GOP Will 'Descend Into A Brawl' Upon Taking Power: Top Strategist

[onehandle]

With political prognosticators increasingly convinced of a Republican takeover of Congress this fall, the highest ranks of the GOP have done their best to present a united front to voters.

In successive interviews this week, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) -- the caucus member seen as his philosophical antagonist -- both stressed that there won't be a battle for the leader's post in the next congressional session.

"First of all, I already have the votes to be re-elected as Republican leader, and will be re-elected," McConnell told ABC's "Top Line." Bolstering that claim, DeMint told the National Review that same day that he wouldn't challenge the Kentucky Republican in a leadership contest.

Not everyone, however, is sold on the idea that electoral gains will smooth the frictions inside the GOP. "Right now, there is no coherent philosophy leading the GOP establishment other than anti-Obamaism," said Craig Shirley, a longtime party strategist. "And while that may be an effective organizing theme for a political party whose 'War Room' mentality has dominated it for the past ten years, it is hardly a governing set of principles."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/03/gop-will-descend-into-a-b_n_705047.html

[jpak]

1. They are confident democrats will stay home this fall

perhaps they are right

[JuniperLea]

2. Pft...

No way. Don't start believing their bullshit now!

[Ozymanithrax]

3. If Democrats are monumentally stupid enough to stay home, then we deserve...

Republicans in charge.

[trayfoot]

4. AMEN!

[MrTriumph]

5. Democrats are not to blame for the leadership failures

Be kind. rank & file Democrats did their duty 2 years ago. Democrats were promised much.

The Democratic leadership, despite a huge majority in Congress, failed to provide a health care bill worth bragging about. Accountability is still a meaningless word in Washington. And the same Wall Street fools that destroyed the economy were put in charge of fixing it.

Don't blame rank & file Democrats.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. I don't blame voters for the result of legislation.

But if they don't vote, they are monumentally stupid and deserve whatever the Republicans do, up to and including the Republican wetdream of ending Social Security. As a matter of fact, if they don't vote for Democrats in the ballot box, they are voting for Republicans with their ass. Clearly, they want Republicans in charge, they are just too cowardly to actually vote for them.

[jillan]

7. Sometimes you vote to vote against someone. Democrats who don't vote

against Republicans are giving that repug one more vote.

I'm voting for Rodney Glassman, dem candidate for Senate, Az - who was not my choice for Senate because I am voting against John McCain. It's not that I am excited by Glassman, or that I will think he will be an amazing Senator - I just can't stand the thought of McCain getting another term.
Now if Dougherty would've won the nomination, I would be thrilled voting for him.

You can't always be thrilled with the candidates that are running...sometimes you just have to vote against a candidate because of what they stand for.

[provis99]

8. is that you, Rahm?

[Ozymanithrax]

11. No but you must be Sarah Palin. n/t

[Joe Bacon]

6. The Republicans ARE unified!

Make no mistake about it. If they get control of the House, they WILL impeach Obama.

[denimgirly]

10. Tough to distinguish the Parties -- No wonder Democrats will Stay Home.

Republicans smell blood and its no surprise.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Only monumentally stupid Democrats will stay at home. n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

13. Well duh, parties tend to disagree more in congress when they have more members to disagree with

For all our anger and disappointment over so many democrats splitting with the party on various issues, that kind of stuff is normal when you have a big majority like we do. The more members you have the more moderates you're going to have who will at times piss off their party with their different stances on issues.

Heck, Demint basically even acknowledged that when he said a year or two ago that he'd rather have a minority of 30 'true' conservatives rather then a majority of a bunch of RINO's. When your party gets deep in a hole in one house of congress your minority will usually be more 'pure' and agree on more things then the majority party.

Still, it's much better to have a majority and disagreeing members then it is to have a near powerless minority of 'pure' members.

[Catshrink]

14. The aren't interested in governing so why need a set of governing principles?

[craigmatic]

15. It would be fun to see them implode. But what would really happen is

that we'd have a situation like we had from 2002-2006 when the moderate repubs were rolled by their leadership into voting for pieces of legislation. The moderates went along and they paid for it in the elections of 2006. It might be a little better than that considering there's no hard right administration forcing their hand like bush and cheney did. Lincoln Chaffee actually wrote a pretty good book about it. They had a moderate caucus going on but cheney broke it up.