The GOP News Thread

[Pearl]

I didn't know what else to do with this article because related threads are closed, so I started a new one.

For the first time, a majority of Americans now say the Republican Party is too extreme, according to a poll released Thursday by CNN/ORC.
Fifty-three percent of people, including 22 percent of Republicans, said the GOP's views and policies have pushed them beyond the mainstream. The number is up dramatically from previous years. In 2010, fewer than 40 percent thought the party was too extreme.
Democrats were considered to be a "generally mainstream" party by 57 percent in the new poll.
"That's due in part to the fact that the Republican brand is not doing all that well," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
Americans also say that they have far more confidence in President Barack Obama than in congressional Republicans, and that Republicans should compromise more in finding bipartisan solutions.

Republican Party Too Extreme, Majority Of Americans Say: Poll

It will be interesting to see how the GOP evolves from this point on.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if radical conservaties break off and start their own party because they so firmly believe in extremist views. But then again, they'll have no choice but to vote Republican during each election because of how our system is. We'll just see how this plays out.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Newt said he would have done better against Obama than Romney did

Delusional much?

He said Rick Perry would have too

[MrsSpringsteen]

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie's blunt talk has long been one of his hallmarks.

But Christie, who has verbally tangled with many, showed Wednesday he's willing to aim his barbs at the highest echelons of his own party.

In a State House news conference, Christie blasted Republican U.S. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio for delaying a vote on a $60 billion aid package for Superstorm Sandy recovery.

"Do your job and come through for the people of this country," Christie pointedly said about Boehner.

Harsh criticism of Boehner by elected officials in New York and New Jersey turned into a bipartisan affair Wednesday. But it was Christie's remarks that drew the most attention, both for what he said and his willingness, as a Republican with higher aspirations, to so forcefully take on Boehner and Congressional Republicans.

The bill "could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority," Christie said.

Under pressure, Boehner will schedule a vote Friday to fund $9 billion for the national flood insurance program. A vote on the remaining $51 billion will take place Jan. 15.

Even before word of the rescheduled votes came out, Christie said he could no longer trust such assurances.

"There is no reason for me at the moment to believe anything they tell me because they've been telling me stuff for weeks and they haven't delivered," Christie said.

Christie accused House Republicans of focusing on internal politics and "palace intrigue" instead of voting on the bill, which would financially assist states hit by the Oct. 29 storm. Sandy severely impacted New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

"There's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims, the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner," Christie said.

A former prosecutor who flirted with running for president, Christie significantly raised his national profile this year, positioning himself as a tough-talking, no-nonsense chief executive. He delivered the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa and hopscotched around the country to campaign for Mitt Romney and Republican Congressional candidates.

But there has been little love lost of late between Christie and some members of his party. Before blasting Boehner, Christie drew the ire of some Republicans after touring the storm-damaged Jersey shore with President Barack Obama.

The two men embraced on the tarmac in Atlantic City days before the election and Christie effusively praised the president's handling of the storm. Christie said his loyalty to the people of New Jersey trumped politics.

Christie is seeking re-election, saying he wants to see through the Sandy recovery, something that a failure to vote on the bill is tying up, he said, keeping people from rebuilding homes and businesses.

In a Republican Party trying to figure out what it stands for, Christie could be positioning himself as both a potential conservative candidate who is not beholden to Tea Party notions and a pragmatist who is willing to work across party lines to get the job done.

Should he plan to run for president in 2016, Christie's stance could gain traction with an electorate that generally disdains Washington — a stance that Christie drove home Wednesday.

"It's why the American people hate Congress," Christie said of the failure to vote on the Sandy bill.

Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said Christie's attack is emblematic of a division emerging in the Republican party between conservative members calling for spending cuts wherever possible and others who think allocating money is necessary in certain cases.

"This is an example of another moment of him separating himself from a section of the GOP that is not very well-liked right now," Zelizer said of Christie. "I don't think it's politics. I think it's general frustration."

Leo Quigley, whose house in New Jersey's Little Ferry was damaged in the storm, said he's glad that Christie so forcefully criticized Boehner.

"I think he's right," Quigley said. "Some people are living in bad circumstances right now because of this, and that's to be blamed on the Congress."

Gigi Liaguno-Dorr, whose bar, Jakeabob's Bay, in Union Beach, was destroyed, said she and others in her blue-collar New Jersey town feel as though they've been ignored. She thinks Congress dragged its feet on the bill, but wants to know where the money will be allocated if the bill is approved.

"If Christie was out there blasting them, God bless him. Good for him," Liaguno-Dorr said. But once they release it, where is it going to go?

Liaguno-Door criticized Christie for not visiting her town, though he did mention it Wednesday as a place where a delay in aid would have detrimental effects.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by Pearl

But then again, they'll have no choice but to vote Republican during each election because of how our system is.

Why is it hard to build a viable third party in the U.S.?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Way to go

msnbc.com

Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).

And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.

Back in April, the Senate approved VAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.

But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.

And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:

"The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first."

Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.

As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.

Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. As I reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by BoMac

Why is it hard to build a viable third party in the U.S.?

You're doing it again, BoMac.

[BoMac]

I'm not. It's a legitimate question. Does the system preclude a viable third party from forming?

I understand that the Democrat and Republican machines are firmly entrenched politically and are fundraising juggernauts, but what is preventing an alternative from eventually giving them a run for their money?

[BoMac]

Also, I'm seeing reports that Boehner will resign.

Edit: Never mind. He was reelected as House Speaker, but in rather humiliating fashion.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by BoMac

I'm not. It's a legitimate question. Does the system preclude a viable third party from forming?

I understand that the Democrat and Republican machines are firmly entrenched politically and are fundraising juggernauts, but what is preventing an alternative from eventually giving them a run for their money?

There's nothing to prevent a third party to actually rise to challenge both the GOP and Democrats. It's just that ever since the country was formed, there's always been two major parties and if there ever was a third party, it never did as well as the other two.

One reason is because each state has their own election laws where in order to get onto the ballot, a candidate needs a certain number of valid signatures - some states ask for about a million of those. Another reason is that most Americans believe that third party candidates will not ever win any type of election, and often that is the case, so they never vote or even pay attention to those candidates.

I also think Americans have a habit in seeing only two parties to choose from, because its been that way for a very long time. While many are hoping that a third party does rise to be a challenge for the other two, it will take not only money, but a lot of faith from the American people in that particular candidate to both donate, campaign and vote for.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by BoMac

I'm not. It's a legitimate question. Does the system preclude a viable third party from forming?

The plurality-takes-all electoral college creates "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" type issues. Really, it's the same in Congressional districts and most state-wide elections, too.

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by BoMac

Why is it hard to build a viable third party in the U.S.?

It's a long answer and I'll give you that answer later on if you want it.

The short answer is because the other two parties won't allow it.
They swallow up any movement that generates momentum and they squash the ones they can't swallow up. And they are good at doing that.

I'm not saying they break the law to prevent it.
They just know how to prevent it through effective political strategy.

Why do they do it? Because it's easier to beat one opponent than two.
And if you can 'homogenize' your singular opposition into a caricature, you can turn voters into ideological partisans and sure up your voting base for decades. See: the demonization of the term 'liberal' representing that caricature.

For the most obvious example look at how the Presidential Debate Commission works. It is set up and run by Democrats and Republicans. A third party has to have X% (5 or 10) in X # of polls to even qualify to get into the debate.

We also have a media that thrives on the two party monopolized 'conflict'.
Any third parties are quickly painted as fringe movements, and honestly, most of them are. Like I said, it's a long answer. There's a lot that contributes to it but mostly it's because the D's and R's want to keep it head to head. Look at how the Tea Party was swallowed up by the Republicans to the point that it was essentially an arm of the Republican party only a few months in.

[BoMac]

Thanks for the replies, everyone.

[U2DMfan]

Also, you have the idea of funding third party campaigns.
If you aren't independently wealthy like Ross Perot, you've got to already have a 'name' (read: be famous) to even catch a whiff. That's why Nader and Ventura and Buchanan are about the only 3rd party candidates that ever did anything in the modern era. The way it is set up is you need to have money to have any shot. Even with the democratized 'airwaves' of the internet.

I said it was a long answer...and that's not even half of it. I'll stop now.

[Moonlit_Angel]

But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans

1, oh, noes, it might support them immigrants and gays and Native Americans! That's...bad, I guess, somehow?

2, how exactly do they make such a connection to begin with?

Good job as always, guys .

[MrsSpringsteen]

gawker.com

Here Are the Republicans Who Voted ‘No’ on Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds
Robert Kessler

Friday, Congress finally approved a $9.7 billion package to pay flood insurance claims from Hurricane Sandy. The measure was supposed to come to a vote earlier in the week, but was tabled by House Speaker John Boehner, drawing much criticism from both Democrats and his fellow Republicans alike.

The measure passed unanimously through the Senate, but 67 members of the House of Representatives voted "no" to assisting people who were left, at best, powerless or homeless by a hurricane in November. All 67 are Republicans:

Justin Amash (R-MI)
Andy Barr (R-KY)
Dan Benishek (R-MI)
Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Paul Broun (R-GA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Doug Collins (R-GA)
Mike Conaway (R-TX)
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)
Sean Duffy (R-WI)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Jimmy Duncan (R-TN)
Stephen Fincher (R-TN)
John Fleming (R-LA)
Bill Flores (R-TX)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Tom Graves (R-GA)
Sam Graves (R-MO)
Andrew Harris (R-MD)
George Holding (R-NC)
Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Randy Hultgren (R-IL)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Mark Meadows (R-NC)
Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Steven Palazzo (R-MI)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Scott Perry (R-PA)
Tom Petri (R-WI)
Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Tom Price (R-GA)
Phil Roe (R-TN)
Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Matt Salmon (R-AZ)
David Schweikert (R-AZ)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Randy Weber (R-TX)
Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)
Roger Williams (R-TX)
Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Rob Woodall (R-GA)
Kevin Yoder (R-KS)
Ted Yoho (R-FL)

The most high-profile Congressman on the list is Paul Ryan, failed vice presidential nominee. It also includes Mo Brooks, Ted Yoho, Ron DeSantis, Steven Palazzo and John Fleming from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, all of which are states that received much-needed federal aid following Hurricane Katrina, the only hurricane in American history that was more costly than Sandy. Speaker Boehner did not vote.

This list also includes the entire Republican representation from Arizona, Kansas, Maryland, Montana and New Mexico (Maryland, Montana and New Mexico are only represented by one Republican each).

While it took Congress more than two months to approve any federal aid for Sandy victims, it took just 10 days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

[BVS]

The party of no.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by BoMac

I'm not. It's a legitimate question. Does the system preclude a viable third party from forming?

I understand that the Democrat and Republican machines are firmly entrenched politically and are fundraising juggernauts, but what is preventing an alternative from eventually giving them a run for their money?

Although the Libertarian presidential candidate is on every U.S. ballot,
have you ever seen the Libertarian candidate participate in a presidential debate with the candidates of the two major parties?

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Although the Libertarian presidential candidate is on every U.S. ballot,
have you ever seen the Libertarian candidate participate in a presidential debate with the candidates of the two major parties?

I'd love to see that for all parties.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

It also includes Mo Brooks, Ted Yoho, Ron DeSantis, Steven Palazzo and John Fleming from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, all of which are states that received much-needed federal aid following Hurricane Katrina, the only hurricane in American history that was more costly than Sandy.

Further proof that the GOP REALLY loves irony. Good job, guys. Hope you're all proud of yourselves.

At least nobody from my state showed up in that list, so...yay?

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

omg i'm like sooooo shocked.