It's not even that they got caught. Getting caught does not and will not matter.
What matters is, one would assume the GOP would prefer to avoid such... moronically Pyrrhic tactics.
Their memo states that they don't want rational debate. At this point, that is their call, and their problem. They may very well get rid of 'death panels' (which republicans originally proposed) and the public option.
The uninsured represent a sixth of the vote in this country.
It's pretty safe to say that the republicans have alienated blacks and, with the NRA forcing the party to consider Sotomayors' nomination a black mark, a good number of hispanics. A fourth of the vote.
Their pandering to the religious right has increased, at the expense of all others. Another fourth of the vote.
They already stand at odds with America's youth, as a rule.
Where are they going to get votes if they keep this up?
Points like this annoy me... even though I agree with every word.
In my ideal world politics wouldn't be about each party finding the policies that they calculate will appeal to the highest number of voters in key areas with minor ideological issues seperating the two. Instead it would be different parties putting forward their
view of what is right, a vision not modified to sound tempting to one key demographic... simply what they believe. If that view costs them millions of votes then so be it... but it is still their view and they should stand on it.
In the UK the current big (well... big on the blog-o-sphere) debate is based around Daniel Hannan... the mep (member of the EU parliament) who made news a while back for his excellent "the devalued prime-minister of a devalued government" attack on Gordon Brown... who appeared on Fox News recently talking about the failures of the NHS. The attack dogs were loosed on him, talking about how he'd betrayed the UK by talking bad about "our NHS" in the USA and not here (despite the fact he'd co-written a book that went into the very subject), how he wanted the US system (which for the record he doesn't) etc etc... and how he was costing the Conservatives over here votes... and risking his own seat in the upcoming EU elections. Nowhere did the serious debate that should have happened about whether our current system should be reformed or replaced.
Daniel Hannan is... for all his faults... a man of great principle... a man who had previously turned down personal advancement in favour of standing by his principles. He doesn't care if he's cost himself votes by saying what he believes to be the truth.
Yet that was all the (few) media outlets that covered it talked about...
Shouldn't we applaud a man who stands there and speaks out whether it will be popular or not? What makes it laughable is that the same commentators who decry Gordon Brown for not admitting there will have to be spending cuts in the unlikely event he gets another term... he's not saying it because it would be unpopular to say it...
(BTW it's quite funny watching the parties over here desperately try to take over the "We love the NHS" movement... and only criticse the "nasty" Republicans rather than Obama... who also says he doesn't want an NHS type system...)
And of course I know you'd never get the parties not pandering to the electorate... that's why it's a perfect world.
I'm pretty sure we're going to see the current Democratic party split into Progressive and Libertarian wings over the next decade or so, probably taking a good chunk of Republicans with them. Hopefully this means we get some sanity into the Libertarian party, but still.
If the Democrats were to split, I doubt it would be into Progressive and Libertarian schools. Bill Maher (I know, I know...) did an excellent (well, excellent by his standards...) piece entitled "The Democrats are the new Republicans" about the divisions within the Democratic party. There are the moderates and those who are more socialist/progressive (whatever politically loaded term we're using today)... and it's that division that would likely occur in any split. Since the reinvention of the Democratic party there's never been a strong Libertarian streak... off the top of my head you'd have to look to the turn of the last century and the Bourbon Democrats for an organised Libertarian type movement within the Democrats.
It would be the Republicans who are more likely to form the base of a "Libertarian Revolution" as they've never given up the rhetoric and their grass-roots are quite supportive (even if they never really put their weight behind a candidate with those ideas... the horrific "electability" concept is always brought up). Of course if the GOP split it would be a horrific mess... Evangelicals, Libertarians, all out Hawks, Buisness Interest types... all could go in very different directions.
And they'll never be sanity in the Libertarian party because the drugs issue will always arise... it's near impossible to construct a Libertarian arguement for the prohibition of drug taking... hell, I think you'd struggle to prevent drunk driving using Libertarian logic... and because people want to get votes (as above), they're not going to want to have people from their party terrifying the mainstream by talking about legalising heroin and crack, however logical the arguements are.
Also, if I remember correctly isn't the current Libertarian party already pretty deeply split about immigration... and the "crazy" ideas like abolishing the Federal Bank and half the federal taxes.