Republican Party (United States) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So the Tea Party became a victim of its own rhetoric which was what everyone hoped for. I think they’re going to go for the second option below, though. That’s right – the clueless one.
But none of that matters. The tea party has done its job, and for all practical purposes its hard-nosed, no-compromise ideology now controls the Republican Party in a way that neither the Birchers nor the Clinton conspiracy theorists ever did. It’s no longer a wing of the Republican Party, it is the Republican Party.
So what’s next? Having now lost two presidential elections in a row, conventional wisdom says Republicans have two choices. The first is to admit that tea partyism has failed. 2012 was its best chance for victory, and evolving demographics will only make hardcore conservatism less and less popular. As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has put it, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” So the party will need to moderate or die.
The second option is to double down. Party activists will tell themselves that Mitt Romney was never a true conservative, and that’s what voters sensed. But Republicans can win again in 2016 if they stay true to their principles, moving farther right and amping up the obstruction of all things Obama even more. In Congress, Paul Ryan will be their pied piper and Eric Cantor will be their enforcer.
[More here: motherjones]
Right. I didn’t have time to blog on the most important days on the political calendar this year, and I don’t actually have time today either. But here are a few highlights on the US election from around the web.
Obamacare is officially no longer a dirty word, as Democratic President Barack Obama wins his reelection campaign and will serve a second term in the White House. It wasn’t just an affirmation of approval of the president and his policies, but a rejection of Republican extremism that took what could have been a victory for the GOP in the senate and instead kept it firmly in Democratic hands.
Democrats won nearly every one of their contested senate races, often with progressive female candidates as the victors. Massachussett’s Elizabeth Warren unseated Tea Party special election victor Scott Brown. And Tammy Baldwin will be the next senator from Wisconsin, making her the first lesbian senator. Even less progressive Democrats, such as Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill defeated Congressman Todd “legitimate rape” Akin and kept her seat. In fact, every single Democratic female senator up for reelection retained her seat.
[More on: rhrealitycheck]
It ain’t ‘alf dramatic but that’s part of the beautiful game. (I can call it beautiful now that Obama’s been re-elected. This could be a very different day otherwise.)
… about Mitt Romney and the GOP and the duplicity of their entire platform and their terrifying plans for the US and, most importantly to me, their misogyny and their war on women. Please, please, please, good people of the Americans, don’t let us down tomorrow. I am actually begging you…
Cat Castellanos says she’s in the demographic Mitt Romney needs to win over.
Did second debate sway the woman swing vote? Yahoo! News Watch the video Did second debate sway the woman swing vote?
Young, female and undecided CNN I’m the demographic Romney needs to win over: Young, female, undecided. My conservative side wants to like Mitt, but he’s not making it easy. Don’t tell me you’re out of work and understand unemployment when you are worth $200 million and post-grads …
Flirting with the female vote Boston Herald But keeping women’s votes is why a new Romney ad features a woman worried that Romney’s too “extreme, so I looked into it,” says an actual volunteer. “Turns out Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks abortion should be an option …
The accidental women’s voice Boston Globe She is a walking embodiment of a certain right-wing attitude — a view that’s enhanced, fairly or not, when certain people make references to “binders full of women.” And she’s a symbol of the unusual chance the Democrats have to win the women’s vote …
[More on: psawomenpolitics]
The single best description that one can make about Mitt Romney‘s foreign policy agenda to date is that, quite simply, it’s a critique, not a policy.
Rather than lay out a vision for American power, or even an alternative to the national security stewardship of Barack Obama, Romney has been content to simply say why he thinks the president has done a lousy job, without offering voters any sense of what he would do differently as commander-in-chief. Andhis speech at Virginia Military Institute Monday was pretty much more of the same.
Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a single substantive difference between what Romney is proposing as a candidate and Obama is actually doing as president. Consider, for example, Romney’s discussion of Iran – an area in which he has claimed there are significant contrasts between his views and those of the president:
“I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United Statesand our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf the region – and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.”
I dare you to try and identify any difference between this policy and the policy currently being implemented by President Obama. Aside from perhaps a slightly more punitive approach to sanctions, and a more direct reference to the use of force in the last sentence, the two candidate’s approaches are almost completely identical. Monday’s entire speech from Romney was like this.
[Read more: commentisfree]