Comments on: Within the GOP, the conciliation camp versus the purist faction

By: MSW

MSW — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:46:38 +0000

It’s somewhat ironic that guys like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have become the Democrat’s best friend. Whenever a GOP member fails to meet a litmus test (abortion, guns, immigration, taxation, etc), the right-wingers blast them like there is no tomorrow. The GOP party needs to separate away from these right-wingers as soon as possible.

Rush Limbaugh had the same effect to the GOP party as does candy to our children: at first, there is a strong burst of energy, but then the energy fades fast and you have no energy left. Just like the kids teeth, the listeners of their shows have their brains rot out.

By: Guy

Guy — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:32:36 +0000

I think the term “moderate” has been applied to Huntsman because he is obviously intelligent, curious and well travelled - three things not said about most GOP members or leaders. Most of whom openly scorn educated people, ideas and foreign countries.

Whilst I am a Democrat I could envisage going into a meeting with Huntsman and potentially reaching a compromise or have him listen and learn and adapt legislation. That would be a completely different experience to a meeting with Palin, Sanford, Limbaugh or Cheney, where neither side would gain anything.

I completely agree with Ogre Mage that the Dems have the left and most of the center and the GOP is pushed into the right wing. They will have a hard right nominee for 2012 and lose in a landslide, then they will slowly move back towards the center. This has happened in other countries where you go to one extreme, lose badly and cannot blame “moderates” or anything else and then you get pragmatic.

By: Ogre Mage

Ogre Mage — Tue, 19 May 2009 04:29:45 +0000

The combative faction kept control of the party and lost in ‘32, ‘34, ‘36, ‘40, ‘44, and ‘48, and each time they said it was the more moderate faction’s fault.

And then, in ‘52, the GOP nominated a moderate (Eisenhower) and won.

The partisan-ideological demographics of the current U.S. Senate are telling. The Democrats have a large centrist caucus — Bob Casey, Arlen Specter, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Warner, etc. The GOP centrist caucus is now down to 2 — Snowe and Collins.

The Democrats are not only controlling the left, they’re controlling the center. The GOP is increasingly marginalized into its right-wing base.

By: Ogre Mage

Ogre Mage — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:40:49 +0000

Huntsman’s move is a clear sign he believes the GOP is hopeless in the short term. He must really want to be Ambassador to China to take the job in the White House of the opposing party. And his immediate supervisor will be Sec. Clinton, lol.

With regards to Huntsman’s ideology, I would probably put him here on this scale of Republican ideology:

1: Olympia Snowe (Centrist)
2: Jon Huntsman, pre-party switch Arlen Specter
3: Richard Lugar, Kay Bailey Hutchison (Mainstream Republican)
4: Mitch McConnell
5: Jim DeMint (Hard Core Far Right)

Snowe-style Republicans have largely vanished from the landscape, leaving Huntsman and his ilk as the new Republican moderates, who are clearly, although not hugely, more conservative. It’s a sign the whole party is moving right.

By: Joe from NC

Joe from NC — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:26:17 +0000

This has been an interesting debate within the GOP. DeMint’s comments seem crazy at first glance (I can guarantee Dem’s would prefer 30 strongly conservative GOP senators over 60 moderately conservative ones any day.), but they seem uncannily similar to GOP’s beliefs and actions during the 1930s and 40s when FDR and Truman were in power.
Back then, there were Republicans who favored compromising with FDR and those who wanted to fight him to the death. The combative faction kept control of the party and lost in ‘32, ‘34, ‘36, ‘40, ‘44, and ‘48, and each time they said it was the more moderate faction’s fault.