the G.O.P.

Good points JC,

What is totally amazing is that McCain is pegged as having enough support to beat Obama. I just cant believe anyone would vote for McCain. Most Republicans don't like his position on several issues so how did he get votes. Their must be millions of senior citizens out there suffering from dementia because he is basically running as George Bushes third term.

Surely the pollsters are wrong. they may be paid off to skew the numbers to give McCain momentum so to speak Because he should be at about were Bushes approval rating is, 28 % 

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 208 comments) on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 9:46:52 PM
 

Skewed Results

The head-to-head matchups of Obama v McCain which show them to be neck-and-neck are being distorted at this point by the answers of Clinton supporters. When the question is asked of a Clintonite, many will automatically say that McCain would defeat Obama, even if they don't truly believe it, so that it looks like Clinton is more electable.

That's not saying that Hillary's supporters do not honestly believe she would make a better president, only that most of them don't really believe McCain has much hope of beating Obama in the general.

I predict that as soon as Clinton is out, we will begin to see a truer picture of how the country feels. Think about it this way:

Current polls pitting all three candidates against each other show that they each are almost dead even. That means Democrats have 2/3 of the vote. Does anyone really believe that huge numbers of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain instead of Obama? Even most of those who swear they will never vote for Obama will not actually vote for McCain - they will stay home and vote for no one.

But even if 25% of Clinton supporters DID vote for McCain (which is outrageously unlikely), that would mean McCain would still only end up with 41.25% of the vote while Obama would have 57.75%. That's called a landslide.

by JC Garrett (34 articles, 49 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 456 comments) on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 1:43:02 PM
 

Success!

Get the Supreme Court to force Democrats to change the name of their party.

Surprisingly they have already had a great deal of success on this front, though I'm not sure the Supreme court is involved. How many people today refer to the Democratic Party? It is rare on TV to hear anyone speak these words, it seems always to be the Democrat (sounds like a rat) Party.

The incorrect use of the noun rather than the adjective has long been used by Republicans as a slur on their opponents, but today this kind of thing is just ignored, even by the Democratic Party leadership.

by PrMaine (8 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments) on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 2:09:25 PM
 

Part of the Problem

re:  "But one thing is certain: anyone who will openly profess to be a proud Republican today, offering no caveats or apologies, not even a "yeah, I know he's an idiot," - that person is what the face of American Republicanism has become."

As a lifelong Republican PALEO conservative I would tend to agree.   But some of us are the "real deal" and have been addressing real issues like the Bush/Clinton cabal.  And any REAL analysis of the current political situation would have to include Ron Paul.   (He's still in the race)  And he's the most non polarizing candidate on either side.   Meanwhile McCain has so many issues he may not even make it to the finish line.   

by bill west (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 10:20:08 PM
 

The Exception v. The Rule

There's no doubt that there are "real thing" conservative Republicans. The problem is they are very few. Charles Grassley has been a consistent force for sticking up for taxpayers and demanding government accountability. Chuck Hagel has not been afraid to go against the Republican grain on several important issues, such as the war in Iraq. Arlen Specter has admirably worked with Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy to preserve Congress' constitutional prerogatives against an overreaching president.

Even John McCain had some credibility as a sympathetic populist before he decided to run for president. (He once said of Bush's tax breaks for the rich "offended his conscience. It seems he got over it.)

And as you said, Ron Paul knows the meaning of conservatism and populist constitutional government better than any other Congressional member, including most Democrats.

But there are no more than a handful who know the meaning of conservatism, democracy, and liberty. The same thing could be said of some Democrats, but they are the exception, while they are rule for Republicans.

by JC Garrett (34 articles, 49 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 456 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 2:47:18 AM
 

Labels

re:

"I've never really cared much for labels. Identity politics and party-line loyalty just seems too tribal to me, and wholly unnecessary in a modern democratic society."

No offense but you could have fooled me with the rest of the article. And unlike some of the establishment I would also hope that Republicans go after more of the populist and independent types. When the 2 parties vie for this group of people the country wins. And of course some think the "plan" (at the top) is to defend the party against all comers (to our own detriment) and pass the torch to the Clintons. :(

by bill west (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 3:46:29 PM
 

Not a Label of My Choosing

What I mean to say is that the labels we use to distinguish between our mainstream political parties have become so polarizing that their members' positions on the issues are more often than not dictated by their partisan affiliation, rather than the other way around.

As I said, it doesn't matter at all to me which label is applied to me. If Republicans had the good sense to do the things I pointed out in the article, I could jump right on board and wouldn't hesitate to register as a Republican.

Every Republican in Congress knows that it is immoral to support a big bailout for huge corporations and investment banks while ordinary Americans lose their homes, largely as a direct result of the shady, fraudulent practices of those very companies. They know it's wrong, but they still vote the party-line for the sole reason that that's how "Republicans are supposed to vote."

The Democratic party is not immune to the same thinking. They just do it less often. They used to be terrible about voting the party-line on gun control and Second Amendment issues. Thankfully, there are now many Democrats who respect the Constitution, and won't allow the hardcore anti-gun activists to completely obliterate our rights without passing an amendment.

But Republicans - I am speaking of the Republicans currently in Congress who are supposed to be the representatives of the entire party, and those who support them - seem to have no problem whatsoever with allowing every other right in the Bill of Rights to be cut to ribbons. The only other right they haven't had occassion to trample yet is forcing citizens to provide room and board in their houses for soldiers.

Parties change. It isn't that conservatism has changed - it remains constant. Republicanism has changed. Just as the Democratic Party once was the strongest advocate for slavery, while the "party of Lincoln" was a champion for human rights, the roles have now been totally reversed. I have little doubt that Lincoln would cry to see what his beloved party has become - right before he punched the President in the nose.

So when I speak of labels, and my aversion to them, what I mean to say is that having labels is ultimately detrimental to free and honest thought. Republicans are supposed to vote one way, Democrats another, as determined by the party's philosophy instead of their own consciences.

It's the same as religious affiliation. Catholics and Protestants worship the same God, and share many of the same core beliefs, and yet they have been killing each other for hundreds of years simply because they have different labels. And they STILL to this day kill each other. 

One party is neither inherently "better" or "worse" than the other. That is always relative to their current philosophies, which are always in flux, always changing. And at this moment in time, the Republican party's philosophy is infinitely and undeniably worse than that of the Dems' philosophy. And this period in history will prove to be one of the darkest stains on the Republican legacy, just as slavery is a dark stain for Democrats.

I would rather that the labels didn't exist. But it isn't me who has labeled them. It is the label that they have chosen to apply to themselves, and all anyone can do in evaluating the relative worth of the label they chose is to look at their actions and attitudes at this particular moment in time.

And by that metric, anyone who is unequivocally proud to be a Republican at this moment, by today's definition....well, I feel very sorry for them.

by JC Garrett (34 articles, 49 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 456 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 5:43:17 PM