Northeast conservative wants divorce from GOP

1337256000000.cachedDavid Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, looks at the current state of affairs and wants a divorce, or at least a trial separation:

“Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities? Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the (belief that government is the problem) has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterized those cultures for decades.

It’s probably futile to try to change current Republicans. It’s smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. It’s smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.

The second GOP … would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power, but who don’t share the absolute anti-government story of the current GOP.

Would a coastal and Midwestern GOP sit easily with the Southern and Western one? No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have.

The question is: Who’s going to build a second GOP?”

I don’t have an answer for him. Maybe Chris Christie? Somehow, though, I have a feeling this is all going to end up being Barack Obama’s fault.

– Jay Bookman

563 comments Add your comment

Mick

January 29th, 2013
2:25 pm

Brooks doesn’t need another wing of the republican party for northeasterners, just become democrats – that solves that…

F. Sinkwich

January 29th, 2013
2:26 pm

I wouldn’t call Brooks a “conservative.”

Center-left, maybe.

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
2:26 pm

“I have a feeling this is going to end up being Barack Obama’s fault.”

what do you mean “going to end up”? He already said it was: “would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power”

Keep Up the Good Fight!

January 29th, 2013
2:33 pm

See the mistake was embracing the Tea Party…. if they had just said “We already have a holy grail over at Grover’s castle, you silly old government hating keep your hands off my medicare people” they could have just moved the GOP to the center and let the Tea Party go off on their own.

F. Sinkwich

January 29th, 2013
2:33 pm

“…but who don’t share the absolute anti-government story of the current GOP.”

Very telling. Notice the word “absolute.” He’s using an O’bozoism, accusing his opponents of a position they don’t have, then demonizing it to win the argument. Lib ilks and their MSM amen choir fall for that crap every time.

Soooooo, pray tell, who are these folks who are absolute anti-government? Name please.

Whatever

January 29th, 2013
2:34 pm

The federal government didn’t make the states. The states made the federal government.

We have too much centralized power no matter who is in charge be in Dem or Rep.

Jerome Horwitz

January 29th, 2013
2:35 pm

Play nice with your detractors. Heads will be exploding all over this blog. Vitrol will abound. How about “We don’t need them anyway”.

Aquagirl

January 29th, 2013
2:36 pm

The Party of NO has not hit rock bottom yet. They have a few more clowns left in the car.

RW-(the original)

January 29th, 2013
2:36 pm

Of Obama That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”

Sounds like quite the objective “conservative” to me…

/drive by

southpaw

January 29th, 2013
2:37 pm

A split into 2 Republican parties……..

Their respective nominees would probably be about as successful as the Democrats’ Stephen Douglas and John Breckenridge in 1860.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
2:38 pm

Bobo Brooks?

Talk about your target rich environments.

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
2:38 pm

“A split into 2 Republican parties……..”

He didn’t actually say that

the cat

January 29th, 2013
2:38 pm

David Brooks does not look like the average angry old white guy. Are we sure he was born here and maybe visited the tanning salon with Boner?

Brosephus™

January 29th, 2013
2:39 pm

The question is: Who’s going to build a second GOP?”

Not gonna happen. End of story.

Jerome Horwitz

January 29th, 2013
2:39 pm

Whatever – Please revisit your history books. Under the Articles of Confederation the states had the power and the federal government had little power. Didn’t work out so well. That’s why we now have a constitution binding the states.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

January 29th, 2013
2:40 pm

Their respective nominees would probably be about as successful as the Democrats’ Stephen Douglas and John Breckenridge in 1860.

Yes, that’s where I see this going as well. So much for a conservative majority to govern for the next 40 years… of course, gerrymandering and election rigging could still pull it out for them.

Jefferson

January 29th, 2013
2:41 pm

Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions unless you are a republican.

They will never learn.

Bob

January 29th, 2013
2:42 pm

“I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” With logic like this, who needs him ! Maybe Brooks should run a column in the fashion section.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
2:42 pm

he’ll be a very good president.

I guess those qualms about fitting in at the Applebee’s salad bar were somehow assuaged. Glad to hear.

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
2:43 pm

“They will never learn.”

Maybe because this is a contradiction: “Reasonable people” & “republican”?

Erwin's cat

January 29th, 2013
2:45 pm

The question is: Who’s going to build a second GOP?”

Christy, Jindal, Rubio Jeb, Huntsman…for starters

BRW

January 29th, 2013
2:52 pm

“Center-left, maybe.”

When you’re looking from so far out of sight from the right, everthing looks left of center.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
2:52 pm

That quote RW left here is from a 2009 TNR piece, by the way

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/the-courtship

(I see that places like Hotair and Newsbusters were quite irate about it.)

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
2:54 pm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/jan-june00/brooks_5-9.html

GWEN IFILL: So, David, I have to start by asking you the most obvious question of all: What the heck is a bobo?

DAVID BROOKS: A bobo is a bourgeois bohemian. These are the people who are thriving in the information age. They’re the people, you go into their homes and they’ve got these renovated kitchens that are the size of aircraft hangars, with plumbing. You know, you see the big sub- zero refrigerators and you open the door and you think, they could stick an in-law suite in the side. So these are the people who are really making a lot of money, and I spent the last few years going across upscale America looking at the people who are really thriving in the information age. And one of the things, the chief characteristic I noticed, was that they’ve smashed the old categories.

It used to be easy to tell a bourgeois from a bohemian. And the bourgeois were the straight-laced suburban types, went to church, worked in corporations. And the bohemians were the arty free spirits, the rebels. But if you look at upscale culture, at the upper middle classes, the people in Silicon Valley, you find they’ve smashed all the categories together. Some people seem half yuppie-bourgeois and half hippie- bohemian. And so if you take bourgeois and bohemian and you smash them together, you get the ugly phrase “bobo.”

GWEN IFILL: I would never call you “yuppie-bourgeois,” but I have to ask the question: Are you a bobo?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I consider myself a bobo with bad grades. If I had studied harder, I could have got into Harvard, and really made all the money and had the really big kitchen.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 29th, 2013
2:55 pm

E. Cat — “Christy, Jindal, Rubio Jeb, Huntsman…for starters”

Could be. The wife and I were discussing this just last weekend.

We speculated that the GOP might, over time, fracture into two or more smaller parties, but that the biggest pieces would be composed of what we called “business Republicans” (who don’t necessarily care so much about social issues like gay marriage) and “principle Republicans” (because we didn’t want to call them “Jebus Freak Republicans” or something like that) who would be more interested in social issues and faith-related matters.

There could be a couple of smaller, regional versions as well, like a more Libertarian variety up in New England or a more hard-line religious and ‘Constitutionalist’ sort around the Great Plains.

I don’t know about the *inevitability* of all this, though. I suspect that the GOP’s leaders would see any sort of fracturing as leading to a lot of short-term setbacks as Democrats take advantage of every opportunity to split the former red votes among all the possible reddish candidates in the field.

TrustObama

January 29th, 2013
2:55 pm

I thought deep distain for a central power is why this country was founded. There should always be a healthy distrust of government. It’s how to prevent corruption and the consolidation of power. It works especially well when the media doesn’t fawn over leaders like a love struck school girl. Perhaps the GOP wouldn’t seem out of touch if the media would actually question our leaders instead of writting a column every day a the direction of said leaders. What time is the DNC call today, Jay?

Paul

January 29th, 2013
2:56 pm

So the usurpers gain power and Brooks wants the originals to leave (southerners oughta like the sound of that).

I prefer the Jindal route: get rid of the stupids, let them form a party. But many already in office want to get reelected so they won’t speak truth to stupidity like Jindal did.

If Brooks thinks that’s the only chance for the Republican party, then they’re in worse shape than I thought. Then again, so are we all because of it.

southpaw

January 29th, 2013
2:56 pm

Doggone @2:38

Not those exact words, maybe, but look at what he did say.
“coastal and Midwestern GOP”
“Southern and Western one”

What would you call it?

Class of '98

January 29th, 2013
2:57 pm

I don’t see how anyone can call David Brooks a conservative.

Gee Jay, why don’t you ever copy and paste large swaths of text by George Will, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter?

Afraid to debate the viewpoint of true conservative?

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
2:58 pm

“I thought deep distain for a central power is why this country was founded”

You though wrong

alex

January 29th, 2013
2:58 pm

Divorce yet he wants to build a new GOP, Brooks is erudite and thoughtful, Jay take note if you ever want to escape your box. Most importantly brooks represents a lot on conservatives. Let’s hope this work, this country deserves a strong ,rational conservative voice..

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
2:59 pm

“What would you call it?”

I wouldn’t call it. That’s the problem of the Republicans. HE said “wing of” – which does mean a separate party.

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
3:00 pm

Oops! “which does mean a separate party” should be “which does NOT mean a separate party”

Class of '98

January 29th, 2013
3:01 pm

You’re a fraidy cat, Jay

That’s why i have to come here.

Erwin's cat

January 29th, 2013
3:04 pm

JHM
I don’t remember “principle republicans” until W brought in the evangelicals…before that they seemed all “business reps” that could give a crap about almost all social issues…fiscally conservative and socially absent

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:04 pm

Moreover, given all the antigovernment rhetoric, they will never trust these Republicans to reform cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Oh, gosh-darn it all to heck. That is such a pity.

Peadawg

January 29th, 2013
3:07 pm

“conservative wants divorce”

Wouldn’t be a first for the party of family values.

Regnad Kcin

January 29th, 2013
3:08 pm

“He’s using an O’bozoism, accusing his opponents of a position they don’t have, then demonizing it to win the argument. Lib ilks and their MSM amen choir fall for that crap every time”

…and my irony-meter overloaded… :D

TBS

January 29th, 2013
3:08 pm

“That’s why i have to come here.”

Two peas on a pod thing, huh?

Logical Dude

January 29th, 2013
3:09 pm

Quoting Brooks, from the link: “Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave a speech to the Republican National Committee calling on Republicans to stop being the stupid party, to stop insulting the intelligence of the American people.”

Judging by the posts on this board, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

I laid out 5 things yesterday that Republicans have problems with, and solutions for 3 of them.

Logical Dude:
a) Gerrymandering. (which gives districts 60% of any vote that they want)
b) against immigration reform (which is a loser with minorities)
c) against women having rights (which is a loser with women)
d) describing minorities as (insert thesaurus terms here for “moocher”)
e) against gay marriage (which is a loser with the younger voters)

I mean, just THREE very simple things will turn the GOP to the middle and get voters.

1) Immigration reform (Hey, Reagan did it, we can too!)
2) Women’s rights (Hey, abortions should be safe, legal and rare! and/or Restrict government interference in daily life)
3) Gay marriage (Hey, The government can legally have two people linked, not matter the gender. But we won’t stop the church from having any restrictions.)

I mean, these are basically Republican ideologies (less government, more freedom) that the Republicans just somehow can’t get themselves to get over.

Now, the other two are tougher and need a little more work. (Gerrymandering and being ignorant on those who need / use government assistance.)

Joe Hussein Mama

January 29th, 2013
3:10 pm

E. Cat — “JHM
I don’t remember “principle republicans” until W brought in the evangelicals…before that they seemed all “business reps” that could give a crap about almost all social issues…fiscally conservative and socially absent”

I’d argue that William F. Buckley could have been considered a “principle Republican” before the evangelicals got involved. Buckley’s whole argument centered around principle and its application. And I certainly don’t think one could call him “socially absent.”

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:11 pm

Gee Jay, why don’t you ever copy and paste large swaths of text by George Will, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter?

Presumably because some responsible columnists continue to observe Geneva Convention protocols against such things.

Regnad Kcin

January 29th, 2013
3:12 pm

“We speculated that the GOP might, over time, fracture into two or more smaller parties, but that the biggest pieces would be composed of what we called “business Republicans” (who don’t necessarily care so much about social issues like gay marriage) and “principle Republicans” (because we didn’t want to call them “Jebus Freak Republicans” or something like that) who would be more interested in social issues and faith-related matters”

How about “principle republicans,” and “principal republicans?” :)

Logical Dude

January 29th, 2013
3:12 pm

a “Second GOP” would defend the minority and the immigrant and understand their needs.
a “Second GOP” would defend the sanctity of gay marriage and support strong family values.
a “Second GOP” would defend the right of women to not have government interference with their bodies.

But we still haven’t seen that except from a very few people in the GOP, and they are being forced out of the house.

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
3:12 pm

“Presumably because some responsible columnists continue to observe Geneva Convention protocols against such things”

Or maybe he just gets laughing so hard he can’t get the quotes pasted and the commentary written.

TBS

January 29th, 2013
3:12 pm

Logical

While gerrymandering is certainly being used by Republicans at this time due to their wins at the state level, it is and has been a sword of the Democrat as well.

Lynnie Gal

January 29th, 2013
3:13 pm

David Brooks swings from rightwing cheerleader to logical-minded conservative so often that I think he’s bipolar. Which David Brooks will we see tomorrow?

St Simons - aboriginal

January 29th, 2013
3:14 pm

i’m building a 2nd gop, about 30 miles east of me. 1st one’s invited too

Doggone/GA

January 29th, 2013
3:14 pm

“While gerrymandering is certainly being used by Republicans at this time due to their wins at the state level, it is and has been a sword of the Democrat as well”

and has anyone said it wasn’t?

Joe Hussein Mama

January 29th, 2013
3:17 pm

C. 98 — “Gee Jay, why don’t you ever copy and paste large swaths of text by George Will, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter?”

Rhymes with ’spitheads.’

TBS

January 29th, 2013
3:18 pm

“and has anyone said it wasn’t?”

Don’t overheat. I was making a counter point to one of Logical’s points in his post.

If that is not ok with you, oh well.

Logical Dude

January 29th, 2013
3:18 pm

TBS: While gerrymandering is certainly being used by Republicans at this time due to their wins at the state level, it is and has been a sword of the Democrat as well.

Sure it has. What is your solution to remove partisanship from district drawing?

Logical Dude

January 29th, 2013
3:20 pm

TBS, any comments on the other points? Gerrymandering is the toughest one to handle, due to the past unfairness by both parties.

The other points are specific to GOP.

getalife

January 29th, 2013
3:20 pm

I read that last night and laughed.

Then I thought,

I don’t care about the gop so I did not comment.

Brosephus™

January 29th, 2013
3:21 pm

While gerrymandering is certainly being used by Republicans at this time due to their wins at the state level, it is and has been a sword of the Democrat as well.

True to a point. Dems have used it, but the current GOP has turned it into an art form.

Fully 131 of the 233 House Republicans represent districts that are more than 80 percent white. Not only have many of those members opposed measures beyond improving border security in the past, but there are also no natural pressure groups for immigration reform in their districts. The Democratic Caucus, which is largely unified in support of some sort of immigration-reform proposal, has just 31 members from such very white districts.

Meanwhile, at least 216 House Republicans come from districts that voted for Mitt Romney over President Obama in November. Jobs and the economy were the prevailing issues in these areas, but the voters in those districts also proved they weren’t turned off by a candidate who championed “self-deportation” as an immigration policy.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-immigration-reform-could-die-in-the-house-20130129

There’s also a chart to show the breakdown by percentages of non-Whites in the district. That chart kinda points to Jay’s topic yesterday but on a national level.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:22 pm

I’m probably going to regret posting this, but…

When we moved to metro ATL from metro NYC some years back, one difficult, but necessary bond that needed to be cut was my subscription to the NY Times. I didn’t think it was right to continue to read a daily paper from the “old” place, if I were to embrace this new home as my own.

I instead subscribed to the AJC and tried not to continually compare that publication to the much mightier Gray Lady–it just wasn’t fair, I thought. After all, the Times, it can afford to send all of those reporters all over the world, and it can hire the best editing/layout help, etc. The AJC, well, they try, really they do! and some of the stories are worthwhile, and there’s this Bookman fella who’s pretty insightful.

But there was one section that I couldn’t help making the comparison. It was the “Letters” page. I figure, there’s no papering over that one. I can’t somehow claim that it’s a question of reporting resources that makes the NYT’s readers exponentially more literate and thoughtful than the absolute morons (and I called them far worse) that find their screechy scribblings into the AJC.

And I gotta say, in my heart, I still pretty much still feel that way. If you look at the comments that follow Bobo Brooks’ piece, and then look at ours, it’s kind of embarassing.

The people there, they actually tend to use complete sentences! and post on the columnist’s topic!

And here, well… it yam what it yam, I guess.

Peadawg

January 29th, 2013
3:22 pm

“I don’t care about the gop so I did not comment.”

And yet you comment here everyday so obviously you do care.

:lol: points and laughs :lol:

TBS

January 29th, 2013
3:22 pm

“What is your solution to remove partisanship from district drawing?”

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Gerrymandering-Not-in-Iowa-1336319.php

Not sure if it is feasible in every state, however Iowa is doing something that seems to work.

Do I think it will happen on a mass scale across the US? not hardly

The blues want to stay as blue as possible and the reds want to stay as red as possible.

Grasshopper

January 29th, 2013
3:23 pm

Brooks has been complaining for the past few years about Republicans. I have never read him much; has he changed his tune since Bush? Or has he always been a fairly liberal conservative?

TBS

January 29th, 2013
3:25 pm

Logical

Without getting into specifics on disagreements, I have general agreement on the other items. I just wanted to point out the gerrymandering because while it is a Republican advantage at this time, both sides love that sword when it is in their hands.

Jay

January 29th, 2013
3:25 pm

“Gee Jay, why don’t you ever copy and paste large swaths of text by George Will, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter?”

I’ve cited all three from time to time. Here’s one I did on Coulter:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/02/18/1165601.php

Erwin's cat

January 29th, 2013
3:26 pm

And I certainly don’t think one could call him “socially absent.”

true dat…neither would I…Buckley’s influence is before i ever showed any interests in politics…i was “absent” before then

td

January 29th, 2013
3:26 pm

So funny to have progressives keep harping on Gerrymandering. Obama wins 51% of the vote (6 million more votes nationwide) and yet the Republicans have a 33 seat advantage in the US House of Reps.

In 1984, Reagan beat Mondale in 49 states, won the electoral vote 525 to 13 and won the popular vote by 54 million to 37 million or 17 million more votes nationwide and yet the Democrats held the house by a 269 to 166 margin.

Now let us talk which party is the King of Gerrymandering.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:29 pm

I thought Coulter must be wrong. I couldn’t see how there were still enough liberals around to threaten national security. Then I remembered that more than half the voters in the 2000 election had voted for Al Gore, so I guess we do have a major problem.

heh, heh, heh.

TBS

January 29th, 2013
3:29 pm

Bro

Republicans have without a doubt sharpened the gerrymandering sword. And of course with their let’s change the electoral process where we can’t win, but keep it the same where we can it is just getting worse.

getalife

January 29th, 2013
3:29 pm

Pea,

I still don’t care about the gop.

The stupid party does not care about me.

Logical Dude

January 29th, 2013
3:30 pm

td: So funny to have progressives keep harping on Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering was just one of my points. Do you have a response to the other points?

Grasshopper

January 29th, 2013
3:31 pm

I sort of agree with you Stands about the comments from NYT readers.

But their comments are heavily screened and that can be boring. You will rarely find short, pithy comments there either. Those readers love to listen to themselves; it gets to be sort of an echo chamber after 10 comments or so.

Peadawg

January 29th, 2013
3:32 pm

getalife
January 29th, 2013
3:29 pm

Then why do you continue to comment? :lol:

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:33 pm

yet the Democrats held the house by a 269 to 166 margin.

Sigh. Ok, I’ll ask.

td–do you have the overall popular vote totals for those Congressional races?

Brosephus™

January 29th, 2013
3:33 pm

Now let us talk which party is the King of Gerrymandering.

Currently, the king is the GOP. Reagan is dead, and 1984 was almost 30 years ago.

getalife

January 29th, 2013
3:34 pm

“Then why do you continue to comment?”

Freedum..

Jay

January 29th, 2013
3:34 pm

“In 1984, Reagan beat Mondale in 49 states, won the electoral vote 525 to 13 and won the popular vote by 54 million to 37 million or 17 million more votes nationwide and yet the Democrats held the house by a 269 to 166 margin.

Now let us talk which party is the King of Gerrymandering.”

But td, did Republican candidates for the House draw more votes than did Democratic candidates? How many votes Reagan got doesn’t matter.

In 2012, Democratic House candidates got millions more votes than did Republican House candidates, yet still got a minority of seats. Did that happen in 1984, only in reverse? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

Class of '98

January 29th, 2013
3:35 pm

David Brooks is a conservative like Michael Moore is a calorie-counter.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:35 pm

But their comments are heavily screened and that can be boring

It was a little livelier over at Nate Silver’s (I suspect the moderators provide more leeway at that page), but, point taken.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:36 pm

did Republican candidates for the House draw more votes than did Democratic candidates?

yeah, td. That too.

Morality?

January 29th, 2013
3:36 pm

There will be no second GOP. When Jammy Codder was crushed in a landslide by Ronald Reagen the same talk went around. The Dem Party was out of touch with the people. The Dem Party was DEAD. For a long time the Dem Party was down – way down. Like a roach under the door, even though you called Orkin, they are back and so will the Repub Party be back in due time. What will slap down the Dems? How about Obama’s Great “D” of 2013? Losing your job, your home, your family can change your mind about some one and there HAS to be a SCAPEGOAT. Just like “W” was the Repub scapegoat so shall Obama be. I don’t see any way out of this – however I do see the rise of a 3rd PARTY fed up with the PARTY LOYALTY of both sides. Both sides built this debt – both sides will feel defeat when you lose every thing and realize you were wrong you will return to LOYALTY for the USA (not the Fed gub’ment) and PARTY LOYALTY will vanish. The 3rd PARTY will bring us through the GREAT “D” of 2013 and in to a very different environment – for the better I hope.

Jay

January 29th, 2013
3:36 pm

And again, I’m not trying to say that Democrats are too noble to gerrymander. Not at all. As I’ve said before, the worst maps I’ve even seen were those produced by Georgia Democrats after the 2000 Census.

Fred ™

January 29th, 2013
3:36 pm

F. Sinkwich

January 29th, 2013
2:26 pm

I wouldn’t call Brooks a “conservative.”

Center-left, maybe.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Took you three minutes to get the RINO card. LOL According to Sinkie, this guys a Democrat, “center-left” not a a Republican at all……..

Brosephus™

January 29th, 2013
3:37 pm

td–do you have the overall popular vote totals for those Congressional races?

I’m not td by a long shot, but here’s wiki’s take on it since it was the first link that came up with a total.

1984 Congressional races

Dems: 42,799,060 votes 51.9%
GOP: 38,540,762 votes 46.8%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1984

getalife

January 29th, 2013
3:37 pm

First amendment.

Goldie

January 29th, 2013
3:38 pm

When you have your own Party members telling the Party that they need to stop “being stupid”, it’s time for D-I-V-O-R-C-E. It’s a painful process but those saner Party members will feel much better after it’s done!

:)

Fred ™

January 29th, 2013
3:38 pm

Gerrymandering? I’m still trying to figure out how my district got changed to Tom Price……….. You think the guy from Cobb County gives a tinkers damn about uf folks over here in Dekalb?

Regnad Kcin

January 29th, 2013
3:38 pm

Stands – I felt the same way about the LA Times. I’ve lived in liberal and conservatives areas, but always had access to a great newspaper (I once had a nasty two-newspaper-a-day habit). I was so disapointed when I moved to Atlanta. Fortunately, internet access became more available…

Peadawg

January 29th, 2013
3:39 pm

And the fact that you obviously care…or else you wouldn’t comment.

:lol:

td

January 29th, 2013
3:40 pm

Logical Dude

January 29th, 2013
3:30 pm

td: So funny to have progressives keep harping on Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering was just one of my points. Do you have a response to the other points?

I was not responding to you personally but to so many post I have seen that thinks Gerrymandering is such a horrible thing that they think was invented by Republicans and done just to hold down the will of the recent majority.

As for your other points:

Immigration: Marco Rubio is attempting to handle the issue in a way that does not support the continuation of breaking our laws while at the same time does not send them all back home.

Abortion: This is just a fundamental disagreement between people (both men and women) that think abortion is murder and those who think it is a reproductive right.

Gay marriage: Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right so it is left up to the states to decide just like the age people can marry and the degree of relationship one can be married. States do not universally recognize some of these marriages. This is a state issue.

Morality?

January 29th, 2013
3:41 pm

Bill Clinton “Dreamers dream and Schemers scheme and what is “is”. The crooks in D.C. are burning the midnight oil. Is there any way out from under this FISCAL CLIFF? So far no PLAN to save America.

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:41 pm

I once had a nasty two-newspaper-a-day habit

heh. I can relate. In my case, the special-ed second-tier paper was either the Star-Ledger, or the Record. And to be fair to the AJC, the NJ papers’ “Letters” sections tended to be over-represented by knuckle-dragging subliterates as well.

Regnad Kcin

January 29th, 2013
3:42 pm

“States do not universally recognize some of these marriages. This is a state issue’

In the same way that slavery is?

alex

January 29th, 2013
3:42 pm

@Jay, 2002, for Coulter, are you kidding–pathetic to use that as an example,simply admit to being a left wing idaelogue and be done with it. Goodness,Jay you are firmly biased, far left wing liberal,if you need someone to tell you, now it’s done….
“fairly LIBERAL conservative”, by that do you mean moderate .Brooks is a thoughtful conservative who typically considers both sides of an arguement before usually keeping to a conservative politacal philosophy. He can be watched on PBS, usually friday nights, jousting with paul Gigot.

Joe Hussein Mama

January 29th, 2013
3:43 pm

E. Cat — “true dat…neither would I…Buckley’s influence is before i ever showed any interests in politics…i was “absent” before then”

It was Buckley’s brand of ‘thinking conservatism’ that first pulled me in the GOP’s direction in the 1970s. I liked that he quit one of his early magazine jobs when he felt that the editorial climate was fostering anti-Semitism. I also liked that despite him having argued in favor of white supremacy in his National Review in the 50s, he *changed his mind* in the 60s, renounced the entire idea of racism and broke with the John Birchers.

I didn’t always agree with Buckley (and I’ve always had some key differences with him), but I liked the idea that he wasn’t always ‘married’ to a given argument, and that if conditions changed or his argument played out, that he’d back up, reconsider and then come up with a new argument. It was that *flexibility* he employed in his reasoning that really caught my notice. He wasn’t afraid to say ‘well, that was wrong’ or ‘I should think of that in a different way,’ and then he’d go DO it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Buckley#Views_on_modern-day_conservatism

To get a better idea of the man (and perhaps even a smidge of respect for him), I recommend reading one of his lighter works first; perhaps one of his Blackford Oakes spy novels or one of his travel books, and then give one of his nonfiction works a try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr._bibliography

Agree with him or disagree with him, one could never honestly call Buckley thoughtless, foolish or stupid.

Brosephus™

January 29th, 2013
3:44 pm

Also. the seat total was not 269 to 166 as a result of the 1984 election. That result was from the 1982 election. The balance after 1984 was 253 to 182.

The vote totals on wiki also match the totals from the Office of the Clerk of the US House.

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electioninfo/1984election.pdf

Recon 0311 2533

January 29th, 2013
3:44 pm

David Brooks is not a conservative.

Class of '98

January 29th, 2013
3:44 pm

Who appointed David Brooks the king of conservative thought anyway? The NYT? I find it damaging to the national political discourse that liberals call him a conservative with a straight face.

It’s just not true.

Morality?

January 29th, 2013
3:44 pm

Gerrymandering? That would be the work of the “Count” Tom Murphy and King Roy Barnes. – such arrogance ….. makes the current gub’ment of Georgia look like innocent lambs.

Morality?

January 29th, 2013
3:46 pm

Didn’t Hillary Clinton author “The Blair Witch Project”?

William Smith

January 29th, 2013
3:47 pm

Here we go again. Both parties dig in an nothing is ever accomplished. The left believes that any cut in entitlements would destroy the system. Cuts must be made but they can be done by reining in the increased cost of healthcare. This will be solved by give and take by both sides. The right believes that any gun control means the government is coming to get your gun. If you believe the government or anyone in the government has the power and desire to take your gun you better turn it in now. I don’t want to fight a armored unit with U. S. Army troops with my rifle. This problem also can be solved by give and take on both sides. All Americans need to work together with opens minds or we will never solve our problems.

clem

January 29th, 2013
3:47 pm

keep the republican brand for sane folks; stupid party for the others

stands for decibels

January 29th, 2013
3:48 pm

for Coulter, are you kidding–pathetic to use that as an example

Preach, brother. Jay is obviously terrified of Coultergeist and the Doughy Pantload.

Regnad Kcin

January 29th, 2013
3:48 pm

“David Brooks is not a conservative”

I do not think that word means what you think it means…