« The Potential Beholdenness of Judd Gregg | Home | Baucus Makes Nice With Daschle as Nomination Remains in Limbo »
Poll: Republicans Want Party To Be Like Palin
A new Rasmussen poll further demonstrates that the GOP could be in for a long stretch in the wilderness: A majority of GOP voters now say that the party should be more like Sarah Palin.
The numbers: 55% of Republicans say the party should be like Palin, compared to 24% who say they should be like John McCain.
As I've previously noted, poll data like this could indicate that the Republican Party is getting ready to relive the classic cycle of ruling parties who get turned out of power in a landslide: With the party base itself shrunk down, the people who are still around are the most hard-line members, and are really the least fit people to fix the situation.
Advertisement
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
And the current political environment and the way the republican party has been behaving, including runaway spending on handouts to buds, destroying our economy, getting us involved in a horrible war of choice and destroying a country and trying to legislate people's lives in their bedrooms, I submit that we may be witnessing the whigging of the republican party and a new party will be formed. That would be the best for the country in any event.
February 2, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, Republicans are now the Party of ideology, ignorance and irrelevance.
February 2, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can add incompetence to those three.
February 2, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! How could I have left that off?
February 2, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And sparklebursts! don't forget sparklebursts.
February 2, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Creationism!
February 2, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry guys. We're sticking with I-words here. Of course, inane, idiots, incurious and imbeciles would all apply.
February 2, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
icky
February 2, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intellectually incontinent!
February 5, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This goes beyond political party. Looking more like an evolutionary divergence and specification. Republicanus Ignoramus.
February 2, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
A note to Democrats: This is what will happen to our party if we insist that everyone in it is like Dennis Kucinich or Ted Kennedy. I love both guys but you can't have a national party if you insist on hard left or hard right ideological purity.
February 2, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Kucinich nor Kennedy is a hard-leftist, therefore, I have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing radical in the agenda of either man. It is not "hard left" to insist that the Constitution is the actual law of the land, or that society has a responsibility to treat the sick.
I don't think your claim is correct even on its own terms. Using your own implied definition of "hard left," why would that keep a party from being "national?" Kucinich represents part of Cleveland and its suburbs. Kennedy represents Massachusetts. Bernie Sanders represents Vermont, and Russ Feingold represents Wisconsin. Are these all "hard left" states? No, they're not, and that's two New England states and two states in the Midwest. Cynthia McKinney, in better times for her, represented part of Georgia. There are progressive officeholders all over the country.
Americans tend to hold progressive policy positions, and they have for decades. A party that had fewer Evan Bayhs and more Dennis Kuciniches would be a stronger and more effective party, and it wouldn't fight with itself so much.
February 2, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they mean that Democrats should all emulate Harry Reid.
February 2, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a moron. Republicans have been raising money off Kennedy for decades because many people in flyover land believe he's a radical liburrel!
Kennedy could never get elected in Indiana and Kucinich could never get elected to represent my district in NC. So if we ran people like them all across the country, we wouldn't have a single senate seat in the south we'd lose a lot of house seats in the midwest. Just like if we ran Mark Pryor or Ben Nelson in California, they'd lose.
But I'm sure that wouldn't bother you. As long we're pure, it's fine if we're forever powerless.
February 2, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite my abnormally low IQ, I will do my best to respond to your comments.
First, you indicated that Kennedy and Kucinich represented a "hard left" viewpoint. This is simply false, so I pointed out that it was false. Kennedy and Kucinich are not socialists or communists. They are not Trotskyists, Leninists or anarchists. They are not syndicalists. They are not even situationists! There is no useful definition of "hard left" that includes Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich. I do hear Republicans refer to mainstream liberal activists like Kos as hard left, but I don't take that seriously.
That some people somewhere believe, incorrectly, that Kennedy is some kind of radical does not change the fact that he is, in fact, not a radical.
You also stated that the Democratic party could not be a "national" party if it was dominated by the imaginary hard left to which you referred. I offered examples of liberal to left-wing Democrats who had been elected in various areas of the nation. It appears that it is entirely possible for the Democratic party to remain a national party, whatever that means, by running progressives across the country instead of just giving up and running Republicans.
Politics is not only about numbers. A smaller, dedicated, ideologically coherent party can be more effective than a larger, wishy-washy party which includes people who really don't belong in it. The Democratic party now, because it includes right-wingers like Bayh and Shuler as well as progressives like Kennedy and Kucinich, has to water down its own legislation before fighting it out with the right-wingers in the other party.
The fact is, you have no idea what would happen if the Democratic party decided to be more clearly leftist in orientation, but we do know that if you allow conservatives to run as Democrats, you are doing part of the Republicans' work for them. The inability of the Democratic party to put forth a unified, coherent message has been one of its biggest problems.
February 2, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been my observation that if you are not in lockstep with FreeRider's opinion, you're a moron, idiot, or simply full of shit.
February 2, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to type this real slow for you OK??
1. To us (the base), Kennedy and Kucinich are not hard left but they are protrayed that way by Repugs and many swing voters actually believe it. (that's what I was referring to) To the republican base, people like Shelby and Delay were not hard right. It's a matter of perspective, thus my example.
2. I am a liberal living in the South. There is ZERO chance that Pat Leahy or Barbara Boxer would ever get elected in NC or AR or LA. We tried that for years and we lost. You have to run candidates to which the constituents can relate. That's why Santorum lost. He was too crazy conservative for PA as it got increasingly more blue.
3. As long as the Republicans keep putting up crazies like Inhofe and Shelby, they will keep winning OK and AL but they will die out on the coasts and the midwest. That's why they're a regional party relegated to the south and Mormon states.
The same thing would happen to the Democrats if we tried to force states like AR, NC and MT to elect Ted Kennedy. Without the senate seats controlled by the dozen (12) conservative Democrats, we would be in the minority.
4. You think a smaller but more pure Democratic party would be more effective? Explain how you can be effective when you don't have control over what bills come to the floor.
I take it that would be OK with you if things like the fair pay act and SCHIP expansion and stem cell research never got voted on??
February 2, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's return to your original post. You wrote:
"...you can't have a national party if you insist on hard left or hard right ideological purity."
You did not say that there was a problem of perception. You indicated that Kennedy and Kucinich were hard leftists, which they are not, period. If you think there is a problem of perception, you might have written:
"...you can't have a national party if certain groups of people perceive the party as being dominated by the hard left."
But you didn't write that. Therefore I can only assume that you actually think that Kucinich and Kennedy are hard leftists, which would indicate that you have no idea what the terms "right" and "left" mean in this context.
The Republicans have wielded power disproportionate to their numbers for decades. For a long time there have been more Democrats than Republicans, but you might recall that the Republicans have won a lot of elections since, say, 1980. How did they do that? They did that by purging their party of most moderate elements and presenting a coherent image and ideology to the voters. This went on even though for the entire period majorities of Americans held positions closer to those of the Democratic party than the Republican party. As the Republicans have become more ideologically uniform, they have become more effective relative to their numbers.
You might have noticed that even though the Republicans are a minority in the House and Senate right now, they wield a great deal of power. They are going to be an effective minority because they are ideologically uniform, because they understand the rules, and because they want to win. The Democrats, on the other hand, are even now a bit of a mess. They have Republicans like Heath Shuler in their caucus, and as a group they would rather be polite than win. As a result they are less powerful than they would be if they had more leftists and no right-wingers.
I think you'll understand if I don't take your personal opinion of the area you say you live in as being proof of anything at all. You seem to think that your personal observations are stronger evidence than the entire history of American politics over the last thirty years and the example of American politics today. People want to join the strong, confident team, not the weak, vacillating team. You don't win by inviting the enemy to join your party. You win by having a party that can act as one -- and when it does, it gains supporters because it shows that it is strong.
February 2, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know you're pretty crude and not impressing anyone worth impressing, right? I mean, if you want to vent that Limbaugh grade intellect, you can just shout at people at the bar or call up talk radio and people there will be a lot more impressed.
February 2, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, FR called someone moron, and then you essentially repsonded in kind. Believe me, I'm guilty of the same from time to time. But, it's time to take a cue from Obama. If you want to elevate the conversation around here, then do so by example.
Here's a quote that might help all of us a little:
I've tried it, it works.
February 2, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truly a wonderful quote and sentiment - thank you, DaddyD!
February 3, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Kucinich nor Kennedy would be dithering about waiting to do health care, keeping a 'bit' of rendition, or trying to bring old farts like McConnell, Sparkman....er, ah...Shelby, or Kyle on board. For Pete's sake, the country voted for a change and we are waiting. Obama has got to learn how to jump! Enough with moderation. The bankers have led us into socialism and I say, "Let's go!" There are people dropping like flies into poverty and a tax break is supposed to help them? They got nothing to break or fix! Give 'em a hand, make jobs, and forget trying to bring the senators who got us into this mess along for the ride. We need a 'Quiet Room' for the Republicans in the Senate. Where they can see what happening, but the country can't hear their squalling!
February 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why the Dems drafted Gillibrand up to the national stage.
February 2, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. That pick doesn't even make sense. Gillibrand fit her district but she was waaaayyyy too conservative for the state over all. She's now trying to modify her positions on immigration and gun control because they are so out of step with the majority of New Yorkers.
A Blue Dog representing NY State makes about as much sense as Ben Nelson representing Rhode Island. Paterson the Doofus had the chance to appoint a true progressive and he screwed it up, like everything else he's touched.
February 2, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may be true, but Paterson didn't make the choice on his own - Gillibrand had political power behind her.
It's for the same reason as the GOP chose Steele as their Chairman, so he could attack Obama. Gillibrand will be the lead Palin attack dog in the future. And I think Gillibrand is a lock to get re-elected.
February 2, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating observation. Gillibrand and Palin do have a lot of similarities at the superficial level. Gillibrand is already changing her tune on immigration and so she may be forced to be the liberal Senator we want her to be. If that is the case, I have no objections to her.
February 2, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer downstate hackery to upstate hackery any day. In that regard, she's a poor choice.
February 2, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got a nice used Blagojevich I can sell you. Hardly any miles on him, still has all his hair. Loony as a bedbug but hey, nobody's perfect.
February 2, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will ask you again: Where on earth do you come up with this shit??
The notion that Gillibrand was chosen so that she could attack Palin is beyond absurd. Palin is a legend in her own mind and the wackadoo fringe of the shrinking republican party. The best way to defeat her is to allow her to self-destruct.
Paterson is a clown. If he was taking advice from big political players, he would not have bungled this appointment so badly by (a) allowing it to hang out there so long and (b) having his aides trash Kennedy *after* she'd already withdrawn.
Gillibrand will get reelected (unless she's defeated in a primary) but Paterson is seriously damaaged after this fiasco.
February 2, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seemingly forget that the incredibly weak McCain/Palin ticket got almost 47% of the vote. Palin benefited from a cult of personality, that's not likely to go away. Gillibrand superficially is a lot like Gov. Palin, folks who were drawn to Palin will also like Gillibrand. Gillibrand also has some serious feminist chops that will allow her to attack Palin without being derided by women's groups. You couldn't have men attacking Palin, and Secretary Clinton will not be able to do it either. Gillibrand she has a top notch education, not a journalism degree patched together from six different colleges.
New York should be a safe seat from which to play the role. There are obviously other female politicians more than qualified to call Palin as they see her, however they might come from purple states and need to worry about their own electability.
February 2, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
About that 47% that went Republican in the last presidential election, how much of it was just anti-black and also how much of it was an extra x% that was added on by the Diebolds. Remember that in the previous election that the vote totals were about 5% more Republican than the exit polls.
February 2, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think David Duke said they were taking their bigotry to a new republican party because of Steele... So, really, all they are left with as support are the wacky fundigelicals and some of the wacky secessionists even if they go with Palin. Even Diebold can not get them over that disaster.
Unless Obama manages to alienate the left even more than he already has? Then it might get close.
4 years, and we shall see.
February 2, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand how you connect Steele to Obama - said to be leaders of their party (although I think it should be Kaine v. Steel), but I don't get how you chose Gillibrand as the Dems attack dog against Palin. Unless you are predicting that they will both run for President or VP one day, what reason would a new Senator from NY have for attacking a Governor from Alaska or any other state? They don't work together and they are not competing for the same position.
February 2, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! Like we would pick a NY senator so that she can attack a governor from AL who *might* run for president four years from now. Makes perfect sense. NOT!
February 2, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin is Governor of Alabama (AL)? I thought she was Governor of Alaska (AK).
What was that you were saying up-thread about other posters being morons?
February 2, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes perfect sense to me. Guarantee support from Upstate, and you get a really, really safe Senate seat - and happy Upstaters, which Paterson himself will need in '10. I seriously doubt City residents will go to the dark side because she was/is a Blue Dog.
My guess is that she'll be as reliable a vote for New York as Hillary Clinton was.
February 2, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does that even mean? More like Palin than McCain? The vast majority of voters have no idea where they even differ on policy--hell, they don't even have a clue where Palin stands on most issues...she probably doesn't either...and McCain flip-flopped so much, it is hard to tell what he beleives on any given day without taking a blood sample and testing his daily levels of maverickiness.
Basically Republicans want more young and hot, less old and wrinkled.
But yes, they have learned nothing.
February 2, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does it mean? Stupider. The Republicans want to be the party of stupid, which is fine by me.
February 2, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Repubs want to be the party of stupid, I'd say Mission Accomplished!
PEACE
February 2, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just stupider. Younger, hotter and stupider. There's a big difference, ya know.
Which actually is kind of scary when you think that the Bush twins are still out there.
February 2, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing the Bush twins have their grandmother Bar's skin. Combine that with all that harsh TX sun and they'll look 50 when they're 30.
February 2, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think people really thought about this question. When asked, they probably pictured how McCain was during the campaign - aging, forgetful, bitter, and struggled to get a crowd - and then thought about Palin - young, energizing, interesting, and don't forget those starbursts.
February 2, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean they all want to pal around with people who are friends of terorists?
February 2, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is just another way of relieving any responsibilty for losing.
ie:..if mccain had won you can beat your life these numbers would be at a minumum reversed.
February 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
By all means GOP, go right ahead. Welcome to the Permanent Minority.
February 2, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sentiments exactly... This is a demonstration that the minority is attached to minority status. No problem as long as they don't continue to obstruct progress for our country they can all be Sarah Palin's. Can't say it's best for our country overall but we are striving to be a 'free' country...right?
February 2, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Long time no see, Synchronicity!
Good to see you. :)
February 2, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please please please... serve up more Palin!
February 2, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pinch Me! :)
February 2, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain unleashed Sarah Palin to destroy the Republican Party. She is ambitious and will be a fundraising juggernaut. The problem for the Republicans is that she is utterly repulsive to about two-thirds of the voters. So other Republican Party candidates will have a hard time completing with her, but her success will totally alienate the party from moderates.
February 2, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they want their party to be like Palin. Their leader Limbaugh even said Palin was the real leader of the party.
February 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a conservative I can only hope that the people who supported McCain have either left the party or have wised up that we cannot be the party of McCain. We need to get back to values and stop trying to appease everyone. Sarah may not be the top choice come 2012, but with the focus that the left and MSM have on her it keeps everyone talking and that will help reshape the party back to once was.
February 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even though they're only talking about how stupid she is and how lucky we are that she didn't get any where near the White House?
February 2, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Back to values"? What, precisely, is that supposed to mean? And by the way, it wouldn't appear that the Party Brass are any too happy with Palin right at the moment.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/01/palin-stiffs-th.html
February 2, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, values - as exemplified by Vitter, Coleman, Folwy, Craig, and Limbaugh.
February 2, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the values of running the country with an actual collective (Alaska Permanent Fund) which far beyond socialism BTW, like Alaska has?
Or are you just talking about your whacky bedroom-police, holy roller sky-pixie shit?
February 2, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly this is sad. As a liberal, I'd like to see both parties be smarter and more effective (i.e. responsive to the needs of the people) and elevate the populace rather than talk down to it. Then you can have a spirited, smart debate over issues. Sure having Moose Killer as the face of the GOP may help Obama/Dems, but it hurts everyone. Having one party be made up entirely of knuckle-draggers not only drives that party to irrelevance, it further dumbs down political debate as well. You just can't debate with stupid.
February 2, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That's why we need the republicans to totally implode and cease to exist. Then we can get a new opposition party and elevate the political debate and discourse. The leadership in the republican party is too entrenched for it to dramatically change in the near future. In this situation, we need to witness the death and burial of the party in the dustbin of history. It's time to move into the 21st century.
February 2, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's funny that some people think this photo is a fake:
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog_images/sarah_palin_bikini_gun_photo.jpg
February 2, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm. That's because it is. That picture has been around for years . . . with a different head.
February 2, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like you, I once fell prey to the media conspiracy that said the photo was a fake. That is, until some people began to think outside the box and took a different view, as in "Some chick named Elizabeth PhotoShopped her head onto Sarah Palin’s bikini photo"
http://cnbcsucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/some-chick-named-elizabeth-photoshopped-her-head-onto-sarah-palins-bikini-photo/
Now if we can locate "Elizabeth", we can take this to the MSM.
February 2, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if Obama would assign some dedicated folks to prosecuting Repubs for only a fraction of the crimes committed during Bush's reign, he could make Republicans radioactive as far as fundraising.
The Republican party can be eliminated on a RICO basis. Don't worry, Those fine folks will gin up some new "conservative" party to represent their interests.
February 2, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, they want the party to be like Palin. So I guess that means they want it to support the stimulus? ;)
February 2, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just can't debate with stupid.
When people break in to your house, to steal everything you have, and even ruin your children's lives if they can, you don't debate with them.
In general, once a party has phonied up a war, they really lose the status of debate opponents.
If their solution to a problem is to kill people, how the hell can you debate?
February 2, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Mooser~ the repubs are dead wrong and famous for lying like mad about anything that can benefit them and the rich fucks they represent. They have redistributed the income in this country to the top 1% and left the rest of up struggling day to day. Fuck them! What are we going to debate .... if in the future they compromise and screw us a little bit less??? I am so sick of the imaginary left vs right set up where we are all nice people with good ideas who just need to talk more. The repubs will continue in every situation to demand that the rich get richer and the poor go suck eggs. If you think you are having a nice discussion of issues you are a sucker and they laugh all the way to the bank about how sincere you are while they rob you blind.
February 2, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to read this poll with a bit of sense. The question was whether they preferred Palin or McCain. What if they had been given a list of choices such as Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Hannity, Robertson, David Duke, Ron Paul. Limbaugh and any of a bunch of rightwing religious pontificators? That might have given a better idea of what the famous base is thinking. Myself, given a choice between those two, I would have a difficult time and would possibly have chosen Palin, too.
February 2, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elegantly put in its succinctness, Mr. Kleefield, hats off.
I too feel that Governor Palin is precisely what their future should be about. Her appearance at Alpha dinner and SarahPAC make it obvious that she agrees fully: maybe the Bush years were characterized by excessive wisdom, ability, and inclusiveness.
February 2, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is like some backwards version playground basketball. You pick someone to play on your team, that person proceeds to miss every shot they take and turn the ball over every time they dribble... your team is, as a result, blown out, and then you pick that person first for the next game.
I can't get over how the Republicans can't see that not only did she do a great deal in costing McCain any chance of winning, but going into the future, her mere presence is so toxic that to have her in any visible position at all is to directly sabotage the party.
Obama already needs to REALLY screw up, in my opinion, if he's got any chance at not being re-elected. So you'd think the very least the republicans could do would be to have some sense and maturity and cast this turd out to sea. But that would be rationality. Since when has the Reich-wing ever played by that rule?
February 2, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we want more Palin?
February 2, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha!
February 2, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be very difficult for the Republicans. How can the party get to be more like Sarah Palin? Is there a way?
February 2, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fewer old white guys?
February 2, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fewer old white guys means fewer Republicans period. Just not enough of anyone else willing to join 'em. Maybe their old white guys should try growing tits or something. Rudy has dresses they can wear.
February 2, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean vapid and devoid of thought? Already there, you betcha!
February 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No fan of Caribou Barbie, lifelong Dem, one of California's 55 Electors who unanimously elected Obama, but...
Before you write off Little Miss "You Can See Russia," know your enemy: watch her State of the State from two weeks ago, http://c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-14770
She doesn't read it, she sells it. And if you think she won't spend the next few years practicing and reading up, you don't know the type. Oh, wait, you do, because we've had this personality type at the White House for the last eight years.
And there're enough people who'll forget enough four years from know to listen to her...so we need to start burying her now.
Example: She forecasts a $1B deficit for a state of 600,000+. California predicts a $44B deficit for a population of 60M+. Do the math, and her deficit is over twice as deep per person as the one in California.
February 2, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Kevin Drum said it best, "Sarah Plain isn't the future of your party, she's the future of mine."
February 2, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this Democrat wants the GOP to be more like Sarah Palin since it will hasten their demise as a party, and speed up having a sane loyal opposition to keep the Democrats on their toes and on the up and up.
February 2, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opposition means opposite. What kind of "New" opposition party can you possibly have unless they oppose something? Your key word is "sane." Most people that are convinced of their position tend to think that those who oppose them are insane. Do you think a "sane loyal opposition" will be "Democratic Lite," raising a feeble hand in protest from time to time as a patriotic gesture, but then going with the flow? Roll up your sleeves for a fight if you want opposition and know that there are enough that will support a "pit bull with lipstick" style as opposed to a feeble McCain in the next two months, and especially in two years.
February 2, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I predict that a split, either actual or in practice, is likely within the Republican party between the "The Rapture Party" and a retro - GOP. I don't mean retro to be like Reagan, I mean retro Teddy Roosevelt style. TR believed in conservation of land and resources, good government, requiring corporations to serve the common good, and believed that the unimpeded acquisition of wealth was fundamentally detrimental to democracy. He would be aghast to see "his" party clamoring for the repeal of the estate tax or deregulation of corporations.
The Republican mantra of today makes no sense. They keep chanting that they support small government, personal liberty, strong national defense and opposition to abortion and gay marriages. Strong national defense requires sufficient taxes to support the military. A small goverment does not involve itself in personal life choices of individuals. And you cannot both promote individual freedom and tell people who they can have sex with or marry.
At some point the divergence between the two groups will become too great, and only one will end up in control of the Republican brand. Currently the RPs represent the base and seem to be trending toward control of the name. If that continues, the TRs may just become independent in name and vote with the Democrats. If the trend reverses and the TRs ascend to control, then I think it is likely that the RPs will either officially form a third party or just stop voting. In either case, the future for the Dems look pretty bright.
February 2, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Mr. Skybolt wondered what the Deomcratic Party would look like if run by real liberals. Research McGovern.
February 2, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, no political party is static. As a society changes, it's people change and are changed by its politics. Step back and note the changes in their party since Lincoln was a Repubican. Does anyone, save for RepubliCon spin manufacturers, really think there is any resemblance between the GOP of then and now? Obviously, it's the same with the Dems. However, nothing changes overnight, either. Sometimes, you just have to wait for a new generation to bring a new way of seeing and accepting things.
Happily, the young typically bring adaptation and flexibility. For Dems, that infers a time of greater tolerance, quite obviously. The older and more rigidly ideological elements of our or any party will eventually die off..literally. Of course, I speak of political parties comprised of relatively sane people..not the fanatics whose very meaning is typically founded on the perpetuation of hatred for someone or something..or everything.
The word "communism" will ultimately become as meaningless as the word "torrie"..or was it "tory"..well, point made. This, all the quicker, since so many obviously don't understand what it meant, anyway! The generational wars..usually over actual wars..will also die out and be replaced by other seemingly meaningful concerns, relevant to their time. If a party holds steadfast to some time-worn and disproven dictum, whether philosophic or economic, it runs the risk of death by attrition. If no one finds relevance in what you preach, then you're just a bus with no wheels..a largely empty bus.
Maybe that's why Palin is getting this attention..she attracts the reactionary crowd..those who we saw screaming (drool dripping from their fangs) at their convention..non-thinking haters. If there is still a sane element among Repubs, it won't come out of that crowd. The Repubs won't die off, they'll just continue to morph into the fanatical reichties they've been busy becoming over the last few years..and the heirs of the sort of conservative, non-cultural republicanism that prevailed, pre-NeoCon, will take up their clarion call under some other banner. In a country this size, we can't afford ideologues in government..of any pursuasion.
We are forced into practicality for the good of all. Of course, admittedly, from the Left's POV, it's practical to push the principles of justice and tolerance for all, with the civilized aim of freeing up our lives from what has become the terror and torture of trying to obtain a decent education or basic health care, never mind some hope for the opportunity to make the best of oneself. As they say, the rising tide lifts all boats. Unfortunately, the only "rising tide" we've seen these last years has been the kind you get after an earthquake..swamping everything in its path.
February 2, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I see from democrats comments here is name-calling, caracature, false accusations, & looking down your arrogant noses.
You condemn our ideals saying idealism is ignorant/irrelavent/etc., when you have your own left-wing ideals. Ideals are beliefs/convictions. Are you actually trying to say you have none?
You call us knuckle-draggers, ignorant, uneducated, & make fun of our faith. FYI: Most universities in the US were founded by Churches, people of faith, & idealists.
You insult/disrespect us, our intellect, our common sense, & what we hold dear & expect us to listen to you talk of tolerance or trust you?
One more point, you think we are stupid for not agreeing to implement a socialist state... well, it's because we know the history of socialism, it's impoverished every nation it's ever been foisted upon. The track record is dismal. It sounds great on paper, but it's inherantly flawed, & can't be made to work.
February 3, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You loony lefties haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about! When John McCann picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate he re-energized his conservative base. After the Republican National Convention, the Republicans were poised for another four years in the white house, they were ahead of Obama in all the polls, some by as much as ten percentage points, 500,000 more people watched McCains acceptance speech at his convention then watched Obama's. Then, the economy collapsed and the stock market crashed. People were scared and decided to try the democrat,not based on the social issues but the economy. The Democrats historically have been percieved as better with the economy then the Republicans (Even after Jimmy Carter, fo some reason.) The Republicans can and will come back, in two years they will retake the House and Senate as the economy continues to plummet. Exit polls showed in 2004 that the majority of voters showed and voted based on the social issues, the last year that the Republicans won big!In 2006 Exit polls showed that the majority of voters showed up to vote based on the Iraqi war and the tide turned to the democrats favor. In 2008 the issue was the economy, and when that's the issue, the democrats always fare better than Republicans. And just to satisfy your curiosity, I am not a Right Winger, nor am I a leftist. I do not put on any idealogical blinders to see the political landscape as so many of you obviously have. I simply see things the way they are! You liberals are just as looney as the conservatives because both sides see things the way they want it to be instead of how they really are! Obama's popularity will wane when people are hurt in the pocket book and he can't do anything to cure what ails this global economy. It will all bottom out before it starts to get better again! Just like it does every ten to twenty years.
February 3, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the Republican National Convention, the Republicans were poised for another four years in the white house, they were ahead of Obama in all the polls, some by as much as ten percentage points
No national poll of which I'm aware had McCain's bounce putting him ahead by more than 3 percentage points, with whatever sampling error the pollster included. But regardless - the issue wasn't what Palin could do for McCain in a convention hall full of people predisposed to believe in the Republican ticket, despite the last eight years. The issue was what Palin did for McCain among people who thought that the last eight years were at best disappointing.
Palin is Bush again, in all of the ways which doomed him as a President. She's not a reader. She's fairly incurious about what happens outside of her bubble in life. She would almost certainly have been confronted with something baffling to her, and she would have delegated the investigation and decision-making to an aide, rather than hear all the arguments and make the call herself. She speaks in platitudes, and most of the time, you don't know whether she can answer the simplest of questions correctly. The Right loves to talk about these Media Conspiracies that destroy their best-laid plans, but the fact is that Sarah Palin talked herself and John McCain into a loss, Tina Fey or no Tina Fey.
If the Republicans win next time, it'll be because Obama has done poorly with his congressional majorities and the Republicans have chosen to run somebody who knows what goes on in national government. He or she will pay lip service to family values and the personal importance of religion, and that's fine. But we'll never again take competence for granted, after these last eight years.
February 3, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Democrats were the party of "compassion".
How can you call republicans IDIOTS just because you disagree with them? Isn't this what the country is about? Freedom of speech, belief...etc.? You always preach LOVE and PEACE and GREEN and LETS ALL UNITE AS HUMANS, yet you speak to Republicans worse than you treat cockroaches.
Democrat = party of hate. I would never hate somebody for disagreeing with me. You're not intelligent when you insult a different side and all your friends agree with you. Use rational points, and respect our differences. Not everyone was raised the same way you were.
February 3, 2009 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully the Republicans will either dissolve or be out of power indefinitely. We also need to find a way to permanently outlaw Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. These guys are very dangerous and very destructive to the country.
February 3, 2009 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
In reference to what Bouleverz said: Listen to one show of Mark levin - then get back to me on which is the "party of hate." These right wing nutcases on radio are the most angry bunch of losers I have ever heard.
February 3, 2009 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Thorton, I listen to Mr. Levin constantly. I think he makes some rational points, but comes off in the WRONG way. I don't like the fact he calls liberals idiots. But the majority of conservatives does not openly talk to, or treat people this way.
However, Mr. Olberman on MSNBC is just as bad, if not worse. And it makes me sick that you people would suggest that Hannity, Limbaugh..etc. should be outlawed. How can you demand your right to protest, while disabling the rights of "free speech" and "free media" to others? Just because you don't agree does not mean people should be silenced.
And it's bad to say "hopefully the republicans will be out of power..etc." If we had one party in this country, we would not be powerful. Our country would dissolve to garbage. At different points in history, our country has become great due to leaders from both sides of the isle. FDR saved the country from becoming a wasteland, Lincoln saved the country from becoming two countries and broke the chains of slavery. Reagan led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and some of the most prosperous economic times in the USA, Clinton led to economic surplus in our country.
Honestly, I consider myself more libertarian, and I try seeing the positivity in all. I disagree with some of President Obama's moves already, but I would never speak of him the way the majority of liberals spoke of President Bush. How could you make Broadway plays, protests, art, that suggest assassination of any president? It disgusts me, he is still a human being. Don't you find these displays very dangerous and destructive to the country? Should we also outlaw them?
If you don't agree with someone, let it go, or state your point of view while respecting theirs. The real man (or woman) is the man (or woman) with a cool hand. Screaming and calling people idiots based on your personal merit, or lack of merit on their part is detrimental to what America is supposed to be about.
February 3, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bouleverz, the name is Thornton, not Thorton.
I live in the NYC area, where basically right wing radio dominates the air waves . I find it amazing that people accept Levin using extreme language in reference to "liberals," but would not tolerate such language if he substituted other words, such as what Imus did in 2007. Calling the Rutgers team "ho's" is apparently a firing offense, but calling liberals "soviets", "socialists", "america haters", etc. is ok because it is "just politics." I am absolutely appalled at Levin's lack of respect for elected government officials he does not like, using words of hate like "schmuck", it is sickening to me. I am seriously surprised the ABA tolerates his bullshit. The AM frequencies are public property and the public has a right to decent language on the radio by people who should know better. I would be willing to bet that WABC 770 is very close to breaking FCC rules with some of its programming, especially Mark Levin.
February 3, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So 55% want an ideologically dishonest dullard who does not even make an attempt to act like they care about all Americans and 24% want an ideologically dishonest dullard who pretends to be bi-partisan.
February 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds about right.
Man, are they in for a surprise...
February 5, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about?
February 5, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boycott the right!
March 4, 2009, 7:42AM
Fellow progressives!!! Want to silence Limbaugh,Levin,Ingraham,Hannity?? Then do what was done to Imus in 2007!! Boycott their advertisers!! Make them fall on their own swords!
March 4, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink