GOP Strategy: 2016
Great is my schadenfreudy enjoyment over the Republican meltdown: Bill O'Reilly mourning the death of "traditional America," Rush Limbaugh whining that he and others of his ilk are "outnumbered" -- and so I dare to hope that by 2016, pretty please, the GOP will finally wake up (I say "wake up" because it sounds more polite than "pull its head out of its collective rectum"), abandon its culture war and anti-science idiocy, and make themselves an actual alternative to what the Democratic Party has to offer.
I know a couple of Romney voters who are gnashing their teeth today. What I don't know is, why? What do they fear Obama will do that Romney wouldn't? What good things do they think Romney would have done which Obama definitely won't? Both men suck balls on non-sexual civil liberties matters; only difference was, Romney's balls were also in the pocket of the party with a punitive attitude toward non-procreative sex. But neither Romney nor Obama ever said a word about civil liberties during the campaign. Both support the TSA, NDAA, drone wars, surveillance society, routine strip-searching of people arrested for the most minor of infractions, corporate bailouts, forcing people to become customers of private insurance companies with cushy political connections .... only difference is, Obama's plan doesn't also call for stamping out the nascent gay-wedding industry and increasing the number of poor rape-babies born to mothers who never wanted them and can't afford them.
Short version: if the Republican Party ever wants to win the White House again, it needs to accept that women, non-whites, gay folks, secular folks and people who believe in science are voters to be courted, not threats to campaign against. And for Zod's sake, shut the hell up about rape and why women who get pregnant that way must be forced to bear the babies else they're evil amoral sluts.
I know a couple of Romney voters who are gnashing their teeth today. What I don't know is, why? What do they fear Obama will do that Romney wouldn't? What good things do they think Romney would have done which Obama definitely won't? Both men suck balls on non-sexual civil liberties matters; only difference was, Romney's balls were also in the pocket of the party with a punitive attitude toward non-procreative sex. But neither Romney nor Obama ever said a word about civil liberties during the campaign. Both support the TSA, NDAA, drone wars, surveillance society, routine strip-searching of people arrested for the most minor of infractions, corporate bailouts, forcing people to become customers of private insurance companies with cushy political connections .... only difference is, Obama's plan doesn't also call for stamping out the nascent gay-wedding industry and increasing the number of poor rape-babies born to mothers who never wanted them and can't afford them.
Short version: if the Republican Party ever wants to win the White House again, it needs to accept that women, non-whites, gay folks, secular folks and people who believe in science are voters to be courted, not threats to campaign against. And for Zod's sake, shut the hell up about rape and why women who get pregnant that way must be forced to bear the babies else they're evil amoral sluts.
posted by Jennifer Abel at 10:55 AM
10 Comments:
A pox on both their houses I say. I don't see either the GOP or the Democrats reforming their parties in any meaningful way, and the Green or Libertarian parties are none too impressive either. I wish they would all disintegrate so we could start with something new that could actually address the realities of this century, instead of fighting the culture wars of the last one. Or the one before that.
Artor, the Dems aren't going to clean up their act until the Republicans do. For now, why should the Democrats even bother, when the Republicans are basically doing the Dems' campaigning for them? To win, all the Dems need do is say "Vote Democrat. We're as evil as the Republicans, but at least we're not insane."
Tl;dr: Romney and Obama both enthusiastically support letting TSA rape the Constitution and air travelers, in that order; at least Obama won't force upon women the additional indignity of bearing and raising the resulting rape-babies.
Very astute observations, Jennifer. As someone who considers himself to be a centrist, I've assiduously avoided jumping on either bandwagon (it helps that there was little attractive or compelling enough about either party's platform to warrant such a commitment), but it's not hard to follow your drift that raising the bar for one party, even if you are in opposition, gives us all more options.
If the GOP is ever to make any sort of a comeback, they'd need to do all the things you've mentioned and more (e.g., dissociate themselves from the evangelicals and rednecks, etc.), but the one most problematic stumbling block is the same reason that Karl Rove has profited as much as he has: many of our contemporary robber barons have such oversized egos that they will continue to fatuously fall for (and fund)any proposed scheme that promises to bring the masses to heel while reaffirming the neo-Randian creed they all seem to love so much. If they are as bright as they believe themselves to be, then why not unveil a proposal compelling enough on its own merits so as to command some measure of allegiance, without resorting to hackneyed appeals to an antiquated sense of patriotism and/or duty, or other sorts of spin. Lacking anything along these lines, what right could they have to the loyalty they so clearly seem to feel is their birthright?
"Vote Democrat. We're as evil as the Republicans, but at least we're not insane."
Yes, they are. They've just given the same corrupt con artist another four years in office - yet they think things will improve.
The economy most likely will improve, regardless of who's in the White House, Smartass. But what would Romney have done differently? Mostly worse stuff: tried his damnedest to stop the gay-equality tide from coming in, pandered to evolution deniers because God Forbid any whackjob in the GOP base have his bullshit superstitions offended ... I'm not denying that Democrats are awful. I'm just saying the Republicans are awful-plus.
I'm afraid I don't share your optimism regarding the economy - at least not in the near term.
I'm curious.
I'm Canadian. As such, I've spent my entire life knowing that if I was ever sick or injured I could go to a hospital and be treated. I might have to wait a while, but I wouldn't have to pay for anything, I wouldn't have to have my own insurance policy. I'd see a doctor, get hospitalized if necessary, and when I was well I'd go home.
I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this. This is not meant to be snarky or offensive; I'd really like an explanation as to why a significant portion of the US population is opposed to health care for everyone. I've been reading this blog on and off for a while so I figured I'd ask here.
VF -
There's a variety of reasons people would be opposed to it. Some of them, doubtless, are just plain selfish: "My insurance is fine, fuck everyone else."
But set that aside, and there's lots of reasons to be opposed to this specific Obamaromneycare proposal. I personally wouldn't mind so much if it were a single-payer system paid out of pre-established tax regimes (sales tax, income tax, whatever), but I am extremely concerned about the precedent our Supreme Court set when it ruled in favor of the "individual mandate": all American citizens, solely by virtue of EXISTING, are now obligated under penalty of law to become customers of a privately owned corporation with cushy political connections. (And, perhaps you heard: people in America who violate even the smallest of laws are punished extremely harshly. The LAST thing this country needs is MORE excuses to imprison people who have harmed nobody.)
Also, Obamaromneycare does nothing to fix one of the worst aspects of the American healthcare system: YOU do not buy your insurance, your BOSS does. So your insurance company need not even try to keep YOU Happy, since you are not their customer, and if you don't like your insurance company, the only way to get a new one is -- find a new job.
I also know a couple of people opposed to any form of socialized medicine for fear that without the profit margin, new medical advances would stop. And I personally am TERRIFIED we'll follow in the lead of some loathsome countries with socialized medicine which make it outright illegal to seek private medical care -- either settle for what the government doles out to you, or don't get anything at all.
Vulcan's Forge.
A fellow smith?
Sorry Smartass, only of the word variety....
Jennifer, thanks for the explanation. The Canadian medicare system does not use existing private corporate insurance but provides health care coverage through separate government-run corporations administered by each province (OHIP in Ontario, for example). We are not obligated by law to have medical insurance; the government is obligated by law to provide it. The insurance is paid for through our existing taxation structure.
Post a Comment
<< Home