[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: The future of the GOP (click to view)
Date: March 20, 2009
The Republican Party in the post-Bush-McCain-Palin era seems to be suffering from a decided lack of leadership these days. As a result, a lot of characters have been coming out of the woodwork lately, each claiming to represent the true heart of the beleaguered party in some unique way.

They include:

Michael Steele, the newly-minted chairman of the Republican National Committee. As a funny, moderate African-American known for his media savvy, many initially had high hopes that'd bring a breath of fresh air into the party. Unfortunately, as the weeks progress he's increasingly earning a reputation of a bit of a bumbling bonehead who doesn't really know what he's talking about a good percentage of the time. Like recently, when he cited the fact that Greenland is no longer green as evidence that the planet is getting colder, not warmer.

Rush Limbaugh, the ultimate conservative talking-head. Emblematic of the so-called "angry right," Rush recently quipped that he hoped Obama would "fail," and was a big opponent of the president's stimulus package. Is hoping the economy, war, and country in general collapse into chaos out of spite for the White House a viable ideological strategy for the next four years? Some clearly do, others think Rush needs to go back to his pills.

Bobby Jindal, another great non-white hope for the Republicans. Governor Jindal is a fairly average politician who happens to have a slightly interesting personal biography, so needless to say the party establishment now declares him to be one of the most fascinating men in America today. His first big moment in the national spotlight was a flop, however. Given the task of offering a televised rebuttal to President Obama's address to Congress, Jindal spoke to America like an over-Prozac'd Mr. Rogers instructing the special needs class how to use fingerpaints.

Jonathan Krohn, a 14-year-old who is on TV a lot for some reason. Krohn is a little homeschooled weirdo who, like most homeschooled kids I've ever known, is incredibly socially awkward and maladjusted. But he also likes talking about conservatism, so Republicans have declared him the Next Big Thing. So I'm sure he'll be on "Fox and Friends" a lot in the near future, slurring about Ronald Reagan and stem cells and other matters it is physically impossible for him to understand.

[Sucros]

Remember when people thought it'd be Palin?

Good times...

[ridenrain]

Where's the bio on this Side-Show Bob fellow.
I like the cut of his jib.

[Jabrwock]

Meh, as much as it amuses me to see the Reps flounder, every party has their period of uncertainty and general headless-chicken-behavior when they lose massive political capital (they did lose house, senate, and presidency, all in 2 years). Look at the Liberals. They went from Chretien/Martin... to Dion.

They'll continue to flounder probably for another year or so. At the very least.

[bootlegga]

The GOP has a future? Go figure...

[Scape]

It's called the filibuster.

[Sapio]

I only see one Republican on TV anymore, and he is not so popular around here.

[Pseudonym]

Don't bring that Ron Paul craziness in here!

[Taospark]

The Republican Party obviously has another charistmatic learned figure in its ranks somehwere or at least another Ronald Reagan. Its real problem is that it doesn't reward the loyal party members; only the most vocally outspoken which is exactly why they've manufactured their own dearth of leadership.

[Psudo]

JJ via Newsbot wrote:

Rush recently quipped that he hoped Obama would “fail,”

It wasn't a quip, really. He wants Obama's policies, which he believes are destructive, to fail. It's more like "I wish Obama would fail or change his politics." Except the latter is considered too far-fetched to be reasonable.

Too bad I won't be 35 in 2012. =]

[martin14]

Jabrwock wrote:

Meh, as much as it amuses me to see the Reps flounder, every party has their period of uncertainty and general headless-chicken-behavior when they lose massive political capital (they did lose house, senate, and presidency, all in 2 years). Look at the Liberals. They went from Chretien/Martin... to Dion.

They'll continue to flounder probably for another year or so. At the very least.

I agree, its tough to find your way after getting well thumped.
I hope the Republicans can find someone to take them a bit closer to the center,
if they don't, the far right wing will get them thumped again.
Arnie got any kids ?

[Psudo]

As a long-time Republican, I'd like to see more rationality and intelligence in the next generation of Republican leadership, but that's not necessarily "closer to the center". From my perspective, both Bushes were "closer to the center" than Reagan but neither was a better Republican leader. And though Reagan was rarely the actual mind behind his policies, on average he adopted very intelligent positions and policies that did good things for the world, the country, and the party. The center isn't always the right answer.

[CaliShark]

I agree with Psudo, although I shan't besmirch his image by attributing my opinions to him.

The Centrist Fallacy is a big thing today, with everyone rushing towards the center because it has to be the better of both ideologies. Republicans seem to do better when they stick to the "small-government, strong America" platform. The unintelligible mishmash shown by the Republican Candidates in the last election did nothing but hurt their chances.

Realistically, Obama's election, with it's chants of "Yes We Can!" and intangible campaign stances (During the election season I could ask 10 Obama supporters at the local college, many of them involved in campaigning, what he stood for and get 10 different answers) has only shown that the Democrats were able to create their own Ronald Reagan: A candidate concentrating on broad policy statements and good sound bites (The fact that he went on to do good things has nothing to do with his campaigning) . Obama was, and is still to a certain extent, merely a cipher which people project their own policies into.

It appears the Republicans need a good-natured, soft-edged cipher of their own.

[Sapio]

Pseudonym wrote:

Don't bring that Ron Paul craziness in here!

Like I said, not to popular here.

[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

As a long-time Republican, I'd like to see more rationality and intelligence in the next generation of Republican leadership, but that's not necessarily "closer to the center". From my perspective, both Bushes were "closer to the center" than Reagan but neither was a better Republican leader. And though Reagan was rarely the actual mind behind his policies, on average he adopted very intelligent positions and policies that did good things for the world, the country, and the party. The center isn't always the right answer.

In other words you want an intelligent moderate voice able to back up his opinions?