I tried to fit this into another recent political thread, but - Surprise! - there haven't been too many started since Obama took office. Wonder why...
Is anyone else as amused by the Arlen Specter defection as I am? Here's a quote from conservative commentator / rare-right-wing-voice-of-reason David Frum:
"The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a "wake-up call." His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren't real Republicans -- that they don't belong in the party. Now he's gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.
but i suppose yes, i am amused when politicians do this. because what does it matter? do democrats really like arlen spector now? don't vote the party vote the person!
Well it makes a lot of sense for him. I've always thought he was a reasonable person, and with the hundreds of thousands of voters who reregistered in last year's election, he didn't stand a chance in the GOP.
I like Arlen Spector. I liked him when he represented me, liked him a lot - even though I'm a lifelong Dem I voted for him.
This move is on one level upsetting, because it makes him seem like more of a politician than he is - he's truly a statesman. However, while some of his motives for the switch might be questionable, the fact is the Republican party is a disaster and has been exceptionally suspect, at best, for a long while. He is probably happier not aligning him with them any longer, as the current party is pretty far from what he stands for.
Good for Spector. I wish we had more in DC like him.
I applaud Specter for making the switch (and I understand Joe Biden was heavily involved in the decision-making process), but I think he saw the writing on the wall and it was purely a pragmatic decision to save his own skin. He faced an impossible primary challenge against right-wing nutcase Pat Toomey (who would have almost certainly beat Specter, and then almost certainly would have lost to any Democrat in the general election), so his only choice was to switch parties or pull a Lieberman and become independent. Because of his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, he may yet face a tough primary fight against a Democrat with the backing of organized labor. (He may ultimately throw his support behind a "compromise" EFCA bill.) Presumably Gov. Ed Rendell has assured Specter of an unchallenged primary, but who knows.
While this is good for the Dems in the short term, it's another nail in the coffin for the GOP, which is rapidly becoming a regional party of southern white racists. Part of me is enjoying the spectacle, but in the long term, the Dems need a viable opposition party just to keep themselves honest. (Look what happened to the Dems in 1994 when they got lazy and stupid; they had it coming.)
With reactionary ass-clowns like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber as its most prominent faces, though, the GOP isn't in any position to fill that role. I may not agree with them on much of anything, but I think the GOP desperately needs some intellectually-honest, principled conservatives in the mold of William F. Buckley providing the leadership before the GOP will ever come back out of the woods.
The GOP will be back as the moderate, fiscal conservative, pro trade, pro business, pro economy party simply because the democrats right now have such awful ideas they are guaranteed to fail or at the least incur the wrath of the business class and I don't mean the Wall St. High Society crowd hob knobing with the treasury secretary. EFCA? Yeah right. Rigged elections for teamsters will do wonders for the economy. keeping GM and Chrysler out of court bankruptcy so they can give the UAW 55% ownership while knocking the bondholders to 15% will certainly ensure failure, massive failure of these organisations and at twice the cost while putting the real final death nail in Spector's industrial Penn. Cap and trade? Simply a tax on domestic manufacturing which will ensure it's firmly planted in SE Asia while any needed domestic plants are firmly under insider control. I bet Soros has some nice Shenzen industrial long call options.
People make fun of the republicans for being out of new ideas, and rightly so. But the democrats are trying to recreate Willie Guthrie's America ca. 1936 with an added dash of John Denver morning dew. That's even worse off than the republican's situation at the moment because this IS their "A"-Game. I predict GOP takes the mid term elections handily and by that I mean they get back to or slightly better than parity in the congress. Most Republicans actually like Obama, or at least better than they did the Clintons, but they absolutely despise Pelosi, Reid and Frank and just about any congressman. Ive been around a long time and one thing Ive learned about the democratic party, of which Ive been a member a good part of it, is that we will find a way to squander power in majestic fashion. Enjoy it while it lasts because it often doesn't.
JK - George McGovern supporter to the end of time.
Jack, I disagree. I realize that the President is pushing a pretty aggressive progressive agenda (heh, "agg-pro") but the truth is, a lot of the ideas are good ideas. Maybe universal health care in its most vague format isn't the answer but you can't tell me that the free-market health care system is working. Some of the other ideas, maybe this ECFA thing, aren't so good. But as you said, the republicans are out of ideas, so let's just let the Dems stand up and see what they can do. I'm not opposed to seeing a healthy Republican party again, but they need to base their future off of something other than being divisive, name-calling, racist, greedy fear-mongers.
I'm not opposed to seeing a healthy Republican party again, but they need to base their future off of something other than being divisive, name-calling, racist, greedy fear-mongers.
what? nice job describing the republican party with your name-calling and divisiveness ..
and the republican party is basing its future on racism, greed, and fear-mongering? come on, dubK, you know better than that.
FRaC, that is what I and many others here believe and I'm not going to apologize for it. There are some good Republicans out there but they have either been A) voted out of office or B) bullied into not talking. In the vacuum they've left behind, there is the misogynistic, narcissistic, and drug addict Limbaugh; the fear-mongering, divisive, Halliburton-beholden Cheney; and Karl Rove, who spearheaded the South Carolina robo-call campaign against John McCain in the 2000 election (which was - you guessed it - based on racism). Like holz said, toe it or leave...
I'm really getting a kick out of all the news media spinning this as the republican party moving to the right. Say again? We just got out of a republican administration that saw no spending bill they didn't like...and most of that time was with a republican majority in congress. The last 8 years were far from text book Republicanism.
While what I know of Specter it doesn't seem like he's a Republican anyway, I'm not overly impressed with this move. First off, he admitted it's a move to remain in power. The guy has been in DC for 30+ years. Term limits please! IMO, this man in no way is representing the people of PA being a generation removed from that state. Secondly, he makes this move not when the republicans were in power, but when the dems are. Why didn't you do this years ago? Oh, back then it would've meant moving to the minority party. This is just another example as to why most people are allergic to politics.
While I continue to hold hope for a prominent 3rd party I doubt this is an ending of the republican party. Back in 1994 Time magazine ran a cover story wondering if the Democrat party was done with. Recall that was just after a mid-term election where previously the Dem's had total control. Just like the Bush admin went too far and lost control so will Obama and co., and right now the republican party is the major alternative.
"This poll shows presidential leadership," says Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducts the survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. "After 100 days, he has the latitude to really govern with some potency to try and get this very aggressive agenda done." He adds that the intensity of the public support is particularly high. "We are watching a Reagan-like early presidency."
aqua, you're spinning here. the moving to the "right" has nothing to do with fiscal policy, and everything to do with cultural values. if you watched the Specter news conference, he as much said so. yes, he did shift because he would not get re-elected as a Republican, but he also noted that NO Republican would get elected in PA based on the organization CFG and their support for candidates and their inability to win in a general election.
Term Limits? Really? Never will happen, never, that's a hold over from the 90's and putting a man on Jupiter seems more likely.
watch the news conference again, if you haven't, he never denied anything you noted, but he also seems to be more independent than you think and much more principled than you believe.
Beyond all the hurt feelings and the moralistic pandering (he only did it to stay in power, how terrible) the biggest issue here has been touched on by beta...
Specter felt he was FORCED to switch parties. Of course he wants to stay in power, its naive to believe anyone in public office isnt interested in power. The key is that it ARLEN SPECTER BELIEVES it has become impossible to win elections as a Republican in that, and perhaps many other states.
Because the club for growth funnels immense amounts of money into primary elections, drubbing and draining more moderate candidates till they are unlikely to ever survive a general election.
Because since 2006, millions of Republican registered voters (over 200,000 in PA alone since the start of the Obama Mccain election) have switched to the democratic party.
Because the future of the republican party lies in a group of Governers who are turning down government investment in their own states resources on the basis of a painfully narrow ideal.
Because the current public face of the Republican party is a group of talk show hosts who are paid to entertain, and understand that radical is more entertaining than moderate...
There is a core values system at the heart of each party and then a multitude of orbiting issues; For the republicans the core issues are less government intrusion, free trade, free markets and logical regulations. For the Dems the Core values are poverty abatement via social engineering, government centered economy, public services. Then orbiting the parties for the rep: Guns, Baptists, Immigration, terrorism. For the Dems: Labor Unions, minority politics, health care reform ( still a mystery )
I think it's the voices of the non-core of each party that have pissed the other side off because they are the most vocal in each. I think Americans who are center-right or center-left gave up years ago and now the more radical elements of each side have risen to the top, with the all to eager aid of 24 hr. news and internet which eats up the BS. Its almost like we are back to yellow journalism and ethnic press politics of the 1880s.
perhaps the rights shift right is born of bitterness... In the face of recent defeat, they have spun to and grasped at the most reactionary stances... the ideas which are cartoons of the ideals they espouse. Even once rational conservatives are jumping the shark left and right...
"the core values of the democratic party is poverty vial social engineering, goverment centered economy, public services..."
and the reason IMO, that that quote is a perfect example of why the republicans are suffering right now is that absolutely NO ONE believes that to be true besides the people who say them. republican leaders are shouting it from the roof tops to deaf ears. Put a statement like that in a poll, and ask the voting population if they think its a fair or realistic characterization of the democrats platform, and id imagine youd get perhaps 30% in agreement. THAT 30% is the current core of the republican party. And its a core that is so far removed from the 'center' that its in no position to grow itself any time soon (until the dems blow it)
evilp, as a center left, I agree with you. I do feel that Specter is a principled man who believes in a center path. So I support him, no matter his party affiliation.
lletdownl, I'm headed out the door so can't continue, but as a broad statement of values, I'd be in that 30% of Dems who agree with evilp's statement. Now exactly what "social engineering" means is where things get specific, relevant and arguable, but as a broad generalization I agree with it.
Let's be realistic here. There are many people including democrats who have a conservative value or two -- I think many people do in general.
The problem with the republicans is that the party's message and image is really starting to scare the shit out of people as it becomes less and less inclusive and grows narrower and narrower.
Colin Powell explained it perfectly when he endorsed Obama. They should start listening to him.
LB - the word "broad" as adjective has been deemed too similar to the slang noun "Broad" as in "hey check out that broad" and thus should be refrained from use.
your definitions all sound like wishful thinking on your part, evilp. the bush republicans ( = republicans of the past decade) were an interfering/patriarchal government. they tried to 'protect' us a little too much for our own good.
they also got involved with trade-engineering and market-engineering (in your construction), both through irresponsible DE-regulation and through subsidization/initiatives/hand-outs, favoring their favorite businesses and institutions over others.
free and logical they were not.
the democrat controlled gov't may go too far in the opposite direction from the previous gov't, an overcorrection of the bush admin's mistakes. once the immediate damage control is over, though, i'm hoping they'll find their compass and get to some more stable/sustainable policies similar to those that garnered a budget surplus, a reduced deficit, and relative peace by the end of the clinton admin.
Steven - like I said the core party not the orbiting issues. I understand Bush Derangement syndrom takes a while to heal so I'll forgive you for defaulting to knee jerk Bush Bashing. No one said Bush was representative of the party, thats why republicans are pissed. I'll refrain from mentioning the Clinton bubble. Oops.
I dont agree with holz statement that the Republican party is basing its future in those traints. Obviously they are not, but they are allowing that perception to linger because they are being so thouroughly dominated by the extreme right, specifically on the radio, on TV, and in some cases, the governors mansions...
So no, i dont agree, and obviously holz was being inflamatory, but as a general concept, the far right wing of the party seems to be driving the republican bus, and that group of people is a particularly exclusionary group (as are any edge polictical group be it left or right).
As for evils statement,
My argument, though not well articulated, had much more to do with the ridiculous language used to portray the democrats as some sort of socialist slave master. This was my point... painting any tiny segment of left thinking as a slippery slope to facsism... its what the right is trying to do, and its what Evils democratic principles are trying to do. Though the concepts are based in some truth, the language has only one objective, and that is to give any non conservative view and inherently distopian sounding slant.
Are all democrats paranoid and overly dramatic reactionaries? Lletdown how you jumped from my statements to implying that Democrats are facists is an almost religious leap of faith.
honestly, i would agree that a core principle would be poverty abatement and increased social services or safety nets. I laugh that you dont find the "via social engineering" portion of your statement ridiculously slanted. You know very well what that little add on implies.
Lastly, that 'governement centered economy' is pretty ridiculous as well. This is an economy which must produce a tremendous amount of growth each year to keep up with its population AND increase its standard of living. Free Markets are likely the best method for doing that, ill begrudginly admit, and ill doubt you find many democrats who disagree.
Democrats core policies are based on the improvement of the most basic standards of living. So it seems low end based because thats where the most work and investment is required. Its not social engineering, its helping those who need the most help...
"the bush republicans ( = republicans of the past decade) were an interfering/patriarchal government. they tried to 'protect' us a little too much for our own good."
"the democrat controlled gov't may go too far in the opposite direction from the previous gov't, an overcorrection of the bush admin's mistakes."
You say the Bush admin's mistake was creating an "interfering/patriarchal government" that attempted to "'protect'" us too much. Then, you say that "the democrat controlled gov't may go too far in the opposite direction from the previous gov't".
That's not logical. Obama is not undoing damage through a move in the "opposite" direction. He is indeed merely moving in exactly the same "interfering/patriarchal" direction as the Bush admin, only at a much larger scale.
The Republican party has been taken over by its ugliest wing: the selfish plutocratic fear-mongering snarlers. Moderates have no voice, and are actively mocked by the "base" of the party. I hope the moderates all flee, leaving a roomful of racist, misogynistic gun nuts stewing in their own misery. Then we'll see a final, permanent collapse of Republicanism and our two-party system can finally be reinvented.
I'll is them here:
Dick Cheney (king of bitter republicans)
Tom Delay
Newt Gingrich
Mitch McConnell
Michelle Bachmann (queen of the nut-cases)
Rush Limbaugh (heir apparent)
Glenn Beck (resident crazy)
Sarah Palin
Norm Coleman (the hanger-on)
James Inhofe
John Cornyn
For better or for worse, the people above run the party right now. If the Republicans want to make a comeback, they need to get rid of this miserable horde and embrace more positive voices.
Agreed, farwest... As much as I'd disagree with somebody like William Buckley or Nelson Rockefeller, I'd love to have a beer with them and talk about politics.
With most of the crowd listed above, I'd cross the street if I saw one of them coming toward me on the sidewalk.
The Implosion of the Republican Party (hang on while I get some popcorn...)
I tried to fit this into another recent political thread, but - Surprise! - there haven't been too many started since Obama took office. Wonder why...
Is anyone else as amused by the Arlen Specter defection as I am? Here's a quote from conservative commentator / rare-right-wing-voice-of-reason David Frum:
"The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a "wake-up call." His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren't real Republicans -- that they don't belong in the party. Now he's gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.
I mean, wow.
the democratic party went through a similar period 2000-04 with a lack of leadership, no focus, defections (lieberman switching to independent), etc.
it will swing back eventually, it always does
but i suppose yes, i am amused when politicians do this. because what does it matter? do democrats really like arlen spector now? don't vote the party vote the person!
Well it makes a lot of sense for him. I've always thought he was a reasonable person, and with the hundreds of thousands of voters who reregistered in last year's election, he didn't stand a chance in the GOP.
I like Arlen Spector. I liked him when he represented me, liked him a lot - even though I'm a lifelong Dem I voted for him.
This move is on one level upsetting, because it makes him seem like more of a politician than he is - he's truly a statesman. However, while some of his motives for the switch might be questionable, the fact is the Republican party is a disaster and has been exceptionally suspect, at best, for a long while. He is probably happier not aligning him with them any longer, as the current party is pretty far from what he stands for.
Good for Spector. I wish we had more in DC like him.
...the way he eviscerated the [r]epuplican party today was, genius.
who is next ?
My money is on Olympia Snowe of Maine.
My thoughts:
I applaud Specter for making the switch (and I understand Joe Biden was heavily involved in the decision-making process), but I think he saw the writing on the wall and it was purely a pragmatic decision to save his own skin. He faced an impossible primary challenge against right-wing nutcase Pat Toomey (who would have almost certainly beat Specter, and then almost certainly would have lost to any Democrat in the general election), so his only choice was to switch parties or pull a Lieberman and become independent. Because of his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, he may yet face a tough primary fight against a Democrat with the backing of organized labor. (He may ultimately throw his support behind a "compromise" EFCA bill.) Presumably Gov. Ed Rendell has assured Specter of an unchallenged primary, but who knows.
While this is good for the Dems in the short term, it's another nail in the coffin for the GOP, which is rapidly becoming a regional party of southern white racists. Part of me is enjoying the spectacle, but in the long term, the Dems need a viable opposition party just to keep themselves honest. (Look what happened to the Dems in 1994 when they got lazy and stupid; they had it coming.)
With reactionary ass-clowns like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber as its most prominent faces, though, the GOP isn't in any position to fill that role. I may not agree with them on much of anything, but I think the GOP desperately needs some intellectually-honest, principled conservatives in the mold of William F. Buckley providing the leadership before the GOP will ever come back out of the woods.
their time is over
a real alternative would be a Pirate-Green Coalition.
The GOP will be back as the moderate, fiscal conservative, pro trade, pro business, pro economy party simply because the democrats right now have such awful ideas they are guaranteed to fail or at the least incur the wrath of the business class and I don't mean the Wall St. High Society crowd hob knobing with the treasury secretary. EFCA? Yeah right. Rigged elections for teamsters will do wonders for the economy. keeping GM and Chrysler out of court bankruptcy so they can give the UAW 55% ownership while knocking the bondholders to 15% will certainly ensure failure, massive failure of these organisations and at twice the cost while putting the real final death nail in Spector's industrial Penn. Cap and trade? Simply a tax on domestic manufacturing which will ensure it's firmly planted in SE Asia while any needed domestic plants are firmly under insider control. I bet Soros has some nice Shenzen industrial long call options.
People make fun of the republicans for being out of new ideas, and rightly so. But the democrats are trying to recreate Willie Guthrie's America ca. 1936 with an added dash of John Denver morning dew. That's even worse off than the republican's situation at the moment because this IS their "A"-Game. I predict GOP takes the mid term elections handily and by that I mean they get back to or slightly better than parity in the congress. Most Republicans actually like Obama, or at least better than they did the Clintons, but they absolutely despise Pelosi, Reid and Frank and just about any congressman. Ive been around a long time and one thing Ive learned about the democratic party, of which Ive been a member a good part of it, is that we will find a way to squander power in majestic fashion. Enjoy it while it lasts because it often doesn't.
JK - George McGovern supporter to the end of time.
Jack, I disagree. I realize that the President is pushing a pretty aggressive progressive agenda (heh, "agg-pro") but the truth is, a lot of the ideas are good ideas. Maybe universal health care in its most vague format isn't the answer but you can't tell me that the free-market health care system is working. Some of the other ideas, maybe this ECFA thing, aren't so good. But as you said, the republicans are out of ideas, so let's just let the Dems stand up and see what they can do. I'm not opposed to seeing a healthy Republican party again, but they need to base their future off of something other than being divisive, name-calling, racist, greedy fear-mongers.
what? nice job describing the republican party with your name-calling and divisiveness ..
and the republican party is basing its future on racism, greed, and fear-mongering? come on, dubK, you know better than that.
yes, they aren't basing their [i]future[i/] on racism, greed, fearmongering - that's the party platform. toe it or leave.
FRaC, that is what I and many others here believe and I'm not going to apologize for it. There are some good Republicans out there but they have either been A) voted out of office or B) bullied into not talking. In the vacuum they've left behind, there is the misogynistic, narcissistic, and drug addict Limbaugh; the fear-mongering, divisive, Halliburton-beholden Cheney; and Karl Rove, who spearheaded the South Carolina robo-call campaign against John McCain in the 2000 election (which was - you guessed it - based on racism). Like holz said, toe it or leave...
FRaC, I for one agree with DubK's characterization of Repubs. My father, who is one of the "good" Republicans, didn't vote for McCain.
There are a lot of Repubs I like/have liked. Christine Whitman was one, and she got run out of town by people - Republicans - afraid of science.
I'm really getting a kick out of all the news media spinning this as the republican party moving to the right. Say again? We just got out of a republican administration that saw no spending bill they didn't like...and most of that time was with a republican majority in congress. The last 8 years were far from text book Republicanism.
While what I know of Specter it doesn't seem like he's a Republican anyway, I'm not overly impressed with this move. First off, he admitted it's a move to remain in power. The guy has been in DC for 30+ years. Term limits please! IMO, this man in no way is representing the people of PA being a generation removed from that state. Secondly, he makes this move not when the republicans were in power, but when the dems are. Why didn't you do this years ago? Oh, back then it would've meant moving to the minority party. This is just another example as to why most people are allergic to politics.
While I continue to hold hope for a prominent 3rd party I doubt this is an ending of the republican party. Back in 1994 Time magazine ran a cover story wondering if the Democrat party was done with. Recall that was just after a mid-term election where previously the Dem's had total control. Just like the Bush admin went too far and lost control so will Obama and co., and right now the republican party is the major alternative.
Obama is Popular.
I pulled this from an article on Marketwatch.com:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124095605121565495.html?mod=mktw
I thought that this quote was telling:
"This poll shows presidential leadership," says Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducts the survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. "After 100 days, he has the latitude to really govern with some potency to try and get this very aggressive agenda done." He adds that the intensity of the public support is particularly high. "We are watching a Reagan-like early presidency."
He has won the 'coveted' Reagan comparison.
aqua, you're spinning here. the moving to the "right" has nothing to do with fiscal policy, and everything to do with cultural values. if you watched the Specter news conference, he as much said so. yes, he did shift because he would not get re-elected as a Republican, but he also noted that NO Republican would get elected in PA based on the organization CFG and their support for candidates and their inability to win in a general election.
Term Limits? Really? Never will happen, never, that's a hold over from the 90's and putting a man on Jupiter seems more likely.
watch the news conference again, if you haven't, he never denied anything you noted, but he also seems to be more independent than you think and much more principled than you believe.
I've been watching their self-destruction since the campaign began and have been enjoying it since.
But it's true, this happens to parties quite often. It was only four years ago that the word "liberal" was a four-letter word on most networks.
Beyond all the hurt feelings and the moralistic pandering (he only did it to stay in power, how terrible) the biggest issue here has been touched on by beta...
Specter felt he was FORCED to switch parties. Of course he wants to stay in power, its naive to believe anyone in public office isnt interested in power. The key is that it ARLEN SPECTER BELIEVES it has become impossible to win elections as a Republican in that, and perhaps many other states.
Because the club for growth funnels immense amounts of money into primary elections, drubbing and draining more moderate candidates till they are unlikely to ever survive a general election.
Because since 2006, millions of Republican registered voters (over 200,000 in PA alone since the start of the Obama Mccain election) have switched to the democratic party.
Because the future of the republican party lies in a group of Governers who are turning down government investment in their own states resources on the basis of a painfully narrow ideal.
Because the current public face of the Republican party is a group of talk show hosts who are paid to entertain, and understand that radical is more entertaining than moderate...
im sure there are many more reasons
There is a core values system at the heart of each party and then a multitude of orbiting issues; For the republicans the core issues are less government intrusion, free trade, free markets and logical regulations. For the Dems the Core values are poverty abatement via social engineering, government centered economy, public services. Then orbiting the parties for the rep: Guns, Baptists, Immigration, terrorism. For the Dems: Labor Unions, minority politics, health care reform ( still a mystery )
I think it's the voices of the non-core of each party that have pissed the other side off because they are the most vocal in each. I think Americans who are center-right or center-left gave up years ago and now the more radical elements of each side have risen to the top, with the all to eager aid of 24 hr. news and internet which eats up the BS. Its almost like we are back to yellow journalism and ethnic press politics of the 1880s.
perhaps the rights shift right is born of bitterness... In the face of recent defeat, they have spun to and grasped at the most reactionary stances... the ideas which are cartoons of the ideals they espouse. Even once rational conservatives are jumping the shark left and right...
"the core values of the democratic party is poverty vial social engineering, goverment centered economy, public services..."
that is a perfect example...
oops, sorry i meant to quote...
"Core values are poverty abatement via social engineering, government centered economy, public services"
and the reason IMO, that that quote is a perfect example of why the republicans are suffering right now is that absolutely NO ONE believes that to be true besides the people who say them. republican leaders are shouting it from the roof tops to deaf ears. Put a statement like that in a poll, and ask the voting population if they think its a fair or realistic characterization of the democrats platform, and id imagine youd get perhaps 30% in agreement. THAT 30% is the current core of the republican party. And its a core that is so far removed from the 'center' that its in no position to grow itself any time soon (until the dems blow it)
evilp, as a center left, I agree with you. I do feel that Specter is a principled man who believes in a center path. So I support him, no matter his party affiliation.
sorry if i sound edgy, im still angry at the celtics...
lletdownl, I'm headed out the door so can't continue, but as a broad statement of values, I'd be in that 30% of Dems who agree with evilp's statement. Now exactly what "social engineering" means is where things get specific, relevant and arguable, but as a broad generalization I agree with it.
lletdown, what then are the core values of the democratic party? Please enlighten me.
Oh wait, I'm confused about who the 30% was, sorry. But the gist of my post above stands. Gotta run.
Let's be realistic here. There are many people including democrats who have a conservative value or two -- I think many people do in general.
The problem with the republicans is that the party's message and image is really starting to scare the shit out of people as it becomes less and less inclusive and grows narrower and narrower.
Colin Powell explained it perfectly when he endorsed Obama. They should start listening to him.
LB - the word "broad" as adjective has been deemed too similar to the slang noun "Broad" as in "hey check out that broad" and thus should be refrained from use.
lletdownl -- I'm not sure what you'rea taking issue with in that quote? In any case, why did you not also address this one from holz:
"...yes, they aren't basing their [i]future[i/] on racism, greed, fearmongering - that's the party platform. toe it or leave."
Did that one meet your standard of accuracy?
Powell is the one who F*cked the republicans to begin with - he had overwhelming support in 99 but refused the nomination
Where would we be if Powell ran in 2000 rather than Bush?
your definitions all sound like wishful thinking on your part, evilp. the bush republicans ( = republicans of the past decade) were an interfering/patriarchal government. they tried to 'protect' us a little too much for our own good.
they also got involved with trade-engineering and market-engineering (in your construction), both through irresponsible DE-regulation and through subsidization/initiatives/hand-outs, favoring their favorite businesses and institutions over others.
free and logical they were not.
the democrat controlled gov't may go too far in the opposite direction from the previous gov't, an overcorrection of the bush admin's mistakes. once the immediate damage control is over, though, i'm hoping they'll find their compass and get to some more stable/sustainable policies similar to those that garnered a budget surplus, a reduced deficit, and relative peace by the end of the clinton admin.
Steven - like I said the core party not the orbiting issues. I understand Bush Derangement syndrom takes a while to heal so I'll forgive you for defaulting to knee jerk Bush Bashing. No one said Bush was representative of the party, thats why republicans are pissed. I'll refrain from mentioning the Clinton bubble. Oops.
my first recollection of Specter (and Biden, for that matter) was through the hearings where Specter went after Anita Hill like a pit bull.
kurt,
I dont agree with holz statement that the Republican party is basing its future in those traints. Obviously they are not, but they are allowing that perception to linger because they are being so thouroughly dominated by the extreme right, specifically on the radio, on TV, and in some cases, the governors mansions...
So no, i dont agree, and obviously holz was being inflamatory, but as a general concept, the far right wing of the party seems to be driving the republican bus, and that group of people is a particularly exclusionary group (as are any edge polictical group be it left or right).
As for evils statement,
My argument, though not well articulated, had much more to do with the ridiculous language used to portray the democrats as some sort of socialist slave master. This was my point... painting any tiny segment of left thinking as a slippery slope to facsism... its what the right is trying to do, and its what Evils democratic principles are trying to do. Though the concepts are based in some truth, the language has only one objective, and that is to give any non conservative view and inherently distopian sounding slant.
Are all democrats paranoid and overly dramatic reactionaries? Lletdown how you jumped from my statements to implying that Democrats are facists is an almost religious leap of faith.
EP, i think you have the core and the orbiting of the Republican party flipped.
i think its pretty clear what the language intended. Its not paranoia, its knowing the source and understanding the intention.
Well then could you articulate the Democratic core ideology for me so theres no "dystopian slant" from a fear mongering platypus?
honestly, i would agree that a core principle would be poverty abatement and increased social services or safety nets. I laugh that you dont find the "via social engineering" portion of your statement ridiculously slanted. You know very well what that little add on implies.
Lastly, that 'governement centered economy' is pretty ridiculous as well. This is an economy which must produce a tremendous amount of growth each year to keep up with its population AND increase its standard of living. Free Markets are likely the best method for doing that, ill begrudginly admit, and ill doubt you find many democrats who disagree.
Democrats core policies are based on the improvement of the most basic standards of living. So it seems low end based because thats where the most work and investment is required. Its not social engineering, its helping those who need the most help...
"the bush republicans ( = republicans of the past decade) were an interfering/patriarchal government. they tried to 'protect' us a little too much for our own good."
"the democrat controlled gov't may go too far in the opposite direction from the previous gov't, an overcorrection of the bush admin's mistakes."
You say the Bush admin's mistake was creating an "interfering/patriarchal government" that attempted to "'protect'" us too much. Then, you say that "the democrat controlled gov't may go too far in the opposite direction from the previous gov't".
That's not logical. Obama is not undoing damage through a move in the "opposite" direction. He is indeed merely moving in exactly the same "interfering/patriarchal" direction as the Bush admin, only at a much larger scale.
Re: How so Kurt?
Crap
I meant Re: He is indeed merely moving in exactly the same "interfering/patriarchal" direction as the Bush admin, only at a much larger scale.
How so?
The Republican party has been taken over by its ugliest wing: the selfish plutocratic fear-mongering snarlers. Moderates have no voice, and are actively mocked by the "base" of the party. I hope the moderates all flee, leaving a roomful of racist, misogynistic gun nuts stewing in their own misery. Then we'll see a final, permanent collapse of Republicanism and our two-party system can finally be reinvented.
I'll is them here:
Dick Cheney (king of bitter republicans)
Tom Delay
Newt Gingrich
Mitch McConnell
Michelle Bachmann (queen of the nut-cases)
Rush Limbaugh (heir apparent)
Glenn Beck (resident crazy)
Sarah Palin
Norm Coleman (the hanger-on)
James Inhofe
John Cornyn
For better or for worse, the people above run the party right now. If the Republicans want to make a comeback, they need to get rid of this miserable horde and embrace more positive voices.
I agree, farwest -- Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin are incorrigible misogynists.
Agreed, farwest... As much as I'd disagree with somebody like William Buckley or Nelson Rockefeller, I'd love to have a beer with them and talk about politics.
With most of the crowd listed above, I'd cross the street if I saw one of them coming toward me on the sidewalk.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.