Droves of Republican commentators begging the GOP to come back to sanity.

[Direckshun]

This will be a fun little catch-all thread for the next couple days as more and more of these pieces come trickling in, begging the modern Republican Party (including its base) to dump their shit crazy ideas, embracing moderated versions of their fundamental ideas, and trying to ****ing change instead of going balls deep into their own ideological id.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...publicans.html

Why We Need Republicans
By Josh Barro
Feb 20, 2013 2:28 PM CT

Let me be clear: I don't want a Republican Party that's just like the Democratic Party, even though some people on both the right and the left see that as the upshot of Republican critiques like mine.

Political parties should differ on normative questions. They ought to strive for agreement on positive questions -- questions such as, what policies cause gross domestic product and median incomes to rise, how unemployment insurance affects the unemployment rate, or how global temperatures are changing. Currently, Republicans make a lot more errors on these kinds of questions than Democrats.

Correcting errors on positive questions should cause conservatives to revisit some of their top policies, as Bloomberg View columnist Ramesh Ponnuru laid out this weekend in the New York Times. Conservatives say tight money and lower top tax rates would enrich middle-class families. But that's wrong, and if they figured that out, they might stop supporting tight money and lower top tax rates.

Why would a reformed, reality-based Republican Party be different from the Democrats and therefore useful? I can think of a few important reasons, which are the reasons that I remain, however reluctantly, a Republican.

1. Democrats make their own errors in evaluating the economy. The economic situation of the past five years has brought out the worst in the Republican Party. In an environment of depressed demand and a slack labor market, many of Republicans' usual concerns become irrelevant. Government borrowing doesn't crowd out private spending; unemployment insurance doesn't significantly raise the unemployment rate; cutting marginal tax rates is a weak way to grow the economy.

But under normal economic conditions, Republicans' economic worldview has more merit, and Democrats' sanguineness about incentives becomes much more problematic. There will be a time when large deficits really do crowd out private investment and giving people incentives to work will be important for growing the economy. At that time, Republicans will sound the right warnings; Democrats might not.

Admittedly, the Democrats aren't all bad on this. Policy wonks on the left tend to understand that work disincentives from unemployment benefits are unimportant now because of a special condition in today's labor market. But then you have elected officials like Senator Tom Harkin dismissing in general the idea that unemployment benefits discourage work. In the future, we'll be glad we have Republicans around to remind us that incentives matter.

2. Republicans have an often-healthy skepticism of regulation. Republicans' reflexive opposition to regulation is causing them to get a few big issues very wrong, including health care, bank reform and climate change. But Republicans' preference for market allocation over top-down rules leads them the right way on a lot of issues.

Conservatives already won a lot of the big fights against dumb regulation at the federal level in the 1970s and '80s: ending wage and price controls, deregulating airlines and shipping, allowing interstate banking. But some areas of excessive regulation remain, especially at the state and local level.

Two big problem areas are overregulation of land use and costly or anti-competitive business regulations. Conservatives tend to have the right instincts in these areas but don't treat them as important; unlocking the value of urban land and freeing small-business owners from meddlesome local bureaucrats could become signature Republican issues.

At the federal level, the biggest overregulatory error is probably in intellectual property, where patent and copyright protections have gotten far stronger than is necessary to encourage innovation. So far, neither party has been eager to reform intellectual property -- the Republican Study Committee released an excellent report on the topic and then fired its author after coming under pressure from a congresswoman with close ties to the music industry. Perhaps Republicans could be convinced to see intellectual-property reform as a way to make markets freer and stick it to liberal Hollywood.

3. When they try, Republicans can make government more efficient. When I talk about the Republican Party being in dire political shape, the retort I most often hear is that Republicans hold 30 governorships. This isn't a contradiction; in part, it reflects that Republicans are offering up much more appealing policies at the state and local levels than the federal level.

The idea that government should run like a business or a household has led Republicans dangerously astray at the federal level, but this actually isn't a terrible frame for thinking about states. A highway department is a lot more like a business than Social Security is. Although the federal government mostly moves money around, states and localities have lots of employees and direct operations, so greater efficiency really can go a long way. And state budgets really do need to be (more or less) balanced annually.

Republicans have also been more likely than Democrats to recognize that public employee benefits structures are outdated and needlessly costly, and that collective bargaining in the public sector lets unions sit on both sides of the negotiating table.

The split isn't totally partisan. Democrats in some states, like Massachusetts, weakened collective bargaining at the same time as Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin; and some Republican reforms were aimed more at reducing unions' political power than at cutting costs. The most aggressive pension reform of recent years was enacted in heavily Democratic Rhode Island. But in general, Republicans have been more willing than Democrats to look for ways to provide government services more cheaply and efficiently, including by cutting the employee compensation costs that make up about half of state and local spending.

4. Republicans aren't all out to lunch. In the states, the Republican focus on cost containment and efficiency works best when it is combined with a commitment to providing high-quality government services and an understanding that government can and should be useful. Republican governors' talk about improving their states' governments contrasts with national Republican rhetoric, which tends to cast government as an impediment to freedom and growth.

Such a balanced approach is the reason that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has approval ratings in the 70s, or that governors like John Kasich in Ohio and Susana Martinez in New Mexico did the math and accepted Medicaid expansion funds that will benefit their constituents, instead of dying on the hill of opposition to Obamacare.

Balance doesn't prevail everywhere; Republicans in Kansas are undertaking an unwise reform that will make their state's tax code much more regressive, and some Republican-controlled state legislatures are busying themselves with sideshows like studying a return to the gold standard. But the reason Republicans are succeeding in states where their national brand is severely damaged tends to be that their state-level policy agendas are markedly better than the party's national one.

[Taco John]

Some of these are really dumb. What does Rand Paul have to gain by inserting him in the Hagel mess? This is politics. Some of these commentators are real morons.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Not dopey social conservatives, that's for sure.

But Reagan knew. He was a Democrat before he was a Republican. But more than that, he was a student of libertarianism. His speeches from the 60's and 70's sound like they came from a Ron Paul speech.

I'm sorry, but if you're arguing Reagan wasn't a clear social conservative in his 1980 & 1984 campaigns, I'm going to assume you're either joking or crazy. He was the one who married the GOP to the religious right. Not Ike, not Nixon - and not his successor Bush Sr either. It was him. And it was a brilliant strategy.


Reagan was an ardent pro-lifer on the Presidential stump. I don't know what he thought of many of today's social issues because they weren't issues 25 years ago.

[Direckshun]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/14/s-...rush-limbaugh/

S.E. Cupp: ‘We can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh’
Matt K. Lewis
7:53 AM 02/14/2013

The New York Times has a must-read up on how the GOP is losing the tech war — and losing the youth vote.

But tucked away in the piece, I found this:

"[W]e can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh,” said Goodwin’s fiancée, S. E. Cupp, a New York Daily News columnist and a co-host of”The Cycle”on MSNBC. “If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover” to denounce the talk-show host as well.

This is either a sign things have changed — or a profile in courage. (Remember the time Phil Gingrey had to apologize to Rush?)

Look, I like S.E. and Rush. There’s no doubt Limbaugh has done some great things for the conservative cause. But I get what S.E. is saying, as well.

It will be interesting to see how the grassroots reacts.

[KC Dan]

tired of the Deflection spamming. It's gotten so bad that I'm sure all these articles he keeps posting do not get read

[Prison Bitch]

If the GOP youth can't be afraid to call out Rush, will the DNC youth ever call out Chris Matthews or Lawrence O'Donnell?

[Direckshun]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/w...#ixzz2LSo4GemR

I won't be Rushed
For the sake of conservatism, Limbaugh’s defenders need to get his fallibility through their heads
S.E. Cupp
Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 4:16 AM

Over the weekend, I was quoted in a New York Times magazine feature on the future of the GOP, for a project I’m spearheading to revamp party messaging. I, along with my colleagues in the project, discussed the ways in which we need to take the party back from the old guard, which has failed to adapt to a changing political and technological landscape, allowed undisciplined candidates to define our message and maligned the very groups of voters we’re hoping to attract.

In the piece, we talked about an injurious primary system that pushes candidates to lunge to the far right, and, conversely, the misguided efforts by establishment types to purge tea party conservatives from the movement. From candidate training to policy polishing, adopting new technologies to embracing new demographic realities, we acknowledged the hard work ahead for the GOP. It is important work, nonetheless.

There wasn’t anything earth-shattering in what I said, though you wouldn't know it from looking at my Twitter timeline, which exploded in apoplexy when news of one quote in particular spread across conservative media. I’d very much like to explain the quote, and respond to my critics who, I think, prove an interesting point.

“And we can’t be afraid to call out Rush Limbaugh,” I say as an aside in the piece. “If we can get three Republicans on three different networks saying, ‘What Rush Limbaugh said is crazy and stupid and dangerous,’ maybe that’ll give other Republicans cover” to feel comfortable disagreeing with him as well from time to time.

Rush’s fans, who call themselves “Ditto-heads,” did not appreciate this. “He’s done more for conservatism than you ever will,” one angrily tweeted. “You are a troll hack who has to kiss arse at MSNBC” tweeted another, referring to my show on the left-leaning network. “She will now enjoy her invites to the left wing Manhattan cocktail parties,” one wrote; another insisted that I “Name one thing that Rush has said that is crazy,” as if that would be an impossible task.

Some demanded I apologize. Others implied I just committed career suicide. Others still politely suggested I commit actual suicide.

I’ll end the suspense for some: There will be no apology. I make a living disagreeing with people who are far more successful, famous, wealthy and important than I am. I have spent thousands of hours on television and thousands of column inches criticizing the President of the United States. If you think I’m going to apologize for suggesting that it might be okay to disagree with a radio host sometimes, you don’t know me at all.

But I guess I’m not surprised at the rancor. For one, part of the point I was trying to make was that the impulse to defend anything and everything that a party heavyweight says — to the death — has the deleterious effect of making conservatives seem irrational and herd-like. No one is right all the time, and no one is above reproach. Limbaugh, who has frequently criticized Republicans, knows this better than anyone.

As for the gentleman on Twitter who dared me to cite an example, I’m happy to. If calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” last year for her position on contraception wasn’t the epitome of “crazy and stupid and dangerous,” allow me to explain the obvious.

It was crazy because it invented an irrational connection between her private sex life and her political position. It was stupid because calling someone a name is intellectually lazy. Make an actual argument. And it was dangerous because it trafficked in the same kind of misogyny that liberals use when they blast conservative women for being sluts, prudes or sexually repressed. And that fell right into the well-crafted but dishonest “war on women” narrative that liberals had set up to (successfully) get President Obama re-elected.

Rush is free to say whatever he wants, but how was that productive? And why did anyone defend it?

The other point that the reaction to my Rush comments proves is that conservatives continue to view criticism (even the constructive kind) through a lens of ideological suspicion. Even though I defended conservative principles as right, strong and popular, and explicitly said this isn’t about casting strident conservatives out of the party but reworking our messaging, Rush’s fans still decided that my conservatism was discredited. Disagreeing with him, or merely offering that we should feel comfortable disagreeing with party leaders now and then, suddenly made me an untrustworthy, sell-out liberal.

I care deeply about the conservative movement, which is why I regularly put myself in a position to defend it in hostile territory, on liberal media outlets where I am usually outnumbered. It’s why I am my party’s biggest cheerleader when our leaders do the right thing. And it’s why I travel the country telling as many people as possible why conservative policies are better for them than liberal ones.

But it’s also why I risk friends and fans by calling out Republican elected officials, operatives like Karl Rove, the Republican National Committee, and conservative pundits when necessary. It’s no profile in courage, but merely common sense. We’ll never win credibility with new voters if we insist everything that every conservative says or does should be defended and justified.

It’s not my desire to silence anyone, but amplify other voices, many of whom don’t feel like they have permission to disagree with party heavyweights. We don’t need permission, and in fact conservatism has a hallowed tradition of healthy skepticism toward authority. It’s that skepticism toward authority that has made Rush Limbaugh a very successful man.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

tired of the Deflection spamming. It's gotten so bad that I'm sure all these articles he keeps posting do not get read

I warned in the OP that that's what this thread is/was going to be.

So: sand, vagina... you know what to do.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I warned in the OP that that's what this thread is/was going to be.

So: sand, vagina... you know what to do.

friggin' drama queen

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

If the GOP youth can't be afraid to call out Rush, will the DNC youth ever call out Chris Matthews or Lawrence O'Donnell?

Besides Rush being much more inflammatory, the combined power of all the MSNBC hosts does not equal the power Rush has over the Rs.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Besides Rush being much more inflammatory, the combined power of all the MSNBC hosts does not equal the power Rush has over the Rs.

MSNBC is 10x worse than Rush. I mean, praising a Hurricane for destroying people's lives because it helped Obama? I know you found that more disgusting than anythign Rush has said.


Either way, the Right should attack their own when the Left does it first. Not a minute sooner.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by alpha_omega

Damn Direckshun...where do you find the time?

On your dime

[frazod]

Originally Posted by alpha_omega

Damn Direckshun...where do you find the time?

It's easy for someone who has no job and no life.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by alpha_omega

Damn Direckshun...where do you find the time?

Isn’t there a limit to how many times someone can bump their own topic? I’m pretty sure there is in the Lounge, just doesn't get enforced here.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I'm sorry, but if you're arguing Reagan wasn't a clear social conservative in his 1980 & 1984 campaigns, I'm going to assume you're either joking or crazy. He was the one who married the GOP to the religious right. Not Ike, not Nixon - and not his successor Bush Sr either. It was him. And it was a brilliant strategy.


Reagan was an ardent pro-lifer on the Presidential stump. I don't know what he thought of many of today's social issues because they weren't issues 25 years ago.

Reagan absolutely broadened his appeal to both social conservatives and libertarians. That's how he grew the party - finding a way to satisfy them both. That appeal came through the idea of shrinking government. Right now, Neocons are basically saying "we don't need to shrink government, come on guys - come back to the table and lets find compromise with these guys." And of course, the left is saying, "yes we agree with these establishment neocons that we hate so much, do give way to these rational thinkers." The Neocons are worried about losing ground on their foriegn policy initiatives, and the Democrats are worried about losing ground on their national and globoal socioeconomic agendas. Libertarians are the fly in both of their ointment.

That's all this is when you see Direckshun and other leftists relishing these moderate thinkers who are willing to compromise in order to bring us "progress" through government largess.

[Taco John]

By the way - a 19 page thread on this subject already exists:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...ican+civil+war