Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

Sounds about right.

 

Boehner caves to the Tea Party and does the far right thing instead of the right thing. Tomorrow the House will vote on a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the government after Oct 1 and the start of the new fiscal year but only if the ACA is not funded.

And it is not only Senate Democrats who are opposed. Numerous Republican Senators have said it is a bad idea and bad the country to threaten to shut down the government over ACA funding. Numerous business organizations (US Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundatble and others) said the same.

But the Tea Party types are on a mission, come hell or high water and the next two weeks are likely to be ugliest we've seen from the most unproductive Congress in recent history.

 

The Tea Party controls Washington. The Tea Party controls Obama's second term domestic agenda. I remember folks saying the Tea Party was dead, was fly-by-night.

Why does the Tea Party have so much power? According to many here, pundits, and even old guard GOP insiders, the Tea Party are far right-wing extremists with no grass-roots support (remember - astro-turf comments). Some actually know the truth. President Obama is the weakest President (in terms of political power) in modern history and it is really Democrats who can not build a coalition within their own party and with a few liberal Republicans. So, blame the Tea Party. Problem is that it gives more and more power to the Tea Party, it is a fools game that they play.

 

I agree that the Tea Party controls the House, primarily as a result of redistricting. And they have proven that they can win in highly Republican districts.

What remains to be seen is if they can win state wide. Most Tea Party governors elected as a result of the 2010 sweep are now underwater in public opinion and many (most) are now likely to lose next year. The same applies to the Senate where Tea Party candidates change(d) the equation in purple states and give Democrats a greater possibility of retaining or even picking up a few seats. It happened in 2010, 2012 and might save a Democratic majority in 2014.

Time will tell.

 

Let's not minimize the role Democrats have played in redistricting. I don't like gerrymandered districts and would support a far simpler and consistent system.

President Obama is already a lame duck. His only impact will be on foreign policy and he is currently getting a "D" grade from me.

 

The issue is not Obama, but the electability of Tea Party governors in purple states like Scott in FL, Corbett in PA, Walker in WI...

And in the Senate, where the Republicans would have had a majority today if not for Tea Party candidates who lost "winnable" seats in (CO, DE, IN, NV, PA...) and will risk seats in AR, IA (even possibly GA) and others in 2014 by running the most extremists candidate who can win a Republican primary.

 

You sound like an establishment GOP'er. I say it is time for change.

 

The more extremist Republican base that effectively controls the primary process agree with you and that works for a red House district.

The issue will be whether general election voters (the more "establishment" voters - center right to center left who might vote either way, depending on the candidate) in statewide races (governor, senate) feel the same having experienced the effects of Tea Partyism over the last four years.

 

I live in Union county, a county neighboring Mecklenberg county witch has the city of Charlotte. My county is generally Republican and rural, Mecklenberg is generally Democratic and urban, with concentrations of Republican areas. Here is a map of the 12th district that is controlled by Democrats.



And here is a picture of the 9th district, typically Republican.



Contrary to your general view. It is not Union country to the south or Gaston county to the west that would have issues with electing people who would reflect their communities, but it is Charlotte and pockets of Democratic party concentrations (often with low turnout) that would have a problem. And they (Democrats) have creatively solved this problem. Of the last two elected Mayors in Charlotte one was Republican and one was a Democrat. the state currently has one Republican and one Democrat Senator. Typically NC is a moderate state. To the degree that the Tea Party has gained traction (we now have a Republican Gov. and legislature prior to 2012 Democrats controlled both) it is due to the liberal agenda and failures.

 

Ace....in NC, Kay Hagen the Democratic Senate incumbent up next year, should be vulnerable. But she has a double digit lead against the likely Republican opponents because they are nearly all Tea Party types.

The same holds true but to a marginally lesser extent in Alaska where Mark Begich (D) is vulnerable, in Arkansas with Mark Pryor (D) and Louisiana with Mary Landrieu. Their hope is the Republicans will choose the most extreme candidate in their primaries. An open seat in Iowa with a retiring Democratic leaving should be a strong possibility for the Republicans, but the Iowa Republican establishment are shitting in their pants that Congressman Steve King (a Michelle Bachmann clone) will win the Republican primary and effectively keep the Senate seat in the Democrats column

Much like in 2010 and 2012 where Republicans blew at least four or five opportunities because they nominated their most extreme candidate.

But the first real test will come in Virginia this November wbere the sitting Republican governor is term-limited. The Democrat nominee Terry McAuliffe has miserable favorability numbers only to be outdone in negative favorability by the Republican nominees, Ken Cucinelli, the current AG, who is so extreme, it scares the crap out of mainstream Republicans in the DC suburbs.

And next year, in FL, the incumbent Tea Party governor is tanking in polls as is the Tea Party governor in PA; they are both up for re-election.
--- merged: Sep 24, 2013 3:57 AM ---
side note, re: Charlotte mayor.

I was disappointed that Councilman James Mitchell lost the Democrat primary earlier this month to replace Anthony Foxx who resigned as mayor to become Obama's Secretary of Transportation. Mitchell is a friend through work and would have been a great mayor.

 

NC is a moderate state. If Hagen is too far left, anything can happen. She needs some distance from the Presidents failures. Reid needs to allow her to cast some votes in support of fiscal responsibility and social conservatism (NC is moderate but still relatively socially conservative).

You win some and you lose some, it happens - it happens on both sides. And again, I point to the narrative about gerrymandering. To the degree it is a problem, there is shared responsibility. So yes in my Congressional district we may go more conservative than we might if the lines were drawn in a way that makes sense. But on the otherhand the 12th district goes more liberal than it might.

Isn't the 12th ridiculous? Show a map of your Congressional district.

 

Kay Hagen is an economic conservative and social moderate/liberal. Much like Begich, Pryor, Landrieu.

That's the point, Ace. Democrats in moderate/swing states are running moderates and Republicans are running extremists.

And that is why they have lost five to six winnable seats in the last two election and might very not not pick up any of the above states in 2014 (AK, AR, LA, NC) if they continue to shoot themselves in the foot by nominating extremists.

But I hope they continue!

 

I can not recall a vote where she broke party lines.

Gov Track shows Burr in the middle of Republicans.
Richard Burr, U.S. Senator for North Carolina - GovTrack.us

They show Hagen to the right of most Democrats.
Kay Hagan, U.S. Senator for North Carolina - GovTrack.us

But, she is deep in the Democrat camp - and I believe she needs to show some independence or she will not be re-elected.

Your point of view regarding "extremist" is not consistent with the views of people who live in NC. Hagen is right of most Democrats and may be too liberal.

 

I agree 100%.

In the case of Charlotte, the Democrat vote would get diluted. There are pockets of generally politically inactive liberals surrounded by pockets of generally politically active conservatives. They had to get creative with the 12th District. But if you listen to liberals lately you would think Republicans are solely responsible for gerrymandering and it is the reason for the Tea Party emergence. Wrong on both counts.

 

I agree with you that redistricting should not be politicized and should be taken out of the hands of state legislatures.

I think there should be national standards that rely on the states setting up independent commissions composed of people who have never held political office but have an understanding of the political process and an equal mix of people with a political party affiliation and those without such affiliation.

The standard square is a bit simplistic for me. I want district that could be as competitive as possible and ensure that minorities and other interest groups in any district have a fair chance of electing representatives that represent their interests.

And any redistricting should be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

But this really a distraction from the issue of whether the Tea Party is sustainable, particularly in state-wide races, particularly in swing states. We wont know until next year.

Objectively I believe the Republicans are cutting their own throat with the more extremist and activist base controlling the primary process and nominating the more extreme candidates. Less objectively, I hope they continue except for the fact that having "no compromise" extremists in the Senate just goes against 225+ years of finding common ground on the most difficult (and often the most partisan) issues in the best interest of the country.