I’m sure most of us have many reasons to fervently hope that whichever hairball the GOP horks up for the presidential nomination in 2016 is soundly rejected by voters. But for me, not least on that long list is the hope that a third straight drubbing at the polls might prompt the Republicans to do some serious soul-searching.
Three presidential losses in a row prompted many Democrats to sell out the New Deal and adopt the corporate-friendly DLC bullshit line. Maybe Bill Clinton had to ride the Third Way slide to two-term victory — that’s debatable. We didn’t have to be happy about it, but it was better than another Poppy Bush term or a Bob Dole presidency.
Anyhoo, in this morning’s Wake Up Sheeple thread, I mentioned that losing three presidential races in a row (please FSM, let it be so!) would be a big fucking deal for Republicans. Not everyone agreed. Valued commenter JustRuss made some excellent points in the following reply:
To a party that cared about governing, sure. But “the party” is mostly the money, and they just want the government to stay the hell out of their way. And with the IRS and EPA being starved, TPP and other trade deals in the hopper, Citizen’s United, fracking bans being overturned left and right, they’re doing fine. Sure, it would be nice to have a Bush in the White House, but they’re getting most of what they want regardless. Having a Democrat in the White House gives them someone to blame when things go sideways and is a great focus for the rage their constituents are addicted to.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m not convinced you’re right either.
Those are all great points, and if the GOP could ride the current status quo forever, I’d agree that they could just disregard presidential losses indefinitely. But I don’t think they could maintain the status quo in the face of a mounting string of losses at the presidential level, even if they managed to keep winning in mid-term and state-level elections for a while.
Presidential elections in this country (maybe everywhere else too — I don’t know) are about a lot more than a transfer of specific powers; they’ve morphed into an absurd, trillion-dollar reality show spectacle, with the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Politics is a team sport.
And people don’t like losing over and over. If it keeps happening, they swear off the sport or find another team. Oh sure, some diehards will stand with their shitty loser team through thick and thin (maybe 27% or so). But the fan base won’t have a healthy growth rate, and the less committed will slink off to sulk at home or maybe even join another bandwagon.
That’s my theory, anyway. What do you think?
Baud
This is riduculous. Severely underestimates what they want.
Fair Economist
The outcome depends largely on Congress, which means the House because if we can get the House we’ll get the Senate. If we get a Democratic President but a Republican House, they’ll obstruct and austerize ruthlessly and we’ll get walloped in 2018 and maybe 2020 as well. The Republican’s paymasters will do fine and they’ll have a decent shot at another chance at the trifecta and perhaps ending democracy in this country. If we get a Democratic Congress, we’ll see a major reform push because the Dems will have learned from the last time and they’ll reform the Senate rules -voting rights, minimum wage, worker protections, and action on climate change, for starters. That will probably end the current Republican party and force them to reform.
RaflW
Yep. That’s why we have Boehner now, and had Hastert before.
You say “government sucks” for two generations, you get these mental and moral disasters in (ahem) leadership.
Bystander
Just saw that Dennis Hastert has been indicted on federal charges. Illegal transfers to avoid rules and lying to the FBI. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Oh, and Loretta Lynch got downright uppity with FIFA.
Thanks, President Obama.
Schlemazel
The problem for the GOP is a lot of the hucksters that pose as republicans would see 3 in a row as further proof that the party NEEDS them! They will still control both houses (and will for the future unless we can get people off their asses in 2020). So once again their crooks and crackpots win.
Eventually it will cause the party to immolate but not yet sadly.
bemused
@Bystander:
I can’t wait to find out what past misconduct Hastert was willing to pay $1.7 million so far to person, who asked for $3.4 million, to keep quiet. Gotta be something huge.
mai naem mobile
From Reagan to end of Bush ll is 28 years. You aren’t going back to 1980 in 8 years, especially with a black president. I’m sure if you dug Tip Oneill out of his grave and he could do it all over again, he would.have fought against the size of the Reagan tax cuts etc. Hindsight’s 20/20. The point is you fight in your favor for each.increment and keep on moving forward.
RaflW
@bemused: I’m thinking Penn State-type problems. He was a coach before he was a pol.
Mike J
Can the Republicans do any soul searching without a soul?
NotMax
A loss will cause doubling down on the “we didn’t back someone intractable, hardline and conservative enough – it’s the messenger, not the message, which is faulty” frothing.
bemused
@RaflW:
Wouldn’t be surprised. Whatever it is, you have to be scared out of your skull to be found out to pay that amount of hush money.
scav
Weren’t a lot of those bank requirement eluding transactions also being done at at time where we were all supposed to be freaking out about possible money being funded to those dreaded Terrorists™EekEeekEeek?
Valdivia
As I wrote in the Murray thread earlier today I worry about how much the GOP is willing to destroy the system and how it functions if they can’t get their hands on the White House or do much in Congress (even in the majority they don’t seem to be able to legislate). I use to think it could not get worse but maybe it can. Would a GOP Senate even allow a President Hillary to replace Scalia in the SC with a liberal? Given their track record with Obama I just can see them leaving that seat in the Court empty or making some outrageous argument that conservative justices have to be replaced by conservative jurists.
They do get a lot done at the State level and that is a different kind of worry, something we democrats have to work at fixing fromt he ground up as Kay always says.
Keith P.
It tends to be good business (for fundraising, Fox, etc) for them to be the opposition party, but I tend to think that it is like drawing water out of an aquifer – they eventually take so much that they get diminishing returns, but by then the momentum will be such that it will take several cycles to fix it.
BTW: OT, but anyone have any idea what the hell Denny Hastert could have done to where he tries to pay out $3.5 million in hush money?
dedc79
I’m not optimistic. They think they lost the last two because they chose candidates who were too moderate. If they lose with a Jeb or Rubio, expect an even bigger push to the right. If they lose with Walker or someone like him, expect more railing against ACORN.
Cacti
After losing 5-straight elections to FDR and Truman, the next Republican POTUS gave us the Interstate Highway System.
One can always hope for something similar in this century.
Valdivia
@Cacti:
boy am I hoping it turns out to be this way and we get real fast trains and new infrastructure.
beth
@RaflW: The person he paid the money to is from the town he was a coach and teacher in. I can’t imagine a consensual, heterosexual sex scandal is worth 3.5 million.
srv
How many Congressional drubbings do there have to be before you realize you’re completely out of touch with America?
So you can win a reality star contest or two in this Kardashian society.
Hillary ain’t that star.
dedc79
@Cacti: and after losing to Kennedy and LBJ, we got the creation of the EPA and many of the major environmental statutes. Today’s GOP is a much different beast though.
Betty Cracker
@NotMax: That’s certainly been the reaction to the past two losses, but will the money people allow the base to drive the rickety cart in that direction if they lose a third time? Give ’em their Goldwater moment and hope they get it out of their system?
I don’t know. I’ve always suspected that the money people who actually run the Republican Party don’t give a shit about abortion or gays or religion — that’s just the draw for the rubes, giving cover to the actual goal of looting the treasury.
Valdivia
@RaflW: @beth:
this seems to be the consensus on twitter.
wonder if there is a chance he might get charged for that or there is a statue of limitations question.
Schlemazel
@Cacti:
I love you and want to have you’re children. Thanks for giving me a ray of hope.
shortstop
@bemused: He was a high-school teacher and wrestling coach and “Individual A,” who’s from the town in which he taught, has known him for most of his/her life. Sex with an underage student is my guess. Given the amount of the blackmailing and knowledge of the things that make Republicans blanch, I’m guessing a boy student.
Rand Careaga
@Bystander: Hastert indicted? Surely this comes under the heading of “criminalization of politics,” yes?
NotMax
@Betty Cracker
A Koch/Adelson/military-industrial complex epiphany is, IMHO, grasping at straws.
The coming (but soon enough) clash between the carefully and deliberately built-in racism which has become part and parcel of the G.O.P. and the harsh reality of demographics, however, will be epic.
Roger Moore
The other big reason the Presidency is important is because of the Supreme Court. A lot of their victories have been 5-4 wins at the Supreme Court, which they won’t be able to continue getting if/when Hillary wins and one or more of Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia dies or retires.
KG
@Betty Cracker:
my guess is that this is what would happen, it might mean punting on a fourth loss (then again, figuring going against an incumbent is a losing fight more often than not, why not?), plus by then the demographics will be very different because you’re talking 16 years.
Baud
@Schlemazel:
Only three more presidential elections to go.
bemused
@shortstop:
If this turns out to be the case, there is usually more than just one person he has had misconduct with.
I don’t know if Hastert is married or how wealthy he is but how does one pay that much money without someone close to him noticing?
smintheus
As long as Republicans keep winning midterm elections, and they will, they’ll keep convincing themselves that most of the public is with them and wants to nullify the presidential elections, which Democrats win through any number of disreputable means. Republicans cannot rethink themselves because the entire superstructure is devoted to the system they have, which is the Fox News alternate universe.
KG
@Roger Moore: based on the age of the Justices, it isn’t inconceivable that the next president could appoint 4 Justices in their first term. Ginsberg is 82, Scalia is 79, Kennedy is 78, and Breyer is 76. By inauguration day they’ll be 83, 80, 80, and 78 respectively and 87, 84, 84, and 82 by election day 2020. Thomas, the next eldest Justice, is 10 years younger than Breyer.
Bubblegum Tate
@NotMax:
Also: “Voter fraud!11!!11!”
smintheus
@Cacti: He also gave us Nixon, full-blown McCarthyism, and the Vietnam debacle.
jl
@Cacti:
” After losing 5-straight elections to FDR and Truman, the next Republican POTUS gave us the Interstate Highway System.
One can always hope for something similar in this century. ”
That Republican POTUS was Eisenhower, who IIRC was a sane non-partisan practical military man of affairs who understood how the real world worked, and decided to be GOP POTUS to spare the country from the dangers of the reactionary GOP loonies who still threatened to rip the country apart by trying to repeal the New Deal, and fight amongst themselves whether to be complete isolationists or start WWIII to make sure the Commies got destroyed. That was after decades of FDR then Truman beating them in presidential elections.
One way to look at Ike is, he was a much more accomplished Harold Stassen who could win. So, yeah, if we can get another one of those, the GOP might produce something productive. Otherwise, I seriously doubt it.
The GOP party apparatus does not have enough control to determine its own fate anyway, having spent decades cultivating white rump crazies, racists, xenophobes and terrified ignorant bigots of every description imaginable into its irreplaceable base of support.
Valdivia
@KG:
I worry that if the Senate is in GOP hands they would refuse to confirm any liberal Justices to replace a conservative. I know this has never happened before but give their track record in the last 8 years, I am not hopeful.
shortstop
@bemused: I would guess it is more than one person.
You can amass a good deal of coin as speaker and then post-speaker lobbyist. Apparently he took it from a number of accounts. I doubt Mrs. Hastert has much control over, or even knowledge of, her husband’s business $.
neonnautilus
Obstructing the government by controlling congress along with having the SC’s majority 5 is almost as good as having complete control of all three branches. They will continue in their push to take over states, especially state legislatures.
Eric U.
I had a discussion with an ex-coworker back in 2005 or so. He was spouting some republican position I could tell he didn’t really believe, and I told him governance wasn’t a game. He disagreed, saying it was. I’ve noted that he has gone full dem since then. The problem is that a lot of republicans are voting for “team white”
Goblue72
Between the Civil War and the election of FDR, the Republicans controlled the White House roughly 50 of those 70 years. And the only two-term Democrat during that period was Woodrow Wilson, a literal . Yet the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan THREE times in a row.
Don’t fool yourself – parties can go a long time without learning anything.
Germy Shoemangler
@jl:
andrew lee
Remember also that the GOP takeover of the Senate was basically due to ‘structural’ issues that favored them in 2014 – all the forecasters (including the best ones) basically predict the Dems to retake the Senate for the same reasons. So if Hillary wins in 2016, then Dems have the Senate as well as the Exec branch. Also, remember that though many business-friendly policies are being enacted, there have also been some non-insignificant legislation passed such as the (still-imperfect) ACA, the (still-imperfect and unfortunately weakening) Dodd-Frank, etc., etc. There have been gains as well as losses. So it’s not the case that the GOP’s shareholders (the billionaires) are happy with everything and see the dominance of the Democratic Party in the Executive Branch as a way to rile up their base more. The GOP-dominated Congress has gotten *even less* done than when the Dems controlled it, and not just because of obstruction by the Dems *but also – and perhaps even more* because of in-fighting (Tea Partiers).
Bill Arnold
@srv:
Explain 2006.
(Via wikipedia, rightmost 3 columns are popular vote)
Democratic Party 202 233 +31 53.6% 42,338,795 52.3% +5.5%
Republican Party 232 202 −30 46.4% 35,857,334 44.3% −5.1%
jl
@Germy Shoemangler: I support the commie platform of Dwerntie Sandershower.
KG
@Valdivia: I don’t think they’d be that foolish. I mean, even though Sotomayor and Kagan were legitimate moves to the left compared to their predecessors, they weren’t willing to go completely nuclear.
But, being a lawyer who still believes in the importance of jurisprudence, I think it’s somewhat shortsighted to look at judicial appointments from a left-right spectrum. (insert Doctor Who “timey-whimey” quote here).
Archon
Has a political party ever gone as far down the rabbit hole as this current version of the Republican party and moderated strictly due to electoral defeats?
Usually parties this radicalized end up resorting to political violence to accomplish their goals.
Hopefully I’m wrong and what I just said was hyperbolic.
Germy Shoemangler
@Archon: They certainly talk a lot of violence.
http://boingboing.net/2015/05/28/pa-paper-calls-for-obamas-ex.html
Archon
@Bill Arnold:
SRV’s comment shows why Presidential systems usually end up failing. Republicans have been wiped out in the past two Presidential elections and yet he doesn’t think Democrats have any legitimacy to govern because they got hammered in midterm Congressional elections.
Valdivia
@KG:
I want to be hopeful but this Senate has blow past every line of decency already and both Sotomayor and Kagan replaced liberal justices so it didn’t change the balance of the Court. So a repeat of this situation, if the justice retiring were a liberal, they wouldn’t but maybe if it changes the balance of the court they would try it? Like they did with the dc circuit court which was left with many empty seats because filling them up would tilt the balance of it? Maybe I am worrying unnecessarily it just seems they are constantly looking for ways to game the system since they can’t win any other way.
And though I may not be a lawyer I do get the point of respecting the importance of jurisprudence.
Emma
The problem of trying to predict what the GOP will do is that most of the people making the predictions assume that the GOP base is sane. It isn’t. These people have been driven insane by decades of relentless propaganda. They live in a world that doesn’t exist, filled with dark liberal forces out to destroy them, and they consistently act against their own best interests because they think of themselves as soldiers in the war to protect the “true America.”
KG
@andrew lee: the Senate may not flip in 2016, but it’ll be close. The Dems would have to hold Nevada (which looks likely since Sandoval isn’t running) and Colorado, and then win 4 (or 5) of the following 6 (depending on the presidency): Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It’s doable, but that’s pretty much running the table on the competitive seats.
And then in 2018, the Dems are going to have to hold Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and West (by Gawd) Virginia where the GOP would probably be favorites. And hold potential toss ups of Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. There’s a long time between now and 2018, and plenty can change between now and then.
chopper
@Bystander:
heard about hastert. it was gonna happen eventually, he always had some shit hidden in the closet.
LWA (Liberal With Attitude)
@Archon:
See this is the thing-
We aren’t dealing with some sort of normal see sawing between moderate parties.
I’ve been following politics since Nixon, and this is new to me- that the Birch Society that Buckley and Goldwater fought tooth and nail has effectively taken control of the GOP. Imagine the comic characters in Dr. Strangelove brought to life, and being solemnly interviewed on Meet The Press.
Right now the madness is extremely beneficial and profitable for a staggeringly large number of people who aren’t at all being harmed by it- the Fox News base still get their Social Security and rage fix, Wall Street gets away with robbery, Corporations are being entrenched as feudal fiefdoms and the politicians are rewarded even after failure with plum spots on the welfare circuit.
Our only hope is that eventually the money guys compare California to Kansas, and realize which one holds a better long term opportunity.
KG
@Valdivia: well, one replaced a “moderate” in O’Connor. And both still got over 60 votes (which, granted, is historically low, but still).
mai naem mobile
I wonder if Dennis Hastert’s problems are rooted to Aaron Schock’s problems or if the bank just reported the large amouunts and the ball got rolling.
jl
@Archon: I think the GOP has a few more cycles of trying wedge issues to spring just enough whites with ‘white fragility’ tendencies to put them over the top. They are still in the grips of their Obamacare fever, thinking that people will hate it, and offering misleading gimmicks and loss leaders to replace it. That is becoming an increasingly long shot. Some cooler heads and colder more calculating hearts among the GOP sense this, but not most of them.
Most of the gears are stripped out of their political white resentment wedge machine, but they are still madly pulling the levers thinking that a jackpot will turn up any day now.
Probably the nonsense that the Obama admin response to racial tensions is really a dastardly Obama plot to let loose violent blah criminals on the poor oppressed white folk is another meme they cooked up. The gears are stripped out of that machine too, except for their 27 percent dead enders.
Brachiator
I don’t think the GOP has learned anything yet. They purged moderates and spawned the Tea Party. They still insist that they are the only true patriots and the only legitimate political party. A few more butt kickings might be needed before they get the message.
KG
@jl: the GOP will support the ACA as soon as they figure out how to profit from it. Once the money guys figure out how to make money, they’ll stop supporting groups that will sue over it and politicians who say they’ll repeal it.
Valdivia
@KG:
didn’t Alito replace O’Connor? I thought it was Souter and Stevens
I am not wedded to being freaked out. I hope you are right, and they turn out to be a little sane.
shell
For word mavens, the Scripps Spelling Bee is on tonight at 8 on ESPN.
jl
@efgoldman: IIRC from history books, Ike was approached by Dems and GOP, and he chose to run as GOP specifically in order to exert a moderating influence on the crazies in that party.
So, there you go. Eisenhower could run the crazy ego zoo of the Allied Forces diva generals, and win Western Front in WWII, but he could not tame the GOP, at least for long.
And he even was able to talk Stassen into joining the effort. I mean, there you have the problem, right there in fact history.
Gin & Tonic
@shell: Thanks for the reminder. I may watch that and nod out, having taken a couple of V!c0d!n after a spell of dental surgery this afternoon. “Just a little wider, please.” Could have given head to a grapefruit.
SatanicPanic
@Valdivia:
They might not, but I’ll take Scalia being replaced by no one as a win
BGinCHI
I think fucking Denny Hastert is going to the Hotel Slammer and I could not be happier.
I always hated that fat bully fuck.
And if there is any justice Aaron Schock will get the adjoining cell.
Germy Shoemangler
@KG:
But if they figure out how to profit from it, will it be any good to us?
Valdivia
@SatanicPanic:
true, had not thought of it that way.
Though I have no idea how that would work in terms of deciding cases if some votes ended up tied.
Germy Shoemangler
@Gin & Tonic:
I hate when they squirt in my eye.
SatanicPanic
@Archon: I feel like Southern Democrats were pretty radical even after losing the Civil War and they eventually drifted over the Republicans, and were somewhat more moderate, for a while.
Valdivia
@BGinCHI:
apparently a former aide to Shock is talking to the FBI so you just might get your wish.
Also: hi there!
BGinCHI
@Valdivia: Hey Val! Any good wine lately? Hope all is well with you.
Schock is going to get caught for something. For sure. I think Blago should write a “Country Club Jail For Dummies” book. Could be a good seller around here.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Huh. I always thought of him as a not very bright, inoffensive back-bencher who was brought in to front for Delay, Armey et al
OT: Tweety just brought this person, James Woolsey (“Jim” natch, to Tweety) to discuss how to solve ISIS, and Woolsey used the non confrontational platform to scare monger about Iran
Hebisnr
No, the Presidency is a huge deal for them and anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. The ability to appoint judges, however slowly that has occurred will eventually change the makeup of the judiciary. We see in voting rights, corporate accountability, and a host of other issues that matter to GOP donors how important a friendly judiciary is. A Hilary term could tip the balance for them. They will spend every dollar of their current fortunes to prevent that.
VidaLoca
Betty,
You’re right, at the national level the cost of losing is high. Remember immediately after the 2012 election how Karl Rove and the other Super-PAC grifters were grilled by the Kochs and others because their confident predictions of victory turned out to be FOS? It’s much cheaper to play and lose at the state level; but even better for them they play and win at that level. This is a plan that is working; why should they change it?
It’s true that they can’t predictably control the Supreme Court without holding the Presidency and they can’t get a new war on demand quite as expeditiously either. But you’ve said yourself how insane it is to live under Republican rule in Florida; it’s as bad or worse up here in Wisconsin.
But they’re winning. State by state, they’re winning. And to hope something like “well, they’ll lose the Presidency for a third time and they’ll start to think more about becoming more moderate and they’ll reach out to voters with better programs etc. etc. etc.” ignores the fact that the moderate elements that would fight for a position like that have been driven out the the Republican party a long time ago (and into the Democratic party). There would have to be an internal war, an insurrection of moderates, in the GOP for that scenario to come about.
When was the last time you saw a bunch of moderates go to war? Reactionary nihilism is baked solidly into the cake over there, it’s not going away any time soon.
Gin & Tonic
@Germy Shoemangler: I’m thinking as that warm narc0tic glow comes across it may be best to step away from the keyboard.
trollhattan
@Archon:
I’m going to stop you right there.
Mike Furlan
@KG: Re: Supreme Court
As other people have mentioned.
The President can send picks to the Senate.
A Republican Senate could just refuse to confirm.
Fox news will report that the Democratic President is being unreasonable.
Really, the plan of sabotage, hoping for another 2008-09 downturn and then spent a couple of Billion on ads blaming the President might work.
The Congressional seats are all nicely Gerrymandered for them, and all the Senate seats are never in play in any election. So a throw the bums out wave would be worst for the incumbent President.
Now if they can (and it is legal) split electoral votes by Congressional District in say, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (while keeping winner take all in all of the Red States) win with much less than 50% of the vote. Romney would have won with this system.
Throw in a pre-planned “Florida” and the Supreme Court would happily give the Presidency to a Republican winning 45% of the popular vote.
And there is more. How much would it cost to finance a third party that would split off 2-3%. Maybe Adelson could handle it by himself. And again, the press would cover it as “grass roots.” Now the republican probably only needs a little over 40% to win.
Mike in NC
A 2016 loss by a pseudo-moderate like JEB! would mean just one thing: they nominated another GOP candidate who wasn’t extreme enough.
Republicans think their shitty product can’t be improved upon; better marketing is all that’s needed.
KG
dammit, now I’ve got myself looking at polls for 2016 races (damn you all!)… but fun fact, there’s an outside chance that California could have two Democrats in the general election. there are massive undecideds in all the polls, and different names appear in all the polls, so take it all with an entire salt mine, but there remains the possibility.
BGinCHI
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I doubt he got where he was by just standing around being available.
BGinCHI
@Mike in NC: FOX tells them it’s so every single hour. They aren’t going to change while that network is doing its thing. That is the difference between the last 15-20 years and the time before (AKA, the olden times).
M. Bouffant
@bemused: He was a high school teacher & “wrestling coach” before he went into politics. Let your imagination run wild.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@BGinCHI: True, I never payed too close attention to him. I just remember seeing him in various MTP-type media fora and he always struck me as struggling to remember his lines.
SatanicPanic
@Mike Furlan: That’s an awful lot of things that would have to go right for a Republican to win. I doubt they have the organizational ability to do even half of that, and then you still have to run an actual politician. Republicans have a hard time finding one that isn’t instantly repulsive.
KG
@Valdivia: yeah, you’re right, I was misremembering.
@Mike Furlan: You can get away with not confirming judges to lower courts because people don’t pay attention to that (and that has happened plenty of times in our history), but people pay attention to the Supreme Court because it has the kind of name that draws attention. And if the nominee is qualified – as in served on lower courts (state or federal), was a US Attorney or AG – that’s the kind of thing that will backfire on them. There are plenty of Republicans/conservatives who still take the Supreme Court seriously – remember how many Republicans/conservatives revolted over the Harriet Miers nomination?
Chris
Haven’t read the comments yet. Let me just say this:
The last time the GOP did any meaningful soul searching, enough to moderate and stop trying to fuck everybody for a while… it took twenty years of Democratic victories to get to that point. Even after the absolute wiping out of the GOP by the Great Depression and twelve years of FDR, the “do nothing Congress” of the post-war 1940s was still basically running on the same Gilded Age ideology, was absolutely prepared to undo the entire New Deal, and even scored a few points in that respect. And then you got McCarthyism.
Now, consider that no matter what happens in 2016, Republicans today are nowhere near the kind of dire straits they were in after the Great Depression… No, sorry, but soul searching is just not on the menu. It won’t be for some time.
SiubhanDuinne
@bemused:
I’m almost less interested in his blackmailable “past misconduct” than I am in learning just how he managed to turn the paycheck of a high school teacher/coach and a Congressional salary into the kind of bank account that allowed him to withdraw $1.7 mil in the first place. Either he was extremely frugal, or he’s picked up some nice lecture fees, or…. OR…. OR….
C’mon, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
jl
@SatanicPanic: GOP already floated the idea of splitting state electoral votes. It would not fly with state party organizations, IIRC, but I forgot what the problem was that nixed the proposal.
lol
When your agenda is “maintain the status quo at all costs”, you don’t need control of the White House.
SiubhanDuinne
@KG:
Boy howdy, we all dodged a bullet there, didn’t we?
Edit: OTOH, it’s been almost ten years, and the Rethugs have just been getting crazier and crazier with every year that passes. I wonder if it would shake out the same way now as it did in July 2005?
Kerry Reid
@bemused: Someone he’s known almost all their life, and he’s a former teacher/ coach. Put me down for “affair with underage student.”
Gin & Tonic
@SiubhanDuinne: He’s been a lobbyist for the last six years, almost certainly earning north of $1m/yr. As a former Speaker, he was also entitled to $40k/mo for five years after leaving office for “office expenses”, which he took.
Baud
@jl:
State broadcasters can’t like the idea. They can mop up the ad money if they are in a contested state.
Kerry Reid
@BGinCHI: Adjoining? I want him in the SAME cell. (Okay, I may have just binge-watched “Oz” in recent months.)
fuckwit
You forgot war! And the SCOTUS and circuit courts!They need the presidency for those. Without the presidency, they can’t control the courts or the military.
So, the corporations and billionaires can get whatever they want by just controlling the Congress, and the forced-birth crowd can get what they want by controlling the statehouses, to truly have a dictatorship they’d need the miitary and the courts, which means, they do care very much about the presidency.
Felonius Monk
Now occupying the rumble-seat of the 2016 Klownmobile is none other than George Pataki.
I agree with BooMan — Pataki will be gone before anybody knows he’s running.
fuckwit
@Cacti: The building of the interstate highway system and suburbia in general is on target to have beenan environmental disaster on the scale that the planet has not seen since the Permiann-Triassic extinction event.
bemused
@SiubhanDuinne:
Agree. I’d like to know a lot more about his wealth too.
fuckwit
@Chris: Look at California. The R’s are a disaster here now, on the scale they were nationally in the 1930s, and still they haven’t yet searched one soul AFAICT.
Germy Shoemangler
@fuckwit: agreed
Major Major Major Major
@Kerry Reid: That would be… Hm. Would I watch that? Porn between a 10 and a 1.
Note this is not a prison rape joke, as they are both probably into dudes. I mean, that’s gotta be what the hush money was for, right? Every outlet is coyly mentioning the wrestling coach aspect.
Chris
@jl:
The other thing to remember is that Eisenhower had the benefit of a real moderate wing of the Republican Party to lean on. Teddy Roosevelt was just a generation in the past back then. Today, these people have all been forced out. Even Eisenhower couldn’t do anything with today’s freaks.
Germy Shoemangler
@Major Major Major Major:
A Glenn Beck listener?
SiubhanDuinne
@Gin & Tonic:
Nice work if you can get it.
Germy Shoemangler
@bemused:
SiubhanDuinne
@Kerry Reid:
That’s what I think too.
Valdivia
@BGinCHI:
hey, hope all is well with you too.
great wine, some great spanish and portuguese ones courtesy of WTSO, of course. One of them was memorable but can’t remember the name. will hunt it down and drop it here in case they sell it again, it was very worth it.
and you? anything good for summer you would recommend?
@efgoldman: thanks for that answer.
Chris
@smintheus:
Don’t forget Iran.
@jl:
In fairness, Ike only had to manage the Allied circus show for four years.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@SiubhanDuinne: the money part doesn’t really surprise me, Former Speaker of the House is a big thing, and Chris Hayes just interviewed his own father in law, a long time Illinois political reporter, who said that Hastert was a well known part of the Illinois “combine” a bipartisan (drink!) group of state pols who kept the wheels greased in Springfield. I imagine state lobbying would/could be pretty profitable for someone with Hastert’s resume.
I remember reading that car dealers, their lobbying groups, are immensely powerful in state politics because they have a lot of cash and almost all their concerns are on the state level. One of Rubio’s sugar-daddies is a billionaire car dealer, Rubio was Speaker of the FL state leg
BGinCHI
@Valdivia: Always Torrontes, and of course good cider. Haven’t been drinking too much white as of late, though I did have a great viognier from OR the other day at a BBQ.
We are grand.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Chris: and as a new book points out, the National Prayer breakfast and “In God We Trust”. I want to read that book, but what I already heard about it is kind of depressing and infuriating. And sometimes darkly funny.
sdhays
The Republican Party will split state electoral votes, or at least go all in in that effort, before they try to moderate in order to win the Presidency. If they’re worried about judges, they’ll stop confirming judges altogether. Same with administration nominees; they already did that with President Obama’s. They will bring government to a halt before anyone talking about “moderation” will be taken seriously. They will do whatever it takes to stop Democrats from governing, even if it means destroying the country.
Billionaires don’t compromise. They get what they want. And what they want is to see the Democrats destroyed and their puppets running things. The only language they speak is utter defeat, so until the Republicans basically can’t win control of either House of Congress and a majority of the state governments, they are going to keep on keeping on. Republicans losing a massive number of down-ticket races in 2016 and, especially, 2018, flipping control of a bunch of institutions including the Senate, at least, will cause sufficient panic to start some soul searching. But it will take several election cycles to clean out the bile that has built up in their system; probably at least 20 years of Democratic dominance with the Democrats periodically ratcheting up taxes on the super wealthy.
Note, I’m not predicting total long term Democratic dominance, just saying that it’s the only medicine that will break the fever. Hillary winning in 2016, while important, will not come close to doing the job on its own.
Chris
@Archon:
Like I said on an earlier thread: I increasingly think we’re heading towards an event of Civil War and Great Depression magnitude. I have no idea what it is, but the current extremism of the GOP being what it is, they’re going to keep pushing until something breaks in a huge way.
@LWA (Liberal With Attitude):
So far, the money guys seem happy to rely on Kansas’ votes while living in California.
Think like Saudi elites: they have no problem with having bank accounts in Switzerland, summer homes on the French Riviera, and birthday parties in Vegas, while still being attached at the hip with reactionary psychos who want to watch that entire world burn. People with that much money and power just don’t give a shit: they figure they’ll always come out on top no matter what happens.
piratedan
as always, it comes down to who can get folks to the ballot box. There’s a lot to unfuck, especially at the local level where state legislative districts are gerrymandered into absurd gyrations (granted, this is done by both sides but the GOP has taken this to a new level). It also comes down to messaging, the Dems have sucked at messaging and need to find a way to be concise, factual and pithy. The new social media model needs to be employed and to have our own grey hats out there to counter those folks who can be bought and paid for to be less than truthful.
Lets face it, it’s uphill and the Camp Mohawk folks have all the money and they will use it in every way possible to maintain their advantages. How do you counter that? Tell people the truth and temper the hyperbole.
JustRuss
Aw shucks, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said about me all day. I’m going to grab some dinner and bask in my glory.
Betty, you make a good point about Dems in the 80s going Third Way, but I’m not sure it’s all that valid a comparison due to a number of factors that weren’t in play back then: the right wing media keeping their base energized; the fact that they just need enough power to obstruct to name a couple. Too hungry to think of more right now.
SiubhanDuinne
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Makes me want to never buy a car again in my life.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I think one of the advantages R’s have over D’s, at least at the elite level, is that they’re over the Cult of the Presidency. Wasn’t it Norquist who said last go-round something like, “We need a pen, it doesn’t matter who holds it”. And as you say, they’re winning state-by-state. While too many people on the left get the white hot fantods over “Draft Perfection!” for the presidency, the GOP money has figured out they can make great strides by focusing on states.
David Koch
But what about the Cubs and Red Sox fans?
Kerry Reid
@SiubhanDuinne: Bonus points for us if it turns out to be a guy. I’m not gloating, honestly — it’s sickening. But I can’t imagine this kind of skulduggery in service of blackmail over some other financial misbehavior.
schrodinger's cat
They are not going to rethink anything if they lose in 2016. They will just double down on the crazy.
Kerry Reid
@Kerry Reid: The editor isn’t allowing me in, so let me add that I certainly don’t think it’s more “sickening” to have an affair with an underage male than a female. But given Hastert’s party affiliation and the fact that the Mark Foley page scandal happened while he was SOTH, I can imagine he’d want to keep something like that ESPECIALLY hush-hush.
I truly hope no kids were harmed by this asshole. I guess we’ll find out.
Linnaeus
@Chris:
Guatemala, too. And tried to have Patrice Lumumba murdered.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@efgoldman: It wasn’t news by then, but the Miers nomination drove home for me the image of Dumbya as a tinpot German princeling awarding grand titles to cronies and courtiers, except those titles were Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, Director of FEMA…..
Eric U.
@Kerry Reid: It annoys me to think this way, but Sandusky was a high school wrestling coach. From what I have heard as a result of that scandal, it is not uncommon for wrestling coaches to engage in the same “grooming” of victims of sexual assault.
The advantage to the abuser in these situations is that they engender a lot of guilt in the abusee. So the likelihood that the abuser will get away with it is fairly high. I wonder if the Sandusky case didn’t get a lot of victims thinking about revenge
Valdivia
@BGinCHI:
The wine is Balbas. Highly recommend that if WTSO offers it, get it! :)
Will find a Torrontes in my area and report back. Glad you guys are grand. As it should be.
Jimgod
@Archon: The vast majority of coups/revolutions/overthrows in modern times have occurred in Presidential systems. Parliamentary systems have avoided these fates almost entirely. One more reason to detest the American system of government. Shame no one will ever even consider another way of doing things in this, the greatest country in the nation (as Spiro Agnew so eloquently put it). I do fear what the future may hold if things go on as they have been going. It’s completely unsustainable.
Valdivia
@Jimgod:
Reading this made me think of the great Juan Linz who for the reasons you mention tried to convince Brazil to move to a parliamentary system when they transitioned from dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s and they wrote a new constitution. They went with the presidential system, too much entrenched memory of the Kingdom of Brazil to try something like a parliament.
Chris
@efgoldman:
Good one.
@Linnaeus:
Absolutely. I was just singling out Iran because the results have been exceptionally bad for us there.
Kerry Reid
@Major Major Major Major: I was just thinking more in the “watch your back where your cellmate is concerned” vein. A whole lotta people on that show got taken out by the guy in the next bunk when they were perceived as liabilities.
cthulhu
@Gin & Tonic:
Still, even with those funds, deciding to pay out at least $1.7m and possibly north of $3m, it’s got to be pretty serious, at least in his mind. The guy should probably be on suicide watch and I am not exactly joking.
cthulhu
@fuckwit:
Actually, I have read some stuff to suggest that SOME elements have reassessed but their ability to coordinate anything meaningful is regularly undermined by the sizeable number of crazies among the CA GOP. Being constantly reinforced in their views by Fox make that block largely impermeable to any moderation which might give them any success.
Stillwater
But I don’t think they could maintain the status quo in the face of a mounting string of losses at the presidential level, even if they managed to keep winning in mid-term and state-level elections for a while.
And this is why Democrats lose. The GOP is playing a different game.
Cervantes
What happened to the Democrats after they lost three presidential races in a row (1980-1984-1988)?
mclaren
The Republican party is doing fabulously well, aside from the presidency, so this seems unlikely. The Republican party has captured most of the non-coastal states, owning the governerships and the congress. Both houses of congress are now solidly Republican. I just don’t see Republicans beating themselves up over this.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Well, using agents like you to pretend to be leftists might have had some effect.
pluege
winning the presidency is not the be all and end all some think it is. republicans are trashing the nation perfectly well by only owning most of the states and Congress. I think they realized this some time ago and set about achieving their goals.
Ruckus
@efgoldman:
And as they know they don’t have one, there is no reason to even try looking.
mclaren
@pluege:
To amplify on your points, Grover Norquist made the same point you and I are making back in 2012:
This is why it’s a very big deal that we massively upheave the state and local legislatures and take back both houses of congress. Contra the paid corporate disinformation specialist Omnes Omnibus, to change this country back to a decent progressive direction where people make a living wage and police aren’t terrorists and corporations don’t have limitless power, it’s not enough to keep putting Democrats in the presidency. As Anne Laurie and others have pointed out, we absolutely must take back the state legislatures and the state governorships and the congress.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Come on, show where I have argued against anything you talk about. GOP agents like you have reasons to, well, let’s call it as it is, ratfuck. Keep it up. You are known.
mclaren
@efgoldman:
Quite correct. There’s a lot of unjustified Democratic smugness based on polls showing that young people overwhelmingly agree with the progressive agenda, that the American people generally believe in the Democratic liberal policies, and so on.
Well, guess what, buckaroos? Young people don’t vote. And what voters believe in the abstract is entirely different from which specific candidates voters will vote for in a particular election.
There is no such thing as politics in the abstract. Believing in “issues” is utterly different from which person you will vote for in your election in your state. The two don’t really intersect, and Democrats seem not to realize this.
The Democrats must field specific candidates with specific policies which will win in individual elections at the state and county and local level. It’s not enough to pride ourselves on being better “at the issues.” Politics is not an abstract Athenian debate about generalities, it’s about specific personalities in particular places. The Democrats have been doing a terrible job of fielding good candidates with the right personalities in the right places.
All the snark by the front-pagers on this forum is just so much hot air compared to putting electable candidates in front of voters in states where we can take back governerships and both houses of congress.
mclaren
@Omnes Omnibus:
Your most notable example involved applauding the extrajudicial murder of U.S. citizens without trial and without even accusing them of having committed a crime. That’s pure redstate.com hatemongering, and classic GOP doctrinal ideology. It’s movement conservatism at its purest.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Link?
mclaren
@Fair Economist:
Important point. The House is the key to congress because the House has the power of the purse. The party that controls the house can choke or starve policies they don’t like and fund crazy policies they do like (if they’re reactionary). Taking back the house is key.
Taking back both houses of the legislatures is crucial for Democrats, but with current senate rules, we’ll need to take ’em back with a filibuster-proof majority, and that’s daunting.
mclaren
@Omnes Omnibus:
So now you’re denying that you repeatedly and loudly applauded the extrajudicial murder of U.S. citizens?
I want to get your lie on the record before we continue. Not that it matters, since like all corporate whores you’ll try to weasel out of your proven statements after the evidence gets hurled in your face.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Am I a corporate whore or an E-3? You should choose.
ETA: I just asked you for a link. You then went off the reservation.
Repatriated
Between the Duggar scandal and now the speculation about the Hastert blackmail situation, I’m beginning to see echoes of the ’06 Senate Page scandal (that, incidemtally, led to Speaker Hastert himself losing the Speakership).
Probably just coincidence, though.
sukabi
@bemused: someone from his hometown, has known him for years… Hastert was a high school wrestling coach, and there were rumors a decade ago about him being inappropriate with some of his boys. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was someone trying for a payday.
Zinsky
It’s important to remember that the Republican Party isn’t a political party anymore – it is a cult. And the dead-enders in this cult will never, ever, ever, ever be satisfied until all of their enemies are dead and Jesus is sitting on his throne in Jerusalem. Which is to say – NEVER.
Matt McIrvin
I’ve seen Republicans lecturing Democrats about why Democrats always lose elections, and Democrats lecturing each other about why Democrats always lose elections, within hours of Democrats massively winning elections. I don’t think actual performance really matters here.
VidaLoca
@Omnes Omnibus: I think you’re jumping way too hard on mclaren who, in the comment you’re responding to and others in this thread (the others not directed back at you, that is) is making some valid points. For example:
You and I live in the middle of the proof of this.
mclaren again @149:
Obviously there are exceptions to this rule but in general, it’s hard to disagree. And it’s hard to think it’s going to change any time soon.
VidaLoca
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
The right wing has figured out political power: how to take it, how to hold it, how to exercise it. And they’re better organizers than liberals who in spite of having a political program that should appeal to a broad range of voters on all levels, are fascinated by symbols and pretty content to accept a deteriorating status quo.
Omnes Omnibus
@VidaLoca: Mclaren has, among other things, suggested in the course of other conversations that I masturbate to pictures from the Holocaust. I don’t think that I am jumping too hard on anything he says.
VidaLoca
@Omnes Omnibus: Hm. Well. Allll righty then…