News What's wrong with the Republican party?

[Informal Logic]

...Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain...

I don't see Rice in that group. She is right-wing, even perhaps a neocon, but not a moderate. And I question whether Schwarzenegger is really a Republican at all.

The religious-right is not likely to split from the Republican party for a couple of reasons. First, they are a large group that the Republicans cannot afford to lose, but at the same time too small to be effective on their own. Second, I agree with BobG regarding overlap in that many fundamentalists are also neocons.

 

[BobG]

I disagree. Second, the Republicans have lots of talented, creative, attractive and effective figures like Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain, Rice and Gingrich. Remember who were most prominently displayed during the GOP convention? The moderates were. Pro-choice, social liberal people like Arnie and Giuliani. Compare that to Michael Moore sitting next to Carter in the Dems convention. It really says a lot that while one party embraces its moderates, the other goes to its most extreme members. How about Dean running the DNC?

The possibility I see here is of the emergence of a strong Republican centrist party in line with intrinsically American values such as free enterprise, low government intervention in the economy, foreign policy exceptionalism, law and order, personal responsibilities, and a solid optimism about the capabilities of free men and women to transform the world in their image. Opposite to that I see developing a left wing Democratic party, with a mainly negative view of America, but with no concrete proposals, and a right wing religious section splitting from the Republican party, with the characteristics we all know and dislike.

The first black and female president will be doctor Rice.

Democrats also have some effective, moderate folks like Ben Nelson, Bill Richardson, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, and others. The only difference is that they aren't prominently displayed or embraced by their party (with the exception of Harry Reid as Senate Minority Leader).

If a Democratic Party that encompasses a pretty large spectrum can be dominated by its most extreme members, what is it the Republican Party has that will protect it from its own most extreme members? How much of the differences are due to the traditional minority party having to shift its stances a little towards the majority party's lines and much is due to being a stronger party?

Republicans being the majority party is a new situation (at least as far as current politicians are concerned). You can't just look at how things have usually gone in the past. There has to be a concrete reason the Republicans won't experience the same problems the Democratic Party has.

 

[ron damon]

what is it the Republican Party has that will protect it from its own most extreme members?.

The way I see it is this: the Republicans are an amalgam of two distinct groups that by chance coalesced into one party at the present point in history. First you have authentic through-and-through liberals, like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, who believe in personal freedom and exploration at all levels of the human experience, and then there are the true conservatives, guardians of tradition and propriety, like Aschcroft and Sean Hannity.

You have also the odd figures like Newt Gingrich, who never ceases to amaze me with his creativity and profusion of ideas. He is a voracious reader, and even loves physics and science books and has reviewed a couple of them at Amazon. Very interesting man.

Anyway, the two groups (liberals and traditionalists) come together in the Republican party because the United States lives on the greatest tradition of liberal capitalism that has ever existed. Thus, the liberals who are of the spirit of the country, and the conservatives who uphold the tradition of the land, are defending one and the same thing.

Of course, and this is why I see them splitting, there are increasingly many points where the two diverge, one of them being religion and another sexuality. I can only hope the liberals can maneuver with sufficient ability to take control of the party and push the conservatives to the fringe.

On the other side of the spectrum you have the Democrats, but they are for the most part no more than Left-wing contrarians, who are always negative and have nothing of value to contribute. I do like that Bill Richardson fellow though...

 

[Informal Logic]

...then there are the true conservatives, guardians of tradition and propriety, like Aschcroft and Sean Hannity.

Um, Sean Hannity is a reporter, not a political leader.

...On the other side of the spectrum you have the Democrats, but they are for the most part no more than Left-wing contrarians, who are always negative and have nothing of value to contribute.

Who needs half the country. We should be a one-party state anyway.

 

[ron damon]

Um, Sean Hannity is a reporter, not a political leader.

But he IS a political leader, not a reporter. Only he is not elected.

 

[SOS2008]

But he IS a political leader, not a reporter. Only he is not elected.

A mix of news sources, preferably more balanced news sources, is something you may want to try.

 

[Astronuc]

We need more policians like Alan Simpson (Wyoming) and Warren Rudman (New Hampshire). I think they simply got tired of the BS.

Someone like Colin Powell would be great - at least he seems to be one of integrity.

But it seems that only those of questionable integrity or lack thereof are more likely to get elected - in both parties.

What does that say about the state of democracy?

 

[SOS2008]

I've been meaning to post something about this, and it probably should go under separation of church and state, but is applicable here as well:

This [last] Sunday at 7:00 pm EDT, Senator Bill Frist [partnered] with radical conservatives like James Dobson and Tony Perkins to launch "Justice Sunday" - a national telecast to churches across the country which claims that opposing the far-right's "nuclear option" is tantamount to discrimination against "people of faith."

I don't know if anyone caught any clips of what various speakers said during this telecast, but they claim Christians are oppressed in the U.S.! One speaker bashed gays and then went on to say there needs to be tolerance in this country (for religious beliefs, of course). As for Frist participating as a political leader in this...Now who was it that was saying there's no movement in the U.S. to remove separation of church and state? People should be outraged, and it's amazing these Christians are so ignorant as to place themselves in this position.

 

[BobG]

I've been meaning to post something about this, and it probably should go under separation of church and state, but is applicable here as well:

I don't know if anyone caught any clips of what various speakers said during this telecast, but they claim Christians are oppressed in the U.S.! One speaker bashed gays and then went on to say there needs to be tolerance in this country (for religious beliefs, of course). As for Frist participating as a political leader in this...Now who was it that was saying there's no movement in the U.S. to remove separation of church and state? People should be outraged, and it's amazing these Christians are so ignorant as to place themselves in this position.

This is the scariest part of the direction the Republican Party seems to be headed. Other than his political views, Frist is a very good leader who can generate a lot of respect. It would be better if all of the religious right politicians bordered on the edge of looney.

Ironically, DeLay might be the savior of the Republican Party. It's dicey, since someone like DeLay could taint the entire party and turn control of Congress over to Democrats, but DeLay may wind up giving a lot of Republicans some room to move away from anything and everything associated with DeLay, including the religious right movement.

 

[Informal Logic]

They are looney. 'Oppressed' means persecuted and not allowed religious freedoms. It's my understanding that people here in America are still free to practice the religion they choose--to go to church, to worship, to pray, to teach their children, etc. A couple of judges have been, or are being blocked based of their extreme-right activist records. The checks and balances in our system are in place to keep these kinds of nominations off the bench, and it has been the case for the far left as well.

The truth is these people aren't satisfied with their own individual rights and freedom of religion. They want to impose upon everyone else's rights by forcing their beliefs on the rest of the country. That would be religious oppression.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This is the scariest part of the direction the Republican Party seems to be headed. Other than his political views, Frist is a very good leader who can generate a lot of respect. It would be better if all of the religious right politicians bordered on the edge of looney.

It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Frist. If he gets the nomination, I am done with the Republican party.

 

[Informal Logic]

The problem is not just Frist. He is the majority leader for a reason. And though he led the legislative intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, he did not go it alone. Now he is fighting to have Bush's judicial nominees confirmed starting with the most extreme (think pro-intervention), and once again, he is not going it alone. He has a good amount of support from other Republican senators. I think the problem is larger and more far reaching then one person like Frist.

 

[BobG]

I wouldn't rate Frist's chances at getting nominated for 2008 nearly as high as they were last fall - not even as high as last week. He really hasn't been able to keep the Republican Senators together very effectively - probably because he has aligned himself with the right-wing fringe.

I think the deal McCain and the other Rep/Dem Senators came up with will turn out to be very interesting. Which of the judges in this actually get appointed or dumped probably winds up being trivial. What happened with Greer in the Schiavo case shows that - the political views of the judges may affect what angle they start from in viewing the case, but most wind up doing their best to rule according to law. It means more politically in the struggle over who controls each party.

One thing is for sure - the religious right is declaring war on McCain. They'll probably be able to trash his chances of getting nominated, but I'm wondering how much backlash they'll feel in the process.

Maybe moderates from both parties are finally forging some kind of power in the middle. If so, the impact on Hillary will be as great as the impact on Frist and could open the possibilities for someone unexpected in both parties.

Although 'moderate' might not be the right term for some of the Republicans that joined the group. McCain is mostly conservative, even if he's not shy about his views that differ from the party line. DeWine, Graham, and Warner definitely aren't liberal Republicans, either.

At least initially, I think the McCain deal is good news for folks who were a little concerned about the influence the right-wing fringe element was having on the party as a whole.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The way Frist is working, openly wooing the religious right, he either isn't hoping to get nominated, or else has has thoroughly deceived himself on the number of votes they can deliver. He might just be angling for a place at the table when the true nominee is selected, plus a place in the cabinet if that candidate wins. If you though Ashcroft was bad...

 

[SOS2008]

I believe Frist is truly a fundamentalist. From day one of Bush becoming their beacon of light, fundamentalists have believed this is their chance to overturn Roe v Wade, and in general to strengthen Christian practices in our country. I'm not sure these folks care about party unity, or even the future in general. They wear emotional blinders, including Frist.

Aside from ignoring polls and majority views time and again, issue after issue, the Republican party is going to have difficulty within their own party right up to election time and finding nominees that can really win.

 

[BobG]

The way Frist is working, openly wooing the religious right, he either isn't hoping to get nominated, or else has has thoroughly deceived himself on the number of votes they can deliver. He might just be angling for a place at the table when the true nominee is selected, plus a place in the cabinet if that candidate wins. If you though Ashcroft was bad...

Miscalculation is a good possibility. How much of Bush's power during his first term was due to backing from the religious right and much due to the post 9/11 attitude about the world?

Bush, Frist, and DeLay seemed to have forgotten something that the religious right might not have - the exciting campaigns of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanon. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Capitalizing on the current situation may be a lot bigger priority for the religious right than who wins the next election. Time's running out, if it hasn't already. If it takes burning Frist to get a couple of conservative US Supreme Court justices, then that's a 'sacrifice' the religious right would gladly make.

Besides, losing the next election isn't a foregone conclusion. Trashing McCain's wife and kid in the 2000 primaries worked, the 'Swift Boat Ads' worked again in 2004 - why not a three-peat?

These guys play hardball and anyone's expendable for the greater cause.

 

[SOS2008]

Of course politicians rely on Americans not being well informed and having short memories, but after the WMD propaganda, the Terri Schiavo incident, etc., I don't know about a three-peat. Frist keeps nailing his coffin shut, McCain isn't getting any younger, and with regard the Bush dynasty (including Rice), remember 48% wanted an end to this in 2004, add to that the swing votes, and?

 

[Big Papa]

right to church.

I have no problems with the two repubilican senators form Maine. I do have a problem with a number of other republicans. First on the list is how the electronic voting machines rigged the election for George Bush Jr. to win. Second is how the religiouse people are running the Right's agenda. Third is how we are paying for a star wars program while putting a freeze on housing subsidies. Forth is how the no child left behind is putting all the children behind on their hisotry studies. Fifth is how the enviorment is treated like something that can not be destroyed fast enough. Sixth, is how they preach morals on sex, while the wives of the president and vice president hang out at strip clubs. Seventh, is how Fox news network is a big lie for their propaganda. ( See past Rolling stones, magazine articles.) Eighth, is the war on weed which could generate so much money using hemp for industrial and commerial uses. Ninth, is their war on Howard Stern and anythiing else that has to do with Freedom of Speech. Tenth is how Radio stations were allowed to be bought up by clear channel commnications, and now musicians have to pay to be played on these stations.

This is just for starters, but the bottom line is pure fasicism. Not just the Nazi brand, but also the Japanese brand with the thought police.

 

[Informal Logic]

Another article about Bush and his supposed political capital...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8040150/page/2/

To begin, the 51% to 48% win in 2004 was not a landslide. Second, Bush obtained the 51% mostly because of the war in Iraq, and other factors like religion, and of course a weak Democrat opponent (Kerry). Yet the Bush camp/supporters have continued to claim a mandate.

Bush started off his second term with a string of important victories, pushing through measures to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits against big corporations and to wipe out debts by filing for personal bankruptcy. Congress passed its first budget resolution in years, largely along the lines of Bush's proposals, and gave him nearly everything he asked for in an $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With regard to the $82 billion for war costs, what else could be done—it is not like this was appropriated with enthusiastic support. Victory?

The excuses are even more amazing. First is the claim that Bush has bravely used his political capital to reform Social Security. Americans do not want privatization, but Bush is brave. Followed by even more unpopular measures, such as:

The 'Nuclear Option' to end Filibusters – The majority of Americans do not want lifetime appointments approved with only a simple majority—that’s scary no matter who has power. Is there a president in US history who has had all nominations approved, and why should Bush be an exception?

Stem Cell Research – As with Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, the majority of Americans see these activities as extreme misconstruing of pro-life beliefs.

CAFTA – Americans are tired of failed trade agreements such as NAFTA, and American jobs going overseas.

Guest Worker Program – Americans believe people should abide by laws, should not be allowed to flood into the country without screening, etc.

Iraq/Foreign Affairs – Aside from the ongoing death tolls, Americans did not appreciate being deceived about the war.

Of course the Bush camp is blaming these failures on Democrats. Has it ever occurred to them that these issues are just very unpopular with the American people? Seriously, if there was not an opposing party in this country, these issues would still be unpopular. I hope they continue to be delusional idiots and continue to ignore the polls.