Thomas Friedman to Republicans: This time around you should just take a pass, try in 4 years.
Last edited Sun Feb 12, 2012, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/11/should_republicans_just_give_up.htmlFriedman likens the Republicans to somebody playing scrabble where all the letters you have left are unplayable duds. Sometimes its better passing than trying to make out some convoluted word out of a bunch of wacky letters. Pretty funny and accurate analogy. Right now the key Republicans are searching through their dictionaries trying to figure out some possible word that you can make up out of a bunch of unplayable letters.
WATCHING the Republican Party struggling to agree on a presidential candidate, one wonders whether the G.O.P. shouldn’t just sit this election out — just give 2012 a pass.
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
You know how in Scrabble sometimes you look at your seven letters and you’ve got only vowels that spell nothing? What do you do? You go back to the pile. You throw your letters back and hope to pick up better ones to work with. That’s what Republican primary voters seem to be doing. They just keep going back to the pile but still coming up with only vowels that spell nothing.
There’s a reason for that: Their pile is out of date. The party has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.
Sorry, but you can’t address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix of hardened positions. I’ve argued that maybe we need a third party to break open our political system. But that’s a long shot. What we definitely and urgently need is a second party — a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country.
Without that, the best of the Democrats — who have been willing to compromise — have no partners and the worst have a free pass for their own magical thinking. Since such a transformed Republican Party is highly unlikely, maybe the best thing would be for it to get crushed in this election and forced into a fundamental rethink — something the Democrats had to go through when they lost three in a row between 1980 and 1988. We need a “Different Kind of Republican” the way Bill Clinton gave us a “Different Kind of Democrat
more at the link
As a fairly 'moderate' Democrat I am all for trying the 'crushing' them into sawdust option and see what comes out of it. Would be a lot better than the obstructionist idiots we have now.
Worth a try.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It seems like Republicans only ever function effectively as the "
dis-)loyal opposition". When they actually win back power at any level, they don't really do anything with it other than use it to enrich themselves and their buddies among the 1% and ruthlessly work on keeping it to themselves by any means necessary by disenfranchising people likely to vote to elect Democrats, mercilessly pummeling any criticism/opposition to their policies, and keeping people distracted by "wedge issues" like abortion, GLBT issues, etc. When the opposition to their policies/governance becomes overwhelming and they inevitably get turned out of power, they don't re-think their actions/policies but rather simply double-down and resume their efforts to obstruct and cripple Democratic initiatives and make them look weak and ineffective, setting the stage for their eventual comeback 
"A lot of Democrats on the left seem to me to be dropping out of the Democratic Party. I heard that approx 75% of OWS indicate they are independents. These are disgruntled Democrats."
Would you like to provide something in the way of proof for your assertions? I know the main focus of some on this board is to create the mistaken impression that liberals either don't like this president and/or the Democratic Party. And as for OWS, there was always a strong libertarian style Ron Paul streak running through it, which is why I was never that excited about them. Once I saw the Ron Paul signs on display, I knew it wasn't for me.
All that being said, I would sure like to have some backup for the wild "anecodtal" claims you made? You know......proof?
And thank you for doing so.
Should a broad sweeping declaration be allowed to stand and/or go unchallenged in the face of proof to the contrary? Last poll I saw, showed the president had an 88% approval with liberals. Since there's not a single link or article in the post, why should anyone believe the poster? If the poster in question is an intellectually honest person, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, he/she will provide some backup for such a sweeping statement. And, likewise, if the poster isn't an honest person, they'll pretend not to see my request. It's that simple, doncha think?
some really sweeping claims about democrats leaving the party and becoming independents. I merely asked for some empirical data to back that up. You sounded so sure, and you may be right, but a claim like yours shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged as people may get the idea you know what you're talking about.
In the absence of actual proof and/or scientific data to support your claim, we probably don't have much to talk about?
And you're still making sweeping statements. You obviously can't stop yourself.
."You and your group" seem to spend your time challenging but never stating your stands on issues"
On the flip side, however, "you and your group" seem content to just make shit up, and that's sad. Who can respect that? Even if there were a grain of truth in what you say, if you become known for making shit up, the rest of what you have to say becomes pretty much irrelevant. It's about credibility. If OWS follows your lead, I don't see much of an impact, or a future for that matter. And as for "challenging"? Let's just say I have a finely tuned bullshit detector.
people to refute you? You made it UP, and when challenged, you chose to take "me and my group" to task for shit you made up? I mean WTF?
As for OWS, the Ron Paul signs were a dead giveaway. When they booed & ran off John Lewis, a Civil Rights era icon, I was done with whatever enthusiasm I initially had for them. I'm going out on a limb here and "hypothesize" that OWS is comprised of mostly college educated & priveleged white youngsters who don't have much to lose, no matter who's in the WH. The flag burning was just icing on the cake, and a definite turnoff for folks who once empathized with them.
They claim not to be political, so what impact can they possibly hope to have on the body politick? As much as I despise the Tea Party, at least they were able to draft some of the most vile people on the planet to run for office, and guess what? They actually won. Until OWS does something similar, they're just a bunch of folks getting together to bitch & moan. Hell, I can do that from here.
You seem to confuse indifference with hate. But whatever. 
Perhaps you should re-read the title of the o.p.
I would've thought the false narrative you set out to create in the post that started this would be more important, but then I value honesty above emoticons. Who knew?
chosen a more appropriate screen name for what you tried to pass off as absolute truth.
"These are disaffected Democrats."
I merely asked for some numbers to back that up. I didn't ask you about Independents, I asked about "disaffected Democrats". In the absence of any data to confirm this, we probably don't have much more to say to each other?
