition of what a conservative is. Reagan was able to win the "Reagan Democrats" and coast to a true landslide in 1984. How much government do we want? How much should states be allowed to do? I am one of those who does think states should have complete control of housing, education, medical care, and social issues. There are very liberal states that abortion will always be legal in. Why not let the more conservative states have the right to abolish it? This is very controversial, but it is a perfect argument for the Republicans. Let the locals decide their fates.

5. Minorities: Bush got a very large vote from the Hispanics (about 45%), and Sen McCain was not able to match that at all. The Republicans have to find a way to attract non Cuban Hispanics (although more Cuban Americans supported Obama than any Democrat before him at 30%). There has to be a way to discuss border security without sounding anti-Hispanic. The total white vote was at 74%, its lowest. It will be even lower every presidential election because of population trends. White people are not having children, and black and Hispanics are having more children. By 2050, whites will truly be a minority (although the largest minority). The Republicans have to address this issue if they want to grow.

Let me start by saying that I don't condone the evil tactics I am about to describe.

That being said, the Republican party damn well have better just learned its lesson about being a party of civil rights.

Much has been made of the generational change in this election and how wonderful it is that the blatant fear-mongering tactics and appeals to xenophobia that were targeted against Obama failed. It turns out that young people aren't all that afraid of different races, foreigners, or even terrorists. China and homosexuals are another story- enough people are still afraid of them.

Watching Prop 8 (a constitutional ammendment to affect gay marriage ban against the ruling of the courts) pass in California was a disturbing event for me as a democrat. It showed me that Republicans had a winning issue in a state Democrats almost can't win without.

If the Republican party runs a hardcore "religious values" candidate who will declare war on the civil rights of women and homosexuals- maybe Mike Huckabee with a televangelist riding shotgun and Alan Keyes in a high position with them somewhere- I think they'll get the whitehouse back, especially if they bring a protectionist trade policy and a lot of anti-china rhetoric on the foreign policy and defense fronts.

Now, to be constructive, there is another option. If the Republican party wants to win elections without doing anything evil and without acting more like the Democrats (and acting more like the Democrats would be a great idea for the Republicans on a number of levels if you ask me) then the alternative is to go kind of retro cold war in defense policy- less invading Iraq and more worrying about China's ability to invade people, aim derregulation at things people are mad about instead of at things like lending practices which most people never think about, and get serious about cutting government spending and taxes. I think most people under 30 would jump at the chance to stop paying the 7.5% FICA they pay on their check and be free to go make their own plans for the future.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Even the use of anti-gay marriage is no guaranty of winning. Most of the states have anti-gay marriage laws and amendments passed. The amendment did receive 48% of no votes, so that is closing in as a tactic.
Going negative works more for the older voters, but as people who have grown up going to school with minorities/gay students get older, their views will dominate.

It is interesting the GOP went after the disenchanted Democrats after the Civil Rights act passed in 1964 helping Nixon win in 1968. The courting of the Christian Fundamentalists in 1980 pulled the party together for a long time. They forgot one thing: as the people age, they need to be replaced with younger people who fear Civil Rights. Look at the map between the 1984 solid red map and the 1988 map with blue starting to permanently pop up.

Alan Keyes and Bobby Jindal are names being touted to help with the minority vote, but the party also needs a new message to go along with it.