quote:Besides, I think that the hard-core elements of the Republican Party believe that they *can* win general elections and build majorities by becoming more conservative and more exclusive. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Gov. Sanford are seen as the future of the Republican Party, whereas moderates like Charlie Crist, Colin Powell, and others are seen to be weak and out of touch. All of which means that I could see scenarios where Steele and other conservative groups attack Sens. Collins and Snowe in an attempt to defeat them, and I don't think it matters what the electorate looks like or what the reality of the situation is at the time.
Jindal isn't in the same camp as Palin. I'm not even sure Sanford is, but he's a LOT closer.
The future of the party is going to be a fight between Palin Republicans and Pawlenty Republicans. Pawlenty is more moderate, and at the very least, is a lot more inclusive in his language and is less fire breathing, like Charlie Crist and other moderates, but they aren't being touted by the party leadership right now, they're lying low, mostly because half of them want to run for president in three years. The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
I think a lot of them realize this is coming.
I think a lot of them have no clue as to what's in store.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see Gov Palin as the standard bearer for the hard right. She's more the leader of the "party of stupid" wing of the Republican party who are defined a lot more by what they are against and personal loyalty than what their principles are.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she is, and I think the hard right and the "party of stupid" have a significant amount of overlap at the moment.
She's branded herself as the leader of the far right anti-gay pro-family (whatever the hell that means) bibles, bunting and apple pie "real America" Republican that make up the shock troops of the Republican party, and the troops are overwhelmingly responding to her. We saw it during the election when crowds came out to see her more than for McCain, who was relegated to side show attraction at combined campaign events, and we see it at the storm of overflowing events that she speaks at, and those events are far right issues.
If she isn't, who is? No one else is claiming the mantle, and no one else has the popularity she's attained from speaking to far right issues.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The far right issues she represents and gets huge responses for are largely "anti-" issues or empty jingoism. I think that the hard right wing of the Republican party has more intellectual depth than Gov. Palin and her followers.
I'm not saying that there is a standard bearer for this group right now, but I think it is underestimating them to say that they are behind Gov Palin.
But, thinking about it, this might be due to differing definitions of who makes up the hard right. I mean, if you're talking about the Evangelical Christians, than, yeah, you're right, but for me, the Evangelical Christians, like say Ron, are primarily "party of the stupid" Republicans whereas a William Buckley would be what I would consider a hard right conservative.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Far Right, as the party exists currently and not 20 years ago, consists of those "anti" groups laced with jingoistic rhetoric. They don't get thousands of people fired up anymore talking about personal liberty and fiscal responsibility. They haven't been ruled by those people for a long time.
Frankly, at this point I'd call those conservatives moderates, compared to what the radicals of the party are espousing, they look downright tame. I think there are two parties in there. One of them really is about fiscal conservatism, personal freedoms and strong national defense, and then there's the party of personal control, that wants to tell you what you can and can't do, what religion and language we all have to be and speak, etc. I think that second group is the hard right, and I think they're an awful lot louder than the other group, and I think Palin is their standard bearer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read somewhere that there are three wings of the Republican party: the fundamentalist theocons, the wannabe-Machiavelli neocons, and the few business interests who profit from Republican policies. To a lesser extent there are paleocons, but they're almost completely marginalized -- the Republican party in no way stands for smaller government, state rights, or a more reserved foreign policy.
Palin is queen of the theocons, god bless their fat, dumb masses. Neocons certainly use them for votes, but are usually more secular (and Jewish) and aim the lumbering herd of fundamentalists at something they believe will support American global dominance -- Israel as a military outpost, or the Middle East domino theory. Unfortunately, they're also morons. This party's best represented by Rove, now that Rumsfeld and Cheney are more or less out of the politics game. Neocon leaders tend to be cunning, if not smart; neoconservative voters tend to have very small penises.
Given the complete economic collapse ushered in by dumb-as-rocks Republican free market advocates, I doubt many in the private sector can still justify backing Republicans. Unless they directly profit from Republican stupidity on certain issues -- for example, oil companies enjoy enormous profits by Republican denials of science and impositions on progressive energy policy -- I think the private sector would prefer not to have Republicans in charge.
Who's left in the party besides fundamentalists and neoconservative weenies?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are smaller government, semi-libertarian Republicans out there. I think many of them have no home since the party linked up with the "theocons" but have always voted republican. I think now is as good time as any for the Libertarians as a party to make a move.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
Perhaps in the 2016 presidential election. The 2012 presidential election will have a different tenor. Unless Obama becomes very unpopular by 2012 (which is possible but not likely), the republicans have little chance of winning the 2012 election. Remember that neither Clinton nor Bush were particularly popular going into their second election and yet they still won. The incumbent has a very strong advantage in the US system, that is at least in part why we have a 2 term limit for President, People will have to be very unhappy with Obama for the republican to have a reasonable chance of winning in 2012 and any candidate who is defeated in the 2012 presidential election is unlikely to get a second chance in 2016. That will be the end of his/her presidential aspirations. Savvy politicians will recognize this and likely stay out of the fray or drop out early in the primary season.
This could lead to some very weird internal politics in the republican party, particularly if there is a serious fight for ideological control of the party. The hard core right could throw their weight behind a moderate candidate with the hope that his/her resounding defeat would give leverage to the far right in the next election cycle (or vice versa). I could definitely see moderates supporting Sarah Palin in 2012 if they think Obama has it sewn up. This would have the double advantage of putting a death knell in her Presidential aspirations and provide strong leverage for a moderate candidate in 2016.
One thing I've learned from having lived in Utah, is that republican politics can be very strange.
At any rate, I don't see either the far right or the moderate wing of the republican party making any serious moves to take control of the party until the 2014 midterm elections. I could be wrong. It seems more and more like the far right wing of the republican part is so completely out of touch with reality that they may believe they can win the Presidency in 2012 even if the polls say Obama has a 90% popularity rating.
[ April 29, 2009, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
He got what he was coming by not bowing down to the masses and voting against the stimulus bill.
He is a bum for bowing down to the masses and changing parties.
When Rove left I thought we might see the end of Brutish Politics from the Republicans. That's where they keep their people in line by threatening revenge. Here they sought vengeance against Specter by backing his opponent, and come off being slapped around by his defection.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
Perhaps in the 2016 presidential election. The 2012 presidential election will have a different tenor. Unless Obama becomes very unpopular by 2012 (which is possible but not likely), the republicans have little chance of winning the 2012 election. Remember that neither Clinton nor Bush were particularly popular going into their second election and yet they still won. The incumbent has a very strong advantage in out system, that is at least in part why we have a 2 term limit for President, People will have to be very unhappy with Obama for the republican to have a reasonable chance of winning the 2012 election and any candidate who is defeated in the 2012 presidential election is unlikely to get a second chance in 2016. That will be the end of his/her presidential aspirations. Savvy politicians will recognize this and likely stay out of the fray or drop out early in the primary season.
This could lead to some very weird internal politics in the republican party, particularly if there is a serious fight for ideological control of the party. The hard core right could throw their weight behind a moderate candidate with the hope that his/her resounding defeat would give leverage to the far right in the next election cycle (or vice versa). One thing I've learned from having lived in Utah, is that republican politics can be very strange.
I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis. If the Democrats had put up someone with a pulse in 2004, Bush would have lost. But regardless, so much can happen in the next three years that it'd be wild speculation to try and assume who will and won't run, but I think the big fight will be 2012, not 2016. They aren't going to wait 8 years to fight this out. Obama's popularity could wildly fluctuate. He's doing a lot of stuff right now, and the downside of doing so much so fast is that it has three years to incubate now, and Republicans will be on hand to evaluate how well it did or didn't work, and people don't really have long term thinking in place, unless Obama can manage to retrain the American people to think in the next three years (more power to him). 2012 is by no means assured for Obama, he still has a ton of obstacles to clear.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis.
Why? We have over 200 years of history demonstrating that the incumbent has a very strong advantage. I think that lesson is not lost on any savvy politician. Certainly that equation will be different if Obama is highly unpopular, I just don't think that is going to happen unless there is some water shed event that causes people to turn against him. So unless we have another hostage crisis or battle with double digit inflation, I think the strongest republican candidates won't want to risk their careers challenging Obama. The 2010 and 2014 elections are much more likely to be real battlegrounds for republican ideology than the 2012 election.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's quite the echo chamber since I've been absent. Specter switched back because he knew he was going to lose the Republican primary. Like many politicians, it's more about keeping power than standing for anything. Realizing he is going to lose as a Rep and knowing the power of one more vote for the Dems, giving them an unfillibusterable majority, he is leveraging his position for future power. He's a political hack, it's about power not representing the voters who sent him there. If he was representative of the R's who elected him, he wouldn't have anything to worry about. By switching sides, he'll get plenty of D campaign dollars and ear mark goodies.
Funny to hear people take the position that R's are the "anti" party. The other side is still playing the anit-Bush angle. The GOP has lost its way, the conservatives are not happy with Democrat light for a party. The GOP has simply become the better of two evils for conservatives. I held my nose and voted for McCain. Not very good at mobilizing the base.
Palin is not the figure head but the lib media would like her to be. No different than how they've tried to cast Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party. The treatment of Palin was sexist and would never have been tolerated had she been a liberal. Right now the leader of the republican party is a conservative black man but the libs want you to look at Palin instead of Steele. Easier to marginalize.
I like how a CBS poll found Obama's disapproval rating among black to be 0%. What about Michael Steele or the conservative blacks I sit next to at work?
I absolutely agree that the majority of R's are moderate and D's liberal. JFK would be a right wing nut job today.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The future of the party is going to be a fight between Palin Republicans and Pawlenty Republicans. Pawlenty is more moderate, and at the very least, is a lot more inclusive in his language and is less fire breathing, like Charlie Crist and other moderates, but they aren't being touted by the party leadership right now, they're lying low, mostly because half of them want to run for president in three years. The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
Agreed. I think you touched on the divide that will define that election, the divide between Pawlenty and Palin and the parts of the Republican Party that they represent, but the greater divide will be between "real" America and European socialist America, the same divide that Republicans tried during the Great Depression. We really don't learn from our past do we...
quote:I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis. If the Democrats had put up someone with a pulse in 2004, Bush would have lost. But regardless, so much can happen in the next three years that it'd be wild speculation to try and assume who will and won't run, but I think the big fight will be 2012, not 2016. They aren't going to wait 8 years to fight this out. Obama's popularity could wildly fluctuate. He's doing a lot of stuff right now, and the downside of doing so much so fast is that it has three years to incubate now, and Republicans will be on hand to evaluate how well it did or didn't work, and people don't really have long term thinking in place, unless Obama can manage to retrain the American people to think in the next three years (more power to him). 2012 is by no means assured for Obama, he still has a ton of obstacles to clear.
Actually, I think 2010 is much more important that 2012 or even 2016 (though I agree it is way to early for 2012) because if the Republicans find that they don't suffer losses by embracing extreme conservative ideas, then moderates like Pawlenty will have no shot against Sarah Palin, who will gleefully point to 2010 as proof that the answer to the conundrum is not to go moderate, but even more conservative. 2010 will be the election that defines the Republican party, I believe.
I think the thing you have to look at when defining the wings of the Republican party is the divide between those who are angry and those who aren't. There is a wing of the Republican party that is highly conservative, authoritative, and angry about the liberal elite media and the minority status they now enjoy. These are the conservatives that have no interest in compromise or negotiation, they hate liberals and have become fanatics about defeating liberal ideology and not helping America. This is the part of the party led by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. The other two wings of the Republican party consist of either moderate conservatives or moderate Republicans, but I think that hatred from that extreme wing of the Republican party cannot be overlooked because I think it has come to define them. That's why I argued that the litmus test for a national Republican party will have to be whether they can banish Limbaugh and Hannity from their own party, without apologizing.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If the Democrats had put up someone with a pulse in 2004, Bush would have lost.
Kerry was a fairly insipid candidate, no question about it. Still, he didn't lose by all that much. I think if he had had someone in his camp as smart as Carville or Rove to advise him on how to fight back against the Swift Boat ads, he might have prevailed.
Or if that stupid forged letter about Bush's military service hadn't been trotted out, making it dangerous to for anyone to raise any questions about the issue.
Or if Osama bin Laden hadn't released another message just before the election.
(sigh) Hindsight. Honestly, I'd much rather have Obama as president than Kerry, though.
I agree that it may be a little early to make big predictions about 2012. Bush I looked unassailable after Desert Storm, and then the economy came along and blindsided him. If things remain more or less in their current state- Obama remains popular, and largely seems to be handling new crises with aplomb- then the GOP would have to field one heck of a candidate, as an attack on a popular president is as likely to generate backlash as votes.
But a lot could happen. The world economy could continue to worsen, China could decide to re-engineer the financial model that's been issuing the United States credit, Iraq could tailspin in the wake of withdrawal, Pakistan and India could have another surge in hostilities. Three and a half years is a long time.
I'll admit that, at present, I don't see a lot of signs that the GOP won't continue to implode.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: That's why I argued that the litmus test for a national Republican party will have to be whether they can banish Limbaugh and Hannity from their own party, without apologizing.
Thus far, no dice. Kind of sad.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis.
Why? We have over 200 years of history demonstrating that the incumbent has a very strong advantage. I think that lesson is not lost on any savvy politician. Certainly that equation will be different if Obama is highly unpopular, I just don't think that is going to happen unless there is some water shed event that causes people to turn against him. So unless we have another hostage crisis or battle with double digit inflation, I think the strongest republican candidates won't want to risk their careers challenging Obama. The 2010 and 2014 elections are much more likely to be real battlegrounds for republican ideology than the 2012 election.
History has shown that incumbents only have the advantage when they are popular.
My point, was that making estimations as to Obama's popularity after only three months is useless. So many things can happen, so many things WILL happen, that make any guess as to his popularity in three years meaningless. Who knows what mistakes he'll make? What world events will happen? What national events? What the stock market will do? What the economy will do? What legislation will and won't get passed and what the effects will be?
Too many variables. Too little time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
is false. Specter failed the litmus test for the Repulican party when he voted for the $3+trillion stimulus package.
I'm laughing a little bit, here.
Okay, just — just for a moment, observe this.
The idea that Specter "fails the litmus test for the Republican party" is like admitting how extremely to the right the GOP has shifted in terms of what it will tolerate.
It's actually exactly what I was talking about.
He votes for the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). As Glenn Greenwald noted, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues all through the Bush years.
Yet, in DarkKnight's eyes, he is waved away as being someone who cannot pass as a republican.
It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
This and the sinecure issue shows a GOP that has become ruled by intransigent minorities hellbent on preserving awful social policy to the point that they will eat their own and cede the moderate middle to the Democratic party before they ever really figure out what they're doing to themselves.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:History has shown that incumbents only have the advantage when they are popular.
Clinton and G.W. Bush were not particularly popular. In 2004, Bush was running about a bit below 50% approval rating.
In the past century, 4 incumbent Presidents have failed to win re-election. Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush. There are several commonalities among the four including economic troubles as well as significant challenges from within their own parties. G.H.W Bush is some what unique in that the election outcome was likely influenced by third party candidate Ross Perot.
Certainly the incumbent advantage is insufficient to make up for being very unpopular (Herbert Hoover) but baring that kind of strong unpopularity, the advantage seems to exist even for presidents who are closer to neutral (Clinton and Bush).
I think its safe to say that unless there is some watershed event that turns people against Obama, he will be hard to beat in 2012. Such a watershed event isn't impossible but I think its highly unlikely that issue will be the economy, which makes it overall very unlikely. Obama has the advantage that the economy collapsed prior to his election and as much as the Republicans would like America to forget that it seems unlikely. The overwhelming majority of Americans think inadequate government regulation is largely responsible for the current economic crisis. Alan Greenspan even admitted this. So even if the economy shows no improvement over the next 4 years, the republican platform of letting the market regulate itself will be very hard to sell.
It's also worth noting that as evidenced in the recent elections, the incumbent advantage is something of a self fulfilling prophecy. Strong candidates have often opted out of the race because they know they have little chance of winning their parties nomination a second time if they loose one general election. Savvy politicians consider running against an even marginally popular incumbent it too big a gamble and prefer to wait for an open race.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The fate of the United States now rests in the hands... of Al Franken.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The fate of the United States now rests in the hands... of Al Franken.
Why does that seem to warrant a slow motion "Noooooooooo...", possibly with a leap in front of a fireball?
Actually, I like Franklin. He's smart, he's willing to do research, and he seems to have examined his beliefs to come out where he is. My big concerns about him are a) his lack of experience (of course) and b) that some of the numbers he's come up with in his books regarding Social Security seem to be a little fudged. I'm not saying he did so intentionally; I'm just saying the Baby Boom retirement is a big thing to overlook in a long-term prognosis.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People, including Rush, were upset that the conservative viewpoint is incendiary, ugly, and disgusting. To say otherwise would swerve away from the left's mantra of Rush is just disgusting because he is a conservative and it is right and true to hate conservatives.
More accurately, people, including Rush, were upset that Rush's specific style of broadcasting is incendiary, ugly, and disgusting. Steele never criticized conservatism, not once. You don't get to start from Rush = conservatism and then base your statements on that.
The treatment of Palin was sexist and would never have been tolerated had she been a liberal.
The treatment of Palin was because she was plainly unqualified for the job. Dan Quayle received far more ridicule (deservedly) than she ever did. Then again, she's still in office so she still has a chance to catch up.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republican Party litmus tests these days seem to be gay marriage, abortion, Christianity, less taxes for the rich, immigration, torture, and voting down anything Obama does. (I say "seems to" because those are the only issues that ever get air time. Most Republicans I know are not terribly concerned about most of these, and they come down on the wrong side on others according to right-wing talk radio)
I suggest that the GOP look back to Reagan for some tips on bringing those litmus tests back to previous conservative concerns:
quote:We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty. As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.
(Quoted by Olympia Snowe in her op-ed on Spectre's jump.)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specter switched, malanthrop, cuz the RepublicanNationalCommittee targeted him for removal by sending in tons of out-of-state money and political organizers to his opponent. This is not the first time that the national party has kamikazeed one of their own for failure to goosestep along with the cadre. Well before Jeffords, they launched a vicious smear campaign against LowellWeicker during the primary, lost, then heavily backed JoeLieberman's successful bid to unseat him in the general election. Which is why Lieberman has always been a lapdog for his Republican masters.
BTW: Democrat Spectre voted against the budget along with three other Democratic senators, plus two more who deliberately failed to vote in favor. So much for the nonsense about a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.
quote: Believe me, that is not why Rush is disgusting.
Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
Oh, Samp you are just the cutest thing aren't you? I guess the same holds true for those big tent Democrats who expelled Liberman? Please tell me where I have mocked or derded Specter. You can't. As far as disowning or kicking out, are you implying that to vote for someone other than the incumbent is wrong? Of course you must be doing that since you are a mindless Obama loving drone and Democrat hack. Please note that the preceding sentence was just to illustrate how silly your statements are and not what I actually believe. There are better candidates than Specter to be Senator and I would vote for them.
quote: He votes for the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). As Glenn Greenwald noted, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues all through the Bush years.
You may want to take a peek at his voting record before you keep chortling to yourself. He was against the surge. Remember his rhetoric against the wiretap program? Employee Free Choice? His conduct over the US Attorney provision in the Patriot Act? Embryonic stem cell vote? Gun Lock requirement?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, you are an idiot. Small penises indeed. I voted for Omaba DESPITE people like you supporting him, and you are no more mainstream (or intelligent) than the neocons you mock.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Believe me, that is not why Rush is disgusting.
Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
He caters to the LCD of listeners, and makes vicious personal attacks against people who believe differently than he does. He rarely fact-checks anything he talks about, and has consistently been one of the worst broadcasters on the air.
Not to mention he is highly hypocritical.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
Because every time I have listened to him, or read something by him, I haven't gone more than a few paragraphs or a few minutes without him making a deeply personal and insulting attack. Not uncommonly with racial, misogynistic, or religious undertones. Also because he is incredibly smug, but to be fair my distaste for that is fueled in part because I disagree with him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually, I think it would be good for moderates to regain control of the Democratic party.
Ron...here is something you probably thought I'd never say.
I agree with you. At least to a point.
I dislike the far extreme of both parties. At least they tend to counter-balance each other, and cancel each other out at times.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
Oh, Samp you are just the cutest thing aren't you? I guess the same holds true for those big tent Democrats who expelled Liberman?
Who would that be, exactly, who expelled Sen. Lieberman? And could you define "expelled" for us, please? Despite enthusiastically campaigning against the Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats and retained his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
I wouldn't use "disgusting," myself. Distasteful. Insulting. Condescending. Bilious.
Like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck (and Michael Moore, for that matter), he's a firebrand. He has to be in front of the angry mob at all times, and if there isn't one he'll make one. His ratings rely on invoking fresh outrage or new controversies every day, so he will always find something to be outraged about.
It's the morning radio shock-jock program as applied to politics, and it works. Especially when he can reach into a complex issue with shades of gray and pull out a single harsh, illogical, black and white statement that his angry fans can easily rally behind. His rating will soar during the Obama administration.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If moderates dominate the Democratic party, then why do they keep choosing extreme super-leftist candidates (judged by their voting records in Congress) as their party nominees, such as John Kerry and Barack Obama? And don't forget George McGovern. And how is it that Howling Mad Howard Dean was Party Chairman for so long?
The only actual conservative candidate Republicans have nominated in the past 50 years was Barry Goldwater.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Left and right is a spectrum. It is totally arbitrary. But lets say it goes from 1 being Karl Marx and 100 being some Monarchist wanting to bring back the strict rule of a God chosen king.
You sound as if you see numbers 60-70 as moderate. 71-90 as conservative, and 91-150 as right wing. The Radical Left is everything from 1 to 59 since you don't seem to see much difference between liberal, socialist, communist, and non-conservative.
Most others see numbers 35-50 as moderate. Left/liberal is 25-35. Far left is anything below 25, while conservative is 50-65, Reactionary is 65-80, and dangerous is anything over 80.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because when it comes to politicking, Dems aren't any smarter than Republicans. There's no other excuse for Nancy Pelosi.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If moderates dominate the Democratic party, then why do they keep choosing extreme super-leftist candidates (judged by their voting records in Congress) as their party nominees, such as John Kerry and Barack Obama? And don't forget George McGovern. And how is it that Howling Mad Howard Dean was Party Chairman for so long?
Neither Obama (nor Kerry, for that matter) are or were 'extreme super-leftists', Ron. I doubt you'll agree, but ask yourself this: how many people who aren't themselves pretty far to the right think they're 'extreme-super-leftists'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A classification scheme that classifies Obama and Kerry as "extreme super-leftist" could be amusing through.
You could have classifications such as "mega-extreme super-leftist" for the Canadian liberals, "mega-extreme super-leftist Z" for the Canadian NDP, "mega-extreme ultra super-leftist X" for French political parties, and Communists ... well, what do you call it when Transformers or some other mechanical warriors merge into a gigantic fighting machine?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Personally, I suspect most true moderates are Independents...
Then so are liberals. If the US didn't have a two-party system, there's no way I'd vote for these spineless weenies. Obviously moderates also vote Democratic, as recent elections show, even if they have as little respect for them as I do. If moderates are independents, then we're all independents. The Democratic party doesn't have slavishly adoring worshipers like the Republican party does.
I wish the US had a liberal party.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Personally, I suspect most true moderates are Independents...
Then so are liberals. If the US didn't have a two-party system, there's no way I'd vote for these spineless weenies. Obviously moderates also vote Democratic, as recent elections show, even if they have as little respect for them as I do. If moderates are independents, then we're all independents. The Democratic party doesn't have slavishly adoring worshipers like the Republican party does.
I wish the US had a liberal party.
"The Democratic party doesn't have slavishly adoring worshipers like the Republican party does." are you kidding me? Obama may as well be the messiah for the left.
Who wins has a lot to do with circumstances. During economic crisis, a lot of people want the security the nanny state promises to provide. If the stock market hadn't tanked in September08 McCain would likely have won. We get attacked again by terrorists and Obama will lose reelection.
Obama learned from Bill Clinton how to package himself as a moderate while being far to the left. The majority of voters believed that Obama was more likely to cut their taxes than McCain. I'm enjoying my $15 a pay day tax cut but cap and trade will cost much much more than that rebate. The American voter is about as understanding as the kid who'd accept a trade of three ones for a five.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I noted earlier, the far right wing in the US is completely out of touch with reality. They are so far out of touch with reality that they think staunch conservatives are moderate, ordinary conservatives are left leaning, moderates are leftists and anyone who shows even a slight progressive tendency as an extreme super liberal.
Ron and Mal provide excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I think if you went back through the last year and a half of Ron's posts here you would see that time has convincingly proven him wrong on every point he's made, yet he continues on with exactly the same arguments with out any recognition that reality contradicts his every claim. Its like he's living in a parallel Universe where all the facts are different.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If the stock market hadn't tanked in September08 McCain would likely have won.
This is an interesting hypothetical, but it's completely false and you don't know what you're talking about.
McCain was well on the way to defeat before the economic crisis. 538's aggregates showed that Obama was quickly approaching the minimum requisite number of electoral votes contained within entirely safe states (polled at or over 10% + for Obama)
So, good job making up things? Have fun keeping that up.
quote:Ron and Mal provide excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I think if you went back through the last year and a half of Ron's posts here you would see that time has convincingly proven him wrong on every point he's made, yet he continues on with exactly the same arguments with out any recognition that reality contradicts his every claim. Its like he's living in a parallel Universe where all the facts are different.
Over the course of time that I have been here, Ron Lambert has consistently made glib dismissals of Democratic Party viability and has made scores of comments where he would say something to the effect of "And now that this has happened, the Democrats don't stand a chance" and talk at length about why it was now obvious that the Republicans were sailing a smooth sea to massive victory.
Malanthrop hasn't been here very long but if he stays around to rant obliquely about politics one could bet he'll be in much the same boat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Because when it comes to politicking, Dems aren't any smarter than Republicans. There's no other excuse for Nancy Pelosi.
The smartest decision the Democrats could make right now would be to oust Reid and Pelosi and replace them both with someone halfway competent.
Or at least someone with a backbone.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We get attacked again by terrorists and Obama will lose reelection.
As an aside, why does the right wing think they're competent when it comes to national security? Serious question. I have no idea how that assumption's survived as long as it has.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The smartest decision the Democrats could make right now would be to oust Reid and Pelosi and replace them both with someone halfway competent.
Or at least someone with a backbone.
God. I wish.
In response to Chris, no, I can confidently say that there are no fanatical Democrats. You will never see a Ron Lambert equivalent parroting the party line no matter what reality dictates. There are fanatical Obama supporters and people who staunchly oppose further Republican rule, but Democratic politicians are just pathetic. They stand for nothing but half-hearted self-loathing efforts to prove that they're Republican lite but weaker. I hate them with all my heart.
Republicans are at least straightforward about being corrupt and stupid. Everyone else votes Democratic in an effort to protect the country, and these limp-wristed morons can't work up the self-esteem to follow through. I wish to god there were a liberal third party.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The American voter is about as understanding as the kid who'd accept a trade of three ones for a five.
It's kind of funny, how we go from the enlightened wisdom of the American electorate and their ability to see through the sham promises of manipulative politicians when our guy is in power, and rapidly degenerate to the blind whim of the heedless mob when the other guy is in power.
Or how Bush winning by three million votes is a mandate, but Obama winning by nine-and-a-half million is not.
In any case, if we're really only voting for whoever promises us the biggest tax break, we're all up a creek anyway. But I don't think that's what happened- at least, not all that happened- and no one who did more than than the most facile analysis would, either.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
