Republicans are very, very sorry they lost two elections in a row, and if the American people will just please give them another chance, the same people will do the same things.
But it will be called something else, although I’m relatively certain Harry S. Truman would have called it “bullshit.”
I’ve been following this in the news. Apparently the top GOP brass’ idea of rebranding is to change their image — but they didn’t say anything about changing their ideology, policies, values, or behavior. They remind me of the crooks who, after getting caught, restart the same old scam in a new storefront under a new company name.
I told them over at Stefan’s blog that they need to return to the idea of small government, controlling spending and not getting involved in foreign adventures. The response was not very warm: you would have thought that the Anti-Christ had showed up at an Alabama tent revival or Heinrich Himmler had showed up at a bar mitzvah!
@2 Try the Libertarians. They’re more rational these days, and probably have a brighter future than GOPers, too.
re 2: I agree with what you say except that in order to have small government, you have to disallow corporate organization. They get too big for their britches — which is why the founding fathers only allowed for PUBLIC corporations that had a SPECIFIC AND DEFINABLE TIME-LIMITED PURPOSE (such as building the Erie Canal) — after which they were, by law, disbanded.
They certainly had no status as ‘persons’ and their political contributions were not viewed as ‘free speech’. Every year that this goes on further compromises this county’s future.
@4,
Yeah, but I think it might be a bit impractical to disband GE or Caterpillar simply because they reached a certain time limit on their existence as a corporation. I can’t imagine liquidating Boeing, for example, to satisfy an government-decreed “drop dead” date. I don’t think it’ll work, but the idea of reining-in corporate power has some merit, particularly if you want smaller government.
The other dilemma we face is that shareholders aren’t doing a very good job of watching their managers. I think the institutional investors, like mutual funds, have fallen down on the job of getting on management’s ass to run the company as a wealth-builder for the owners, not a place for high salaries and bonuses for shitty performance.
I’d like to see a lot more shareholder activism when it comes to policing corporate management.
Back in 2005 when I predicted the Democrats would retake both houses of congress in the 2006 cycle, the Republicans laughed.
In 2008 when I said the Democrats would gain even more seats in the House and possibly a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I was scoffed at again.
When I said Obama would win with 327 electoral votes and laid out my state-by-state case I was dismissed.
I’ll make an “either or” predicament of which one them will in fact come to pass.
A) Republicans will either shift their political ideology just to the right of the political center, if not the very center.
Or,
B) There will be a 3rd party on the 2016 ballot for the White House. That will radically split the conservative vote guaranteeing Democrats will occupy the White House until at least 2020.
That’s the Bush/Limbaugh legacy to the political ideals of Reaganism.
My best estimate is B).
Because the sheer arrogance and ignorance of conservatives is too great to save themselves from their impending implosion.
re 5: That’s what they said about AT&T. Things always tend toward largeness and centralization and they need to be broken down because there is not enough diversity to survive calamity.
If you don’t mind, I’ll use an agricultural metaphor — just like Jesus H. Christ — our very special personal savior. As it was explained to me, if you have only a few variants of , say, corn — when some blight attacks corn — you don’t have enough variety for corn itself to survive.
Same with the banks that are ‘too big to fail’. If we’d broken them into smaller pieces, as prudence would suggest we do, then no one or handfull of entities would be inexpendible.
Or, to turn your GE argument on its head: Wouldn’t it be really inconvenient to break down this big government?
And YES Trolls — banks are exactly like corn variants —
I want a government big enough to protect us from pirate capitalism. The SEC, for example, is too small and weak; and the USDA clearly needs more food inspectors. I know where they can get 100 million lettuce inspectors on short notice! I have lots of cousins in the Imperial Valley.
To tell you the truth, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Wall Street and Somalia.
OK, once again from the top. Hate crimes legislation DOES NOT create “protected classes.”
Hmm…
Gingrich huffs and puffs about Iran. The Bush administration devoted maybe 15 minutes worth of attention to al Queda after 9/11, then spent the rest of the decade masturbating in Iraq while assuming that sending enough money to feed Musharraf’s corrpution would keep Pakistan in our pocket forever. Now, as a result, the Obama team has to get us unstuck from the Iranian debacle while dealing with the now very real prospect of the Taliban (and thus bin Laden) having The Bomb.
Great job of “keeping us safe”, peckerheads!
The Rushpublicans are a mentally-afflicted class at this point. DeMint says that Stalin-like adherence to ideology is more important than winning elections, and it appears that the “leadership” agrees with him. Steele is just comic relief; we all know that the pedophile dope addict in Florida sets the rules, and his brain is apparently so warped from all the drug abuse that he simply cannot function as a realist.
The Rushpublicans better start hoping for a OD, or a kiddie-diddling bust after one of El Oxybo’s Puerto Plata trips.
@8,
Actually what I thought the “end” of a corporation meant liquidation of assets and totally destroying the corporate entity with nothing surviving: i.e., selling all assets, paying off creditors, and giving what’s left to the shareholders.
As far as breaking up big corporations into little ones, I’m not totally opposed to the idea, but I suspect it would be hard to implement. When does the corporation pass over the magic line that says it’s time to break it up? After 50 years of existence? After it reaches a certain level of net assets? These are the problematic questions that will have to be answered if we choose to go down this path.
13 AF
Honestly, AF, don’t play into their myths.
(A) The Taliban are a bunch of different tribal entities who do not even agree with each other and who definitely have their differences with Al Qaeda. They’re certainly NOT the same thing or even close.
(B) The Taliban in no way have ANY “real prospect” of gaining control of Pakistan. Sometimes it is hard for Pakistanis, as it is for us, to score easy victories over indigenous peoples in the mountains, but most of Pakistan is a river plain and any Taliban stupid enough to come down out of the mountains will be mopped up posthaste by Pakistan’s tanks, aircraft, and artillery. Besides which the tribes make up less than 15% of Pakistan’s population. No way do they take over.
Hysteria over “the Taliban are going to get tthe Bomb!” is ridiculous and short-sighted.
There is a danger of Taliban tribal takeover in Afghanistan, where the tribes make up about 40% of the population. But Afghanistan is barely a nation no matter what we do. Our AF should stop its airstrikes, our army should leave, and we should help the existing government rebuild to build goodwilll. You know, LIKE WE PROMISED.
I think Afghanistan and the “tribal” regions of Pakistan are places that just want to be left alone and live in the Seventh Century. I say we should withdraw from this religious war and mind our own business.