NP Rank:
If Republicans were a person, schizophrenia may be the diagnosis
If Republicans were a person, schizophrenia may be the diagnosis
But, the Republican Party is not a person
Those with affinity with this group have different motivations and attractions.
1. It is a party for the extreme wealthy because its representatives are positively aligned with sources of money and power. (There are far too few voters who are that wealthy, so the “Party” must find other reasons for people to belong.
2. It is a party for people from rural and remote communities that lack “diversity.” (A party for white people with racial and other bigoted biases disguised as “family values,” or “tradition.” (When they are rounded up, that constitutes a fair number.)
3. It is a party for religious conservatives. (That’s a big bucket that appeals to evangelicals of all kinds, and may be considered a subset of #2.)
4. It is a party for conspiracy theorists. (It appeals to people with a broad range of phobias that larger forces are in control – mostly fascists and socialists who are bent on taking away their freedoms.)
Put that all together then try to find a candidate to represent them. You end up with a three or four-headed amalgamation – Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, etc.
However, when the “Party” targets the first African American President whose middle name sounds Muslim and who was born in Hawaii or maybe somewhere else, and who is a progressive Democrat – aka socialist, now the split personalities and small-minded diversity begins to converge for a 2012 attack.
Not so fast though. They forgot to take their medicine and there will be more election primaries and more debate before one candidate is still standing.
“Iowa caucus results: Romney edges Santorum; Paul finishes third
By Karen Tumulty, Published: January 3 | Updated: Wednesday, January 4, 2:34 AM
DES MOINES — Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney beat former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) in the Iowa caucuses by just eight votes, a sign of a splintered and increasingly fractious field as the GOP presidential race moves to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.
Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) scored a close but disappointing third-place finish in a state where he had hoped to score a breakout victory. But he told his supporters “there’s nothing to be ashamed of” and urged them to “be ready and raring to move on to the next stop.”
Further back in the pack were three candidates who had been considered leading contenders at earlier points in the race:former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), with 13 percent of the vote, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, with 10 percent. Putting in a particularly dismal showing was Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), with 5 percent.
Earlier in the day, Perry had vowed to continue on to South Carolina and take the fight to Romney. But on Tuesday night, the governor said he planned to go home to Texas instead and “determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race.”
It is more difficult to see such a path for Bachmann, given her last-place finish and the fact that her campaign strategy had been premised on a strong launch in Iowa, the state where she was born and where she won the GOP straw poll in Ames in August.
But her campaign manager, Keith Nahigian, said Bachmann is going ahead “full steam.”
Gingrich, meanwhile, sounded a note of determination. “There will be a great debate in the Republican Party before we are prepared to have a great debate with Barack Obama,” he said as the final results were coming in.
Though Santorum’s old-fashioned, shoe-leather approach to campaigning paid off in Iowa, the question now is how far he can go from here, given his lack of resources and the need to ramp up a national organization.
In his victory speech, Santorum alluded to concerns that he was not up to a contest with Romney. “Let me tell you what wins in America are bold ideas, sharp contrasts and a plan that includes everyone,” Santorum said.
Santorum also will come under the kind of scrutiny and criticism that he was spared when the other contenders did not view him as a threat.
Paul, for instance, has already branded Santorum “very liberal,” and Perry has described the former senator as “addicted to earmarks.”
For his part, Santorum has said Paul is “disgusting,” and he blamed Paul’s campaign for automated phone calls in which voters were told that the vehemently antiabortion Santorum was, instead, more supportive of abortion rights.
Though Romney’s Iowa vote percentage was almost precisely what he got in 2008, the fragmentation of the field meant that he was spared the kind of defeat he suffered four years ago. This time, he had made a far more modest effort in the state. As he noted Tuesday night, his Iowa staff of five was less than one-tenth the size of his operation in 2008.
And both Paul, a libertarian whose views are out of line with those of most Republicans, and Santorum, an underfinanced social conservative, will struggle to prevail against Romney in the long run.”
NowPublic on Facebook
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
-
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States
Recommendations (1)

Anonymous user


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 07:57 on January 4th, 2012
Once more YankeeJim shows he is more comfortable spewing partisan propaganda and sowing seeds of discord rather than actually reporting on the events having taken place. 'Republicans are this bad thing' and 'Republicans are that bad thing' negative paint brushing epitomizes the stunted intellect of the partisan hack. The debate among Republicans is healthy and will lead to a leader that is responsive to the majority of voting Republicans. The Progs and those remaining Democrats wont be voting for a Republican at any rate. So why get your panties in a bunch.
Sadly, there is zero debate among Democrats or even the Progs when it comes to ways and means of this government and the Obama regimes agenda and policy directives. We are to believe that this dearth of open debate from among the few remaining Democrats in Washington is a good that ought to be emasculated err... emulated by the Republicans. Then again, when one opines for a single Party system we can not expect an appreciation foe any differing views. The herd shall move as one unified by total acceptance of the great unerring GW Obama.
at 08:29 on January 4th, 2012
I don't have enough lifetime remaining to risk voting for Republicans and I think I have a good handle on the situation. I don't think that Democrats have their act together, but ideologically, I will err on the liberal side of life versus conservative.
BTW -- how about letting everyone know who you are -- register -- and contribute first hand. No guts, no glory.
at 09:54 on January 4th, 2012
I'd rather remain a inconsequential nobody. I was thinking of becoming a contributor BUT honestly, I don't have any desire to compete with the conspiracy and the us vs. them mentality displayed on this site. Once not long ago the majority were conscientious and balanced in their approach. Even you. Now with them gone. Zero balance is the norm. I've been rather hoping that my comments to you would bring back some of that earlier less partisan dogma example you once displayed. Unfortunately, it appears your emotional investment in Obama and what you refer to a the liberal side has taken command and you have gone to the dark side. Frankly, I miss the old YJ who wasn't afraid to invest in critical thought and reasoned debate. Being critical of the ways and means of this White House is not anathema to liberal thinking. It epitomizes it in the truest sense. All of us who don't fully agree with what Obama is doing are not by necessity Republicans. We disliked the very same things when GW was in office. It is not reasonable for us to take the position that now that Obama has had that same office for three years that that very same approach to domestic and foreign policy can become a good. Not politically. Not ideologically. Emphasis on the logical.
at 11:21 on January 4th, 2012
I don't often agree with what you say, but I respect your ability to express your point of view. Sometimes, I do agree.
Good debate takes all points of view and rigorous discussion.
I find it very hard to champion Barack Obama because I think he is an elitist. He doesn't listen. He is on an agenda that he wants to jam down peoples' throats. As Jimmy Carter advised him, back off and stop being so abrasive. Obama is what he is. I am looking for someone better, though I surely don't want Republicans to have 100% control of government. If that means voting for Obama, so be it.
at 13:04 on January 4th, 2012
I believe policy is more important than the man. Presidents come and go. Policy lingers to affect generations It is the policies before government that require our activism. It is the way and the means of governing that require our activism. Not ideology. It matters not who sits in the big chair if the PEOPLE hold the reins but, when ideology and populism dominate, the PEOPLE suffer. For they have given up control and allow policy to be dictated and left to the political opposition to stand against not the policy in the public sphere, rather the populism and the ideology. The policy becomes moot. And that lapse of focus on policy and the defense of populism rest on the PEOPLE -though the politician is willing enough to play to that moment if it suits their needs.
Think of this: Why with a Democrat in the White House are the people rejecting Democrats at the polls? Do you not consider that the people know that to control Obama they need a Republican Congress? That that is 'the reins' the people see as necessary? Voting for Obama isn't going to reduce any Republican control. It will more likely further Republican control over Congress after Nov. 2012. And then with the following election we will have a Republican in the White House maybe, plus a Republican dominated Congress.
Think ahead. Obama's already dead in the water even with a second term. Why do you think the White House strategy for Obama's second term(?) is Presidential Executive orders? Unless there is already law on the books to support them they are meaningless and can be over turned or not upheld by Congress. As a Constitutional lawyer Obama knows this. The Republican House knows this.
Obama is not any friend to the Democratic Party. He's a Prog looking for a Party to take over. Between him and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, they have fairly ruined the Democratic Party as a home of liberal conservatism/conservative liberalism. If you can understand the necessity of that balance. Republicans know this. Which is why they are looking for the middle. A liberal Republican.
at 04:42 on January 5th, 2012
I interpret your use of the term "policy" to include "tradition," in which certain values are attributes. That is where we get to ideology.
The American Political System is a continuously improving process by design -- as established by the Constitution. You are correct to say that no President without the backing of Congress can advance an agenda that is not supported by the people.
I suggest that some major changes are needed to align the American Political System and economic model to the sustainable limits of planet Earth. A model based on ever expanding populations, and ever expanding growth is unsustainable. We have a window to adapt our policies to this reality.
Changing and adapting will be painful to those who must adapt to a new set of balance of consequence, reward and punishment for citizen and institutional performance.
It could be that Obama is a trailblazer in that regard, appealing to the middle class as their numbers are needed to advance progress.
Conservatives will fight over what progress means to them as liberals will too.