If you “turn a corner three ways”, doesn’t that put you back at the beginning?

Tricky bastards!

I’d almost—almost—feel sorry for Michael Steele, since as a lifelong Dem (a real one, not the PUMA variety), I’ve known the bitterness of feeling on the outside of my own country for a very long time. But the difference is that the Dems, though they made a lot of mistakes over the years,  never engaged in the widespread evil and rapaciousness of the GOP. You earned your exile, assholes.

Only a Republican could look into the future and see Ronald Reagan.

I think they have his face etched into the lenses of their eyeglasses.

Only a Republican could look into the future and see Ronald Reagan.

I think they have his face etched into the lenses of their eyeglasses.

Comment by Allan on 05/19/09 at 03:54 PM

It’s Scientology-creepy, this inane Reagan worship. I was reminded of the giant L. Ron Hubbard oil paintings in the secret Tom Cruise recruitment video when I saw the Reagan murals at the CPAC meeting.

I can understand why they’d want to consign both Bush administrations to the memory hole. But Reagan was a pretty shitty president if fiscal conservatism is the measure.

And Betty, didn’t Reagan also withdraw the Marines from Lebanon after the base was bombed? Personally I think he was wise to do so, but I can’t believe the wingnuts would be so enamored of a cut-and-run coward like that who didn’t “stay the course.”

Good point, O. According to today’s wingnut standards, Reagan was a yellow-bellied Islamofascist appeaser.

I agree with Oblomova that the R’s have earned their period of wandering through the desert, or the wilderness, or whatever the right allegory might be.

The biggest change I’ve seen in the Republican party over the years is that of including the neocons and theocons.  The Eisenhower Republicans don’t see eye-to-eye with these groups.  Partly for idealogical reasons, and partly for less pure reasons (e.g., Eisenhower R’s may be religious, but don’t care for the religious groups represented by the neocons and theocons).

The constants that I see in the Republican party are:
1.) a belief that society ought to be separated out into classes, and that wealth is the right way to stratify the classes.
2.) a belief in authoritarianism.

I guess what I’m wondering is: how much can the Republican party actually change?  I mean, I can imagine pushing the more extreme factions into the closet for the next few years, but I can’t see changing the Republican DNA.

And when the “values voters” finally get hip to the fact that the GOP hasn’t really done anything to stop gay marriage or abortion, might they also not leave the party in disgust and go to a third party run by Huckabee or something? Barry Goldwater once said something like “All good Christians should kick Jerry Falwell right in the ass.” When Goldwater is too liberal for the party, you know it’s lost its way. Shit, at this point, Nixon sounds pretty good compared to the Cheney/Limbaugh crowd!

I guess what I’m wondering is: how much can the Republican party actually change?  I mean, I can imagine pushing the more extreme factions into the closet for the next few years, but I can’t see changing the Republican DNA.

What seems to be happening now is that the more extreme factions are pushing the moderates into the closet or, probably more accurately, out the back door and slamming the bolt.  Then claiming that they represent the beliefs of the majority of Americans.  And most of them are so extreme and rigid in their dogma that they just do not see that their party cannot reverse the current trend unless they broaden their horizons.  I know several life long Republicans who voted for Obama in the election and aren’t looking back.

That Gallup Poll that I linked to is very telling - the Republicans have lost significant numbers of voters in virtually every major demographic group.  And without a major change in their message, if what they have is a message, they’re unlikely to get much of that back.

I say this mainly as a slightly fascinated bystander. I would love to see the Repubs completely self destruct and the sooner the better.

Writing an Ideas piece in The Politico, Michael Steele…

Mar, I forgot to mention that I started LOLing after those nine words and never stopped.  Thanks for writing, I needed a laugh.

Steele and the RNC in one short act:

GOGO: Well, shall we go?

DIDI: Yes, let’s go.

[They do not move.]

Strange, that’s perfect. The “permanent GOP majority” envisioned by Rove has turned into their version of “giving birth astride a grave.”

And now I want to see a production of Endgame with Limbaugh as Hamm, Steele as Clov, and Dick and Lynne Cheney as Nagg and Nell.

But I believe it is now time for Republicans to focus all of our energies on winning the future by emerging as the party of new ideas.

I keep thinking of this old Life in Hell cartoon that suggested this plan for what to do if your boss catches you asleep at your desk: Jerk up and shout “I’ve got it!  A briliant idea for—” (Think fast.)

Which is to say it’s rather easier to talk about coming up with new ideas than it is to actually think ‘em up.

If you “turn a corner three ways”, doesn’t that put you back at the beginning?

Ooh, good eye. Though what with the right’s obsession with an idyllic past that never actually existed, I’m not entirely sure he misspoke.

Mar, did you see the Wonkette headline about the latest GOP poll numbers?

GOP in Trouble, but Only Among *Human* Voters

Which then reminded me of a John King gem from last spring’s Bataan Death March to the Nomination (no offense to actual Bataan vets who may be reading this)—“Barack Obama won the Virginia primary by winning where the people are.”

Unlike, I guess, Hillary Clinton and her mystifying appeals to the ground-squirrel demographic.

Republicans have spent ample time re-examining the past.

.0003 seconds.

Thanks for sharing this MarinD. I never read Poolitico so I would have missed Steele’s imprecation to stop dwelling on the recent past and dwell on ... er ... the less recent past. Plus, the witty comments between graphs cut the pain of reading anything by that putz.

Of course this is the 9,999,999th time since the Great Spanking of 2008 that the GOP has announced they’re in touch with the American People (Silent Majority!) and only they can fix everything.

So you know that we’re less than 24 hours from another total meltdown. Wheee!

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding going on, people.

The Republican party is comprised of two categories of people:

1)  Rich, old, white men.
2)  People who wish they were rich, old, white men.

When they talk about being the party of “new ideas”, they’re not talking about new ideas about how to make the country better…they’re talking about new ideas about how to keep rich, old, white men in power.

I totally echo what marindenver said. 

But I’ve got to say…Michael Steele is cheezy comedy gold! 

Many of the other voices speaking for the GOP these days are just vile in their stupidity, backwardness, vapidity and divisiveness. 

Michael Steele however has almost a Homer Simpsonesque charm to his dweeby cluelessness!  At least when he speaks “the stupid”, I’m endlessly entertained ;)

At least when he speaks “the stupid”, I’m endlessly entertained ;)

As am I!  Guess that’s why I feel compelled to keep sharing his antics with you guys.

Mar, I forgot to mention that I started LOLing after those nine words and never stopped.  Thanks for writing, I needed a laugh.

LOLing myself Allan.  You’re right - I guess I should have put Ideas piece in quotation marks.

#1.  Michael Steel is the RNC equivalant of Alan Keyes being beset upon Obama years ago to be the black voice of the Republican Party in Illinois.  only Steele is more sane and sorta hip-hop to the shame of all of us.

#2   The face of the future republican party is Megan McCain.  They’d better start listening.  Dried up old anorexic hags like Ingraham and Coulter need to STFU and embrace this child rather than mock her being ‘fat’.  Steele needs to jump on her wave - not some fake street shit - to get people into his party.

#3   Steele will not last the year.

Wingnuts want the teabag parties called tea parties. 

Where I come from (USA) tea parties are where people drink tea after steeping teabags in hot water, they don’t prance around with teabags stapled to their hats.

The challenge the GOP faces is one of definition. They’ve talked a good game for the last 40+ years about fiscal conservatism, but truth be told that died with Goldwater. Reagan, despite his deification, was no fiscal conservative. He may have started out that way, but his tax increase in ‘84 and subsequent shifting of the budget to defense programs pretty much killed that.

While the GOP paints Democrats as “tax and spend”, their model could best be described as “spend and spend”. Trickle-down never worked, and indeed is a large contributor to the financial meltdown we find ourselves in currently.

So what does this mean for the GOP? They’re flirting with a populist version of Libertarianism (look at all the recent converts talking up Ayn Rand and “going Galt”), but this really only rallies their ever-shrinking base of cultural warriors and Creationist end-timers. The teabag fiasco exposed the ugly side of hard-core base (not to mention providing us with endless snark opportunites). What they really need to do is flush the God Squad and concentrate on a vision of government as an institution, rather than trying to “drown it in a bathtub”. PJ O’Rourke said it best: Republicans will tell you that government doesn’t work, then get elected and proceed to prove their point.

This won’t be easy - Obama has already claimed the high ground with regards to “pragmatic” governance. The GOP will need to find a voice that says something other than “no”.

Where I come from, tea parties are certainly more gentile than the pics I’ve seen of the teabagging gatherings, classically involving cucumber sammitches with the crusts cut off, doilies, scones, and cream cakes. As for the idea of using teabags rather than loose tea ....