The 'Right' may benefit from NOT re-taking the House

(Mr. Skeptic overlord, if this is the wrong forum for this, please move it to the right one. i apologize in advance for my noobishness. But i assure you I am learning.)

Seems to me that the Republican Party may not actually take back very many seats this fall. And it also seems like NOT winning may very well serve them quite well. It allows the Republicans the comfortable position they now enjoy where they can make all sorts of empty, even absurd criticisms without offering anything concrete or substantive to the conversation.

In their current position, the Republican Party, the "Right" wing of US politics gets to sit back and enjpy the privilege of minorty party status. Why would they want to give this up? The country is in some seriously bad places. Our economy is on the brink, the entire world economy is having serious issues. And, more importantly, the US and the whole world are on the precipice of major shifts in standards of living, access to resources, a predictable climate, etc etc etc.

Any government who finds themselves 'in charge' (that is, the perception of control) during a time of crises will take the blame in the Public's mind. If the Republicans win back enough seats to have some SAY in the direction f things, then they will become complicit. Do they really want that sort of complicity when the people at the top of the Party KNOW the direction things are heading?

I tend to think that actually losing (or, losing in comparison to the over-hyped predictions of total victory) may help continue to foment this sort of social conservative rage that is building. TO harvest that rage now might be premature. Why not let it build for another few years when they can try and take both the White House and Congress? And why not help ensure the success of that takeover by keeping the pressure cooker going, and making sure your party can continue to play the "NO" tactic of a minority party?

a related article:

“Tom Donohue, the powerful president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who has vowed to spend more than $75 million on key House and Senate races, has privately told colleagues in recent weeks he believes Democrats will just barely hold on to the House majority.

Two sources familiar with the conversations said Donohue has privately said he’s gone over every single key race in the House, and he believes Republicans will lose a few seats—losses he believes they don’t see coming—because it is more of an anti-establishment election than an anti-Democratic election.”

edition.cnn.com...

To take this a little further:

Political parties appear to do this all the time. I have always figured that's what the Democrats did in 04 with Kerry. And I think that is exactly what the GOP did in the 08 elections. I mean, John McCain? They all HATE that guy. Limbaugh EXPLODED when McCain won the Florida primary. So what better way to throw the election than McCain?

But here's where I see the plot REALLY unfolds: The other side of that equation was especially genius. By choosing Palin as his running mate, not only did they help ensure defeat (as she was a highly-polarizing figure), but they were able to plant the Palin seed. For every person turned off by Palin (on the right and left), there was someone who identified with some aspect of her. They made her a celebrity overnight. It was this celebrity that she was able to parlay into a media job and a long-term spotlight on the National stage that has made her a bit of a kind-maker these days, giving enormous popular boost to candidates she deems worthy.

Why is this a seed? Well, because Palin was perfect. She was basically unelectable (at the National level), but it was this polarizing effect that actually ENDEARED her to many of the members of the disenfranchised Right. Her being laughed at in the media for being an idiot plays in her favor. It makes her MORE credible in these people's eyes. By giving an enormous megaphone to this woman who espouses simplistic notions on just about everything, they were able to attract the people who have been the meat and potatoes of the Republican party since Reagan.

The history of the alignment of Fiscal and Social conservatives that gave the GOP the edge for the last three decades should be common knowledge to anyone paying attention, so i wont recap basic history right now.

SO, with the Palin seed planted, they ensure they have a National celebrity who will happily pander to the social conservatives of America. She is enough of an 'outsider' from the National scene (after all, Alaska is VERY far from Washington. And a very small state) that she can re-package herself as an "Alternative" to the 'Washington" Republicans. Never mind that she still is a Republican. This is all part of the package. the re-branding.

She panders to them, keeps the talking points going (the nonsense ones that rally up the rubes but arent substantive enough to actually lead to a useful, informed debate) to keep them paying attention. The media outlets like FOX get to amplify and mirror back all of this 'populist' angst (that is CLEARLY packaged in the same way a Reality show is), and convince the social conservatives of America that they are actually MUCH larger than they are. It'd be like watching the Hills and thinking all of america acts like that. But they believe it.


So how does this relate to the idea of them NOT winning back the House? The so-called "Tea Party" is a dry run for the 2012 elections. All of this is just a dry-run for a far more important election in two years. They are testing out the waters for the palin seed (okay, im mixing metaphors) to see how it works, on the ground.

Remember: she's not the candidate. She's the candidate-maker. They are seeing what types of candidates the public will respond to. And so far, it's women. Especially ones that appear somewhat naive in their approach to politics. The more simple the ideas, the better. It makes them look like 'outsiders'.

So, at this point, it appears they are figuring out how to find the perfect new 'outsider' candidate that appeals to their base in the same way Palin did. One that motivates people to get to the polls, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, one who is fresh enough to the scene to be unknown. Christine ODonnal seems a perfect example of the basic idea they are looking for.

Basically, they are trying to figure out WHO will get the Republicans who didnt vote in 08 to get back out there. And all of this hoopla this time around is just a real-life test-run to work out the kinks in advance.

this scares me .A LOT.

Considering that both the "right" and the "left" are playing for the same team, it really doesn't matter.


-TheAssoc.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
Considering that both the "right" and the "left" are playing for the same team, it really doesn't matter.


-TheAssoc.

If by same team you mean the American people then I agree with you. I suggest you start watching C-Span to get a fair and balanced unbiased look into Washington. You can see what the congressmen and congresswomen say on the floor, watch their speeches and debates without editing in full. I have been doing this recently and been able to decide which senators I think are just trying to "gain power" and what ones I think actually care about the public.
They are on both sides.

Campaign adds and commentary will only highlight the bad or the good, news clips only give you a 30 second give or take look at what someone said and it may be out of context.

I highly suggest all who are interested in politics start watching C-SPAN.

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
If by same team you mean the American people then I agree with you.

Not exactly.

The team they're both playing for is the one who makes the highest bid.


-TheAssoc.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
Considering that both the "right" and the "left" are playing for the same team, it really doesn't matter.


-TheAssoc.

Well, 'matter' is certainly relative.

Altho I fail to see how this actually relates to my hypothesis.

Try harder?

reply to post by justadood


Dude, i have been saying this for months. Taking back either chamber will be the worst thing for the GOP right now. Democrats are amazingly astute at demonizing and shifting blame. Obama's proven to be pretty flacid and weak in post-campaign season. Giving him numbers to point to and blame his failures on will be the biggest enabler possible for this snake oil salesman.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by justadood

 

Dude, i have been saying this for months. Taking back either chamber will be the worst thing for the GOP right now. Democrats are amazingly astute at demonizing and shifting blame. Obama's proven to be pretty flacid and weak in post-campaign season. Giving him numbers to point to and blame his failures on will be the biggest enabler possible for this snake oil salesman.

Well, were sort of saying the same thing. But from different perspectives.What I'm saying is the Republicans DONT want to win because then they would have to do something other than merely be opposed to everything. NOT winning allows them to continue to pretend to be powerless and to continue to try and distance themselves from policies they help put into place.

So actually you and I are saying opposite things. I'm saying the Republicans WANT to lose because they have nothing constructive to add to the debate. You appear to be saying the Democrats want the Republicans to win so they have someone to blame.

Very different perspectives, really.

Originally posted by justadood
Altho I fail to see how this actually relates to my hypothesis.

Try harder?

Both the "right" and the "left" have been co-opted by the same group of elites. Both parties now serve only the interests of said elites.

Ergo, it matters not "which party" (quotations added because, in reality, Republicrats and Demicans are the same party) is in power, because the results are invariably the same: the interests of the American people are brushed aside in favor of the interests of the elites.

That being clarified and in light of the futility of debating the issue, that's all I have to say on the subject. Feel free to have the last word, if you please.


-TheAssoc.

acutally the best thing for the gop is to lose in november

for the simple fact the gop get into power and things have not changed obama and the left and blame it all on the republicans and take obama and congress for another term.


the best thing is to lose this november and win the congress and whitehouse in 2012.


its nothing but a chess game the gop has been put in check and the gop needs to plan a counter move to avoid a checkmate.


my 2 cents

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Originally posted by justadood
Altho I fail to see how this actually relates to my hypothesis.

Try harder?

Both the "right" and the "left" have been co-opted by the same group of elites. Both parties now serve only the interests of said elites.

Ergo, it matters not "which party" (quotations added because, in reality, Republicrats and Demicans are the same party) is in power, because the results are invariably the same: the interests of the American people are brushed aside in favor of the interests of the elites.

That being clarified and in light of the futility of debating the issue, that's all I have to say on the subject. Feel free to have the last word, if you please.

-TheAssoc.

Well, i disagree with your overly simplistic thesis, and suspect that if you actually read the OP (and, gasp, the second post), instead of merely the headline, you might realize why such a broad generalization doesnt actually refute the OP whatsoever.

I mean, even IF they are exactly the same (an idea that is not necessarily true, but merely depends on where one is standing), what I am talking about is the game plan and how it plays different 'sides' with false expectations and, again, if you read the OP and the second post, you might see how your idea might fit neatly into the concept. Again, this requires reading more than the headline and satisfying your preconceptions.

Originally posted by neo96
acutally the best thing for the gop is to lose in november

for the simple fact the gop get into power and things have not changed obama and the left and blame it all on the republicans and take obama and congress for another term.


the best thing is to lose this november and win the congress and whitehouse in 2012.


its nothing but a chess game the gop has been put in check and the gop needs to plan a counter move to avoid a checkmate.


my 2 cents

edit on 23-9-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

i agree 99%. By not gaining the seats they need in november, they can continue to foment the anger of the social conservative base they are playing to with the so-called 'tea party movement'. IF done properly, then i think you're right and it will lead to an enormous takeover in 2012 of both the house and the WH.

Something I am beginning to suspect, tho, is if they have been planning this as a possibility all along. Which means that they have been feeding their social con minions false hope with the intent of turning this disappointment into even more anger and ultimately, a bigger turnout at the polls in 2012.

Thanks for your input.

reply to post by justadood


i dont disagree with anything you said either good day to you

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by justadood

 

i dont disagree with anything you said either good day to you

Really?

Wow.

So you agree that the Republicans/Tea Party may be intentionally over-estimating their turnout this November, so further frustrate their base?

reply to post by justadood


its politics man its all manipulation

both parties act in what they think is their best interest and keep themselves in power.


i dont find fault with that to be clear while i did say the best thing for the gop to lose but i want them to win

but in the larger picture people who only think short term lose the battle those who think long term win the war

and make no mistake both parties have been at war for decades and will always be at war as long as this country exists.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by justadood

 

i dont find fault with that to be clear while i did say the best thing for the gop to lose but i want them to win

If you think the 'best thing for the gop' is to lose, and you say you want them to win, do you mean you dont want the best thing for them?

reply to post by justadood


Yea, I see where you're coming from. But besides from the fact that I disagree about the GOP being obstructionists, we both see a problem of stagnation and see how the opposition party can benefit from not being in power during the next 2 years. So that's what I mean when I say that we have the same view point. Which party is good or bad etc, can be left up to debate.

reply to post by justadood


im going to reference chess again some times you have to sacrifice a pawn in order to get to your ultimate goal

much like how mccain and palin were sacrificed in them 2008 election the gop received too much damage from the bush years and remember its manipulation the left planned and orchestrated a brillant move to get into power in 2008. the left wing damage machine was clearly effective bush was never as bad as the left made him out to be everything single thing you know about bush was to get you to hate- hate the right and the republicans.

plain and simple it was a chess move it was the non stop full onslaught agianst the rights king(bush) and they succeeded.

the left and right are way of ahead when it comes to this stuff than us sheep.


i want the best for the gop my freind but sometimes you have to make sacrifices to get to where you want to be

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by justadood

 

much like how mccain and palin were sacrificed in them 2008 election the gop received too much damage from the bush years and remember its manipulation the left planned and orchestrated a brillant move to get into power in 2008. the left wing damage machine was clearly effective bush was never as bad as the left made him out to be everything single thing you know about bush was to get you to hate- hate the right and the republicans.

Bold mine

I'm sorry. I dont agree with this premise whatsoever. Can you back up these opinions with something resembling evidence for a skeptic?

reply to post by justadood


back it up ok whose news did you watch? the lefts the rights? or neither? who teachs the schools in this country?

did you independtly verify every single thing the left has told you?

how long have you been alive?

how much power do you think a president actually has? the same people who bash bush are the same ones who gave him the power to do those things. it is a fact- a fact that democrats have been in power in the congress since 2006 and they could have stopped him at any time but they didnt.

you have heard the news that "republicans are being obstructionists" to the obama agenda

the left could have stopped bush at any time and they didnt for the simple fact they were positioning themselves for 2008 so they could get into control.

and that tool to get into power was hate- its manipuation man manipulation.

if you have problems with bush about the wars about the economy about everything they talked it up for years and if you look around today its the same as it was then they have not done one thing different than bush in all reality gitmo is open, troops are still afghanistan and iraq and this countrys economy is still as messed up as it was supposedly under bush.


i have lived underneath a few presidents, carter,reagan,bush,clinton,bush 2 and now obama.

from the larger historical context its not been any different other than the level of hatred out there.


feel free to disagree im not trying to impose anything on you your your own person