Jump to content

So, About the Elephant in the Room …


chasfh
 Share

Recommended Posts

No battle lines are being drawn, there is no competition either.  Trump has control of the party.  Old members are allowed to stay if they stay silent about the big lie, new members must openly embrace it in order to join.

There is a small fraction that are speaking out, but they have only two choices.  1) Play the media circuit as they claim they are fighting to take back the GOP, 2) Try and run as an independent.  They have zero influence within the GOP.

That playbook is going to be fine for well established GOP strongholds, but once you start putting MTG type folks up for election in districts that traditionally are closer split between the parties, that's when the rails fall off.  That's also when the GOP finally starts to reshape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

No battle lines are being drawn, there is no competition either.  Trump has control of the party.  Old members are allowed to stay if they stay silent about the big lie, new members must openly embrace it in order to join.

There is a small fraction that are speaking out, but they have only two choices.  1) Play the media circuit as they claim they are fighting to take back the GOP, 2) Try and run as an independent.  They have zero influence within the GOP.

That playbook is going to be fine for well established GOP strongholds, but once you start putting MTG type folks up for election in districts that traditionally are closer split between the parties, that's when the rails fall off.  That's also when the GOP finally starts to reshape.

but are the people in Ohio who elected Gonzales going to refuse to vote for a crazy, or just keep pulling that 'R' level out of habit or inability to get past a stale cultural identity? If they do the later then there ultimately will not be pressure for change in the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

but are the people in Ohio who elected Gonzales going to refuse to vote for a crazy, or just keep pulling that 'R' level out of habit or inability to get past a stale cultural identity? If they do the later then there ultimately will not be pressure for change in the GOP.

I don't know enough about his district to say one way or the other.  We are definitely going to have a lot more of the MTG ilk in congress in the short term.  Long term, I hope that does open some eyes to folks that just keeping pulling the "R" level right now.  But ultimately, until those districts that have a history of flopping between D and R only trend towards "D", only then will you see change in the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush is the last GOP President still alive, other than you know who.  That wing of the party is obsolete.  It's up to the Christies, Rubios, Cruzs of the party and well.... outside of Christie wavering some, we know how that will go.  The GOP is the party of Jim Jordan,MTG,Boehbert, Cawthorne....  they've rebuilt the party image from the ground up.  The delegates at teh state level are revamping the state parties into the crazies.  There's no room for decent people,by that I mean just normal right wingers.  The country has room for people like  Liz Cheney but the republicans today don't want her.  We keep repeating ourselves but it's a cult.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Bush is the last GOP President still alive, other than you know who.  That wing of the party is obsolete.  It's up to the Christies, Rubios, Cruzs of the party and well.... outside of Christie wavering some, we know how that will go.  The GOP is the party of Jim Jordan,MTG,Boehbert, Cawthorne....  they've rebuilt the party image from the ground up.  The delegates at teh state level are revamping the state parties into the crazies.  There's no room for decent people,by that I mean just normal right wingers.  The country has room for people like  Liz Cheney but the republicans today don't want her.  We keep repeating ourselves but it's a cult.

 

It sure feel like that, even at the state level.  This guy Marino sounds like a charmer.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-09-20/michigan-rep-to-fellow-lawmaker-i-hope-your-car-explodes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I think term limits, at least in MI, plays a part in that.  State legislators don't make that much money, relatively speaking.  It's a short stint due to the limits anyway.  Our rep is already trying to bail on his 2nd term one year into it by running for mayor of our city. There's no future for politicians if they want to work in Lansing.  You need qualified people who understand a lot of things but will they interrupt their other career?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 3:06 PM, oblong said:

and I think term limits, at least in MI, plays a part in that.  State legislators don't make that much money, relatively speaking.  It's a short stint due to the limits anyway.  Our rep is already trying to bail on his 2nd term one year into it by running for mayor of our city. There's no future for politicians if they want to work in Lansing.  You need qualified people who understand a lot of things but will they interrupt their other career?  

 

Ending term limits might just be the easiest, achievable way to fix many legislative bodies throughout the nation.  Still, there is a huge demand in having them, it wouldn't be easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No to term limits. All that would get us a a revolving door of transactional business assholes looking to swoop in, make some quick bucks off taxpayers and lobbyists, and then steal away with Washington connections in hand for future graft opportunities. It's bad enough that our system allows too many of those people as it is. Cementing it in legislation would drive out the remaining people who are dedicated civil servants and turn it into a true swamp, 100%.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, chasfh said:

No to term limits. All that would get us a a revolving door of transactional business assholes looking to swoop in, make some quick bucks off taxpayers and lobbyists, and then steal away with Washington connections in hand for future graft opportunities. It's bad enough that our system allows too many of those people as it is. Cementing it in legislation would drive out the remaining people who are dedicated civil servants and turn it into a true swamp, 100%.

I'm not strictly against term limits per se, but the ones we have in MI are so short they are counterproductive. I think something more like 12 yrs would force sufficient roll-over without creating the incompetence churn we have in the lower chamber now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

No to term limits. All that would get us a a revolving door of transactional business assholes looking to swoop in, make some quick bucks off taxpayers and lobbyists, and then steal away with Washington connections in hand for future graft opportunities. It's bad enough that our system allows too many of those people as it is. Cementing it in legislation would drive out the remaining people who are dedicated civil servants and turn it into a true swamp, 100%.

I was full on with term limits when they passed. I was wrong. It has been an unmitigated disaster in Michigan & I think would be even worse if ever adopted on a federal scale.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Term limits with national politics would have to be across the board with every single state,   If certain states don't go along, then their reps, based on seniority, would get the chairmanships in congress and money would go to their districts first.  it wouldn't be fair.     

I'm not sure what authority a state could claim to bar someone from running for re-election to Congress based on a term limit. Article II is pretty clear: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members".

  I think federal Congressional term limits would have to come from the Federal gov - probably by constitutional amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'm not sure what authority a state could claim to bar someone from running for re-election to Congress based on a term limit. Article II is pretty clear: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members".

  I think federal Congressional term limits would have to come from the Federal gov - probably by constitutional amendment.

States don’t get to decide how they send their reps?   I honestly don’t know.  I thought it was up to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      186
    • Most Online
      119

    Newest Member
    roarintiger1
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...