GOP dilemma: how to take a position when doing so will expose your incoherence

the Republicans have done such a great job of spraying nonsense all over the place that as we get closer to a real vote, they're stuck in an awkward position. They've been for nothiong except "No" for so long, that they're 1) afraid to commit to a position because 2) they have no position.

They want to put forth some, you know.... ideas. But putting forth ideas means having them. Having ideas means taking a stand on an issue. That is quite different than the current practice of saying "We're for whatever makes the black guy look bad, so whatever he says is good, we think it's socialism and he's probably a Kenyan Nazi. Or something. Boo."

So they've now come up with a reason NOT to put out any ideas:

Politico

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor wants a document, akin to Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, that identifies specific pieces of legislation Republicans could pass if they win back the House. He thinks Republicans should “put up or shut up,” an aide close to the process said. So does Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the House Republican Conference chairman. The party doesn’t need “sloganeering,” someone familiar with his thinking said.

....But Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who is leading the effort to craft the document, says that including specific legislation in the contract would smack of the backroom deals the GOP accuses Democrats of making, so “you won’t see it written out.”

The other issue with "stands" and "ideas" is that putting out more than one will display the fundamental incoherence of their positions.

On the topic of bank reform, how do you choose to run on the standard GOP practice of being anti-regulation when doing so leaves us open to another meltdown, AND reminds people that it was largely your policies that allowed the meltdown to happen in the first place?

Steve Benen
Sen. Scott Brown (R–Mass.) explaining that he can't support financial reform because it's "going to be an extra layer of regulation." Which is like saying that you don't want better brakes on your car because "they're going to slow me down." And when the reporter followed up to ask what he wanted fixed in the current bill, he just got completely flummoxed: "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed?" he said. "I mean, you know, tell me. And then I'll get a team and go fix it.''

Are people really considering voting for them? They've said "we're for nothing in particular, but we're against what Obama is doing because he's (insert racially-tinged, politically-inaccurate, stubbornly-dumb, hypocritical epithet here).

(via Mother Jones)