What's the big deal here? Democrats were the party of racism and bigotry. They abandoned that plank and now most members view it as the moral abomination that it is. No sooner did they leave then the Republicans cheerfully became the party of white hoods and burning crosses and started inciting that demographic for electoral success. Noone ever denied that Democrats were the original party of racist fucks. But for the most part they're not any longer. They've grown up while the Republicans spent the last 4 decades regressing. When are you guys gonna join the rest of civilization?

QUOTE (Triskele @ Mar 6 2009, 05.39)

To Shryke and EHK's posts above, it seems to me that the Limbaugh thing may be a disaster for the GOP. Yes, he has 1/4 of the electorate in lock-step, but that alone doesnt' do it, and his methods don't necessarily aid themselves to gaining the middle.

Now if the economy and other factors go up in smoke and Obama appears way weak they have a chance, but if things are mitigated just a bit I don't see how the Rush-led GOP wins in the next two cycles. If I were a GOP leader (and I don't even know who that would be right now, it ain't Palin, it ain't Steele) I'd be shitting myself.

At this moment I predict that the best shot the GOP has is for the economy to tank and Romney to come along.

I'd largely agree. Republicans are in a tough spot. Their base is vocal, demanding, and must be appeased if you want to make it out of a primary. But that appeasement is often ugly and turns off moderates and independents. Republicans cannot win without some share of that center, but the base will not allow the Party message to be crafted with that objective in mind. They are suicidally still more concerned about ideological purity than anything else.

The Democratic base by contrast has been much more tolerant of appeals to the center. The true left of the party has been cooperative and patient in the last several years. Remaining more or less quiet and uncontroversial when it serves the common interests of the party. Electorally they've sponsored candidates in formerly Red strongholds that bear only the slightest ideological resemblance to their New England or Western counterparts. Now that they're in power, I have no idea if this will continue. Will Democrats try to broaden and expand their majority or see their resounding victories as an opportunity to reorientate the party ideologically. I wouldn't mind the latter. Not to the point of launching witchhunts against legislators who don't 'toe the line', but of presenting a party platform that is more ambitious and progressive than previous eras allowed.

Continued disaster economically of course renders much of this moot. You can be assholes with bad ideas or no ideas and still look preferable to a party that has run the country into the ground. (or appears completely incapable of lifting it from the ground) In a country with only 2 real choices each election, if the guys in power stumble badly enough, it doesn't matter how fucked up the other guys are, they'll generally get their shot.

That said, Republicans still cannot win without their social conservative base and that base will not sit quietly while a message not crafted for them is promoted. They're stuck in a catch-22 that at this point will only lead to electoral victory if the Democrats fuck up badly enough.

On a more pessimistic note, I think we're overestimating the percentage of the relevant (those who have any chance of not voting Democrat) public turned off by or uninfluenced by Rush's style of demagoguery. They reach a hell of alot of listeners and their strained reasoning, disingenuous arguments, and braindead logic appear far and wide beyond their listenership. Talk radio is an agenda driven propaganda machine. An echo chamber where exaggerated grievances and invented issues get shouted back and forth until the mainstream press legitimizes them by discussing them as actual, relevant news. In their misguided attempts to achieve what they misunderstand to be an appropriate level of objectivity, they give a more than fair hearing to the patented bullshit, granting more credibility to the nonsense than it actually merits. And thus because folks like Rush and others are shameless in their hypocrisy, seemingly oblivious to their disingenuousness, and most importantly persistent in their constant message pounding, it will get repeated by slightly less obnoxious pundits and regurgitating parrots in a form that might actually be palatable to enough of the public to scratch out a victory.

QUOTE (Dinsdale! @ Mar 19 2009, 20.17)

It swings both ways. The old adage is:
"The party in power is arrogant. The party out of power is insane."

I'm looking for a period in modern history where the Democrats were as bad as Republicans are now. Perhaps when they were the party of bigotry pre-Civil Rights.

QUOTE (DanteGabriel @ Apr 24 2009, 17.44)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton, who had himself a busy week of camera-facing asshattery.

How the fuck do so many people who are just dumb as fucking sticks get elected? Why are they almost always Republicans? I'd say they were embarrassing themselves, but I doubt most of their constituents get why they should be embarrassed even after a thorough explanation.

QUOTE (Lord O' Bones @ Apr 30 2009, 21.04)

When did this madness start? I know it can't be as simple as W's election. Was it outrage over a blow-job? As a recovering Republican, I feel like I should know this. In my defense, I was overseas in your defense when I think the seed was planted. Can it even be pinpointed? Dalthor? EHK? Any other recovering Republicans want to help me out?

QUOTE (Shryke @ Apr 30 2009, 21.09)

Ooh, decades ago. I don't remember the exact time line anymore. I think it was around Nixon's time?

Anyway, the GOP courted the racist, socially conservative, religious vote. It won them many years of dominance. And now it's come back to bite them in the ass.

When did the Republican party go nuts? Not really sure. We can say its the moment they started taking up the cause of the southern racists, but to be completely honest, I don't remember alot of that shit being much of an issue when I was a Republican. I think overt expressions of that became seriously unPC in the 90's and it was barely seen in either party. It could be when Reagan made common cause with evangelicals, but that common cause for the next 20 years amounted dangling abortion in front of their noses and going on with their own shit. They weren't an overriding concern. 90's Republicans at least gave the appearance of standing for something. They had their 'Contract for America', they talked fiscal issues, did not completely abuse social wedge issues. (cept guns, but that was more the NRA going vigilante) At present, its still not a party I would be associated with, but it really wasn't one I'd feel completely embarrassed by. Or maybe its been so long that I don't recall the most embarrassing parts.

I think I'd circle three points in recent Republican history. Lewinski. They could never stand Clinton and the fact that he rode a sex scandal to record popularity infuriated them to the point of seizure. As the mainstream public didn't seem to give a shit (beyond keeping up on all the juicy gossip), they increasingly turned to the rather new at the time conservative talk radio and eventually Fox news. Places that would echo their outrage and in time, direct and manufacture it. As other nutjobs found there was money in this, and the nuttier the more money, Rush clones started to popup left and right. Before you knew it you had nationally syndicated shows of conservative programming that could fill every slot 24/7. Finally they had a 'news' source that would tell them what they wanted to hear, 'make sense' of their impotent, ignorant, and misplaced outrage.

Second would be Bush's election. For a long time the evangelical wing had been steadily growing chunk of the party, but up until that point they were given lip service and little else. Bush however was one of theirs. It wasn't HUGELY overt during the first election run, they tried hard to package him as a moderate, an everyman, and it more or less worked. But once elected, the religious right had an active influence in the White House and their major issues came front and center. Then in 2004, they essentially won Bush his reelection. They were a voice that could no longer be denied. And at that point they decided to assert dominance. The party was essentially coopted by fanatic nuts who think gays cause hurricanes.

Third is no surprise, 9-11. Completely changed the shape of politics, the country, and the world. Things that might once had been political impossibilities were suddenly on the table. Torture. Massive surveillance. Wars. For a long time showing any hesitance in supporting the White House or granting more power to the executive cast you as weak at best. Perpetual scare-mongering became a valid political tactic and the Republicans use it at every turn.

At least that's my take as far as causes go. Maybe they were always crazy. But I doubt very much that they were THIS crazy.

QUOTE (Ser Aardvark @ May 1 2009, 13.44)

What's the point? Unless it's a left wing Bork that gets nominated, the kind that wrote the bill for funding the Perverted Arts or something, they probably have a filibuster proof majority anyway. This is going to be like Alito but in reverse, the votes are already in and the nomination will be just a song and dance number for Republicans to show how much they care about their issues and Democrats to scold the Republicans.

Except these are Republicans we're talking about. They have no shame, qualms, or ethics. Where a Democrat might ask 'Will a tantrum make me/the party look bad? Is it dignified? Does scorched earth really advance our interests and help the country?' The Republican have no hesitation nor great fear of going nuclear. They'll raze the city just to watch it burn and dance around the ashes. And their base will high five em for it. They get their information and ideology from the same sources after all and don't expose themselves to much outside rational thought. Those sources will inevitably cheer on any such self-destructive display.

Democrats don't have that luxury. They don't have a self-reinforcing propaganda machine ehco chamber with which to coddle their base and far fewer of them would be tolerant of pettiness for the sake of pettiness. Democrats are gunshy at times and really, they have to be to an extent.

I expect the Republican leadership to draw a line in the sand on this and raise as much hell as possible. There are probably enough independent minded Repubs to get a nomination through regardless, but they won't let it go without a circus. There will be a massive smear campaign no matter who is the nominee.

QUOTE (Tempra @ May 1 2009, 14.52)

Read up on Clarence Thomas's and Bork's confirmation hearing.

Bork was way before my time and yours. Clarence Thomas probably was too, though I vaguely remember a bit of the fiasco. Whatever payback was to be had, has been in the form of countless judicial and civil service nominations held up under Clinton's tenure and the much smaller number of Bush appointees that Republicans shouted bloody murder over when they weren't confirmed on sight. Fact is the Republicans for the most part got their ideal Justices under Bush (Scalito anyone?) without much fuss from the Democrats. if there was a cause for tit for tat, its done. The window closed. Grievances remedied. Democrats conceded this and haven't thrown a serious fit over a candidate in about 20 years and trust me, they've had a few nominees that were worth pitching a fit over. (Bolton anyone?)

Unless Democrats nominate Lenin's eviler leftier twin, there is no cause to fight this tooth and nail, smear the hell out of the nominee, and turn the proceedings into a circus. Doing so would just be petty.

QUOTE (G'Kar @ May 1 2009, 16.51)

Didn't they oppose Harriet Meiers like crazy?

And I love how everybody is counting the Republicans out. Say what you want about them, as a party they are vicious, aggressive, and conniving bastards who know how to inflame passions and win. They are like a trapped animal now. Watch out.

Even a number of Republicans balked at Harriet Meiers. The problem wasn't her beliefs or ideology, it was that she was unqualified for the position and everyone seemed to be, to one degree or another, in agreement with that no matter what side of the isle they were in.

QUOTE (G'Kar @ May 1 2009, 17.24)

Hard economic times are breeding grounds for radicals and fringe groups. And losing two straight elections as a result of an unpopular war does not signify the death rattle of the Republican party. They should seriously just chill the fuck out, There recent attempts to become relevant again are hysterical (T-Bagging anyone), but makes them look weak and confused.

I'd have to agree with this. Most everyone right now blames Bush and the Republicans for the economic crisis (and if you are gonna blame a party, they certainly deserve it), but that won't last indefinitely. At some point if things keep getting worse, people will look to Obama and start asking 'WTF MAN????@#$@#'. At that point Republicans don't really need a solution, they just have to look viable. If one group isn't doing the job, no matter how difficult or impossible the job may be, people will look to other options. No matter how incompetent or worthless that option may be. As much as I enjoy this ongoing Republican self-destruction, it'll be forgotten in a year or two if the economy continues to worsen. Republicans at that point simply need to not look like complete fuckups and hope for the worst.

Democratic optimism (for the future of the parties) isn't completely hubris, there are good ideological and demographic reasons to suggest their dominance may continue for a while. But it is by no means a sure thing. Remember that not too many years ago Republicans were talking about permanent majorities and see how that turned out.

QUOTE (Inigima @ May 1 2009, 18.32)

EHK, the Republicans are doing their damndest to prevent the Democrats from realizing their agenda. If that keeps up, and the Democrats can keep people aware of that, then things getting worse may not be good for the Republicans.

If things do get worse, naturally Democrats will try to blame Republicans (and vice versa) and they may even be right. Fact is though, the group in power typically loses that argument. No matter how much ruckus the peanut gallery makes, you are the guys in charge and people generally will level responsibility for the countries successes or failures your way, whether its fair or not.

QUOTE (DanteGabriel @ May 20 2009, 00.22)

Republicans speaking truth to power? As Captain Dudley Smith told Jack Vincennes, "Don't start trying to do the right thing, boyo. You haven't got the practice."

Greatest.Movie.Ever.

Or close to it.

QUOTE (lockesnow @ May 26 2009, 02.22)

reflection from this weekend. I'd forgotten how much hate my dad used to put into his voice whenever he described something 'wrong' with the country and attached "Clinton" to it in some way. Then this weekend I heard the same venom when he described something 'wrong' with the country and attached "Obama" to it in the same way.

It is surreal. I grew up thinking that a democrat president like Clinton was surely leading us to world ruin we were in a perpetual state of barely avoiding because that's what my dad said, democrats are going to destroy everything great about the country. Now I'm suddenly hearing it again, the 'democrats are destroying everything great about the country.' WTF? we've had eight solid years of a republican president actively trying to destroy everything great about the country, driving the country off a cliff, possibly having taken it into an unsalvagable state, and in all those eight years you never had a bad word to say about Bush, and he was a great leader and we were on the right track and he'd restore things to the good state things were before Clinton nearly wrecked the country?

I hope I don't wind up so blinded by partisanism as I get older. But I already feel somewhat blinded because I can't stand anything republican right now. I will, perhaps, remain open to being courted by a socially liberal fiscally conservative type though, but I really can't say that I'm any better than my Dad in regards to the partisan blinders I've got on.

I ran into much the same thing with my dad growing up. Except he didn't name names. Didn't really have a party or an ideology. Just generally hated and distrusted everyone. It didn't matter whether we had a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat in office, he was always convinced they were destroying the country. He'd rant about our 'Communistic fucking government screwing the people' whether government did something bad or private industry did and government failed to 'fix' the problem. I've pointed out that that term doesn't really mean what he thinks it does, but he doesn't much care. Communist = bad. Thankfully he hasn't started using socialist to describe anything.

He'd read some shit in the paper that might set him off here and there, but he never expressed much interest in the big ticket items. Didn't give a shit about Clinton's indiscretions, Bush's power abuses, and seemed rather disinterested in the war entirely. He could rant til the cows come home about foreign steel dumping, pensions (and those evil communistic government bastards who work half the years and never lose theirs), gun rights, and anyone who fucks with unions, but beyond that, usually isolated examples of everyday abuse or unfairness.

So I've got an idea of where my overall negativity comes from, but I can't quite explain my conservative early years. There wasn't exactly a formative ideological influence in my youth.

That said, I'm pretty much in the same boat. I can't get two words into a typical Republican talking point without wanting to vomit. I can't listen to conservative radio in the car without looking for pedestrians to run over. And for the sake of the long term health of my plasma TV, I never throw on Fox news. If I did, I'd very quickly turn remote hurling into a house destroying Olympic sport. Pretty much everything about the party disgusts me. And I don't quite understand how any intelligent person isn't disgusted by it themselves whether they agree with the platform or not.

QUOTE (Meili @ Jun 24 2009, 22.03)

I like Alec Baldwin's editorial in Huff Post this week. "Deal with it". When this type of thing happens one side turns on the other side with accusations of hypocrisy and fake righteous indignation. People are people. Personal fuckups abound regardless of the political affiliation. When the Repubs sent special councils and investigations on Clinton it was sickening. Ditto now. Next month it'll be a Dem who cheats or another Dem Governor with No. 9. Who cares. Theres so much going on now it really is moot. Yes, they're liars and yes, I wouldn't vote for em again, but let them deal with it and resign and lets move on and stop feeling so gleeful someone affiliated with a party you despise has fucked up, literally. It makes you no better than Hannity and the Limbaugh of the 90's.

Personal fuckups of this sort don't really bother me. I could give a shit if some guy fucks around since it has little or no bearing on his competence as an elected official. Its when they wag their finger at others for such indiscretions then are caught doing the same damned thing they condemned others for. Its IS the hypocrisy that's the issue for me and the righteous indignation is 1000% fucking percent real. I think every motherfucker who wagged a finger then got caught red-handed should be raked over the fucking coals. And every person who didn't shout family values and moral turpitude from the mountaintops should be given a 100% pass on any legal and professionally ethical indiscretion. Maybe then the fuckers will get the godamned point.

Furthermore I am of the opinion that the Republican Party should be Destroyed.

I think I'm gonna sig that.