Politics Warning: The Future of the Republican Party

[Crapshoot]

For those of you who've avoided the morass that is the "God Hate Fags", I understand- for those who've read it, I think it leads to some interesting observations. I think people like Bubba are racist bigots, who would be best left in a theocracy- Bubba thinks people like are sinners who will burn for eternity. As of now, we're probably both Republicans. What the thread highlighted for me is the divisions that are apparent within the Republican party- on the one hand, you have people like me, who are Republicans primarily because we see them as the party of the individual, and see their economic philosophies in line with mine- a laissez faire attitude towards governance for the most part. For some of us- its the economy stupid.. :D
On the other hand, you have the Bubba's of the world- who see the Republican party as the moral party so to speak- working to ensure the judeo-christian nature of society imprinted, and hoping to set up a sort of moral majority to create a religous, "morally sound" fabric. As someone who can never be considered a social republican (Im pro-choice,except in the late 2nd and 3rd trimester, pro-gay rights, and very much a free-trader, be it at the percieved cost of jobs), I find it scary that these interests are supposed to be represented by people I view as far socially constrictive and controlling than I would like. I don't think this is a limited debate- here in Pennsylvania, we have seen the recent Specter-Toomey primaries to see just how this debate has played out. What Im interested in is people's take on the question- does the Republican party have to take a road to travel and define itself, or is it viable for it to continue to straddle the middle-ground and attempt to unify these diverse interests. Im not really looking for discussion of Republican vs Democratic here- rather, Im asking people to put on their political theorists hats and consider what they see the future of the Republican party as.

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38275

[panerd]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38275


WTF is this site? This is some kind of inside joke I don't understand, right? You can't seriously read this shit!? I clicked on the link and saw what garbage the site looked to be and decided to go to the home page...

"North Koreans support John Kerry"

Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, unlesss something drastic has happened in the last 3 hours this is total manufactued, unewsworthy garbage that will never see the time of day outside this site.

[JonInMiddleGA]

For those of you who've avoided the morass that is the "God Hate Fags", I understand- for those who've read it, I think it leads to some interesting observations.
Although I've managed to avoid that thread, I'll take your word for the interesting observations it produced. Interesting especially in the sense that you've hit on something that I've pondered a few times.

What I'd like to see happen? A party, be it the GOP as it currently exists, or some other heretofore unknown party, that matches my own particular politics well enough that I at least feel as though I have a political "home".

What I expect to see happen? At the risk of appearing not to give your good question enough consideration or a fully-developed response, I think you've already summed up my expectations pretty well. "... continue to straddle the middle-ground and attempt to unify these diverse interests."

I don't really believe it has much choice in that positioning right now. The two factions of the party pretty much need each other in order to thrive; either they hang together or they hang separately. No matter what objections the two sides may have with each other, they generally find
the alternative far more objectionable. Not all that much different in some ways as the U.S. & U.K. taking the USSR as an ally during WWII.

Now, at some point down the line, I expect that coalition will suffer more significant fractures & likely a clear split, at least for a time. That'll happen at one of two points -- either when the more objectionable alternatives have been rendered non-entities OR when a different dance partner emerges to form at least an equally powerful coalition. At that point, the groups reposition their artillery & fire at new targets.

IMO, it's all pretty much inevitable -- conflicting interests, by their very nature, must eventually come into conflict. And conflict eventually produces a clear winner & a clear loser, or it continues until one side is no longer able to compete.

Hope that managed to address at least some of your question, which I thought was an awfully good one.

Jon

[Solecismic]

With Specter, you have a Republican who is loved by liberal Democrats, so those definitely were interesting debates.

I think you're right that the Republican party, once the home to what we called "Rockefeller Republicans" who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, has been almost completely dominated by Bush Republicans, who are socially conservative and fiscally in-between (larger government, smaller taxes, deficit spending). Not sure where the Rockefeller Republicans have gone - I think they tend to vote for the lesser of what they see as two evils.

Personally, I support abortion up to about the seventh inning, when it really becomes a distraction to other fans.

[stevew]

With Specter, you have a Republican who is loved by liberal Democrats, so those definitely were interesting debates.

I think you're right that the Republican party, once the home to what we called "Rockefeller Republicans" who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, has been almost completely dominated by Bush Republicans, who are socially conservative and fiscally in-between (larger government, smaller taxes, deficit spending). Not sure where the Rockefeller Republicans have gone - I think they tend to vote for the lesser of what they see as two evils.

Personally, I support abortion up to about the seventh inning, when it really becomes a distraction to other fans.

Specter is a republican? He fools me every time it matters.

[Crapshoot]

Jon/Jim- I think you both raise some interesting points. I guess my belief is that a lot of what's happening now makes me wonder what's happening to what Jim aptly described as the "Rockerfeller" Wing of the Republican Party- tariffs went up, Bush proposed the "gay marriage" amendment, and the Ashcroft's of the world seem to be gaining precedence over the Powell's and the McCains. I've read a little bit before about the advent of "crunchy conservatisms- people who are fiscally conservative and believe in a fairly hawkish foreign policy, but are more liberal on issues like enviromentalism and social constructs- more and more, this is where I see the most successful future avenue for the Republican party. In essence, I see the current moves as abandoning the avenue that is (IMO) most likely to preserve the core values of the party- the idea of the individual. I think the Republican party faces the danger of losing the moderate core to a great extent, and no party can survive in the future without it. One of the most interesting things about this election is the amount of moderate Republicans that seem to be backing away from Bush- I believe in lower taxes, but if it comes at a price like the gay marriage amendment, its not something I could morally justify supporting.

[WussGawd]

With Specter, you have a Republican who is loved by liberal Democrats, so those definitely were interesting debates.

I think you're right that the Republican party, once the home to what we called "Rockefeller Republicans" who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, has been almost completely dominated by Bush Republicans, who are socially conservative and fiscally in-between (larger government, smaller taxes, deficit spending). Not sure where the Rockefeller Republicans have gone - I think they tend to vote for the lesser of what they see as two evils.

Personally, I support abortion up to about the seventh inning, when it really becomes a distraction to other fans.

Um, I'd suggest that Specter was supported by moderate Democrats. A lot of more liberal Democrats were hoping he'd lose so they'd have a better chance of picking up a Senate seat in November.

[Peregrine]

I think the Republican party faces the danger of losing the moderate core to a great extent, and no party can survive in the future without it. One of the most interesting things about this election is the amount of moderate Republicans that seem to be backing away from Bush- I believe in lower taxes, but if it comes at a price like the gay marriage amendment, its not something I could morally justify supporting.

Excellent point Aadik. This is what I've been struggling with as well. I'm registered Republican and voted for Bush in 2000, but feel that as a moderate Republican I'm being left out by shifts in the party in areas I care about, both to the right (abandonment of traditional GOP emphasis on individual liberties, wedge-driving social issues) and left (embracing of big entitlement programs and big government spending instead of balanced budgets.) I just don't feel I can honestly support Bush this year for those reasons. At least I hope that if Kerry is elected, a divided government will provide some kind of cap on spending, in my opinion the most dangerous thing we can have is the presidency and congress controlled by one party, whoever that is. I'm just not convinced that the Republican congress can have its easy-money big spending attitude curtailed any other way, Bush has shown that he is unwilling or unable to veto anything they send him, no matter how much it costs.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html

[Easy Mac]

funny you should mention this. I went to see former Alabama Supreme Court judge Roy Moore speak last night. He was the judge who put up the 10 commandment monument at the courthouse. There were probably about 700-800 people there, and I was suprised at how much these people felt that God was necessary for our government. The whole time they harped on how they were losing their right to worship God, and how the Courts were trying to take that right away from them. I've never seen so many quotes from various things be taken out of context (I'm sure everyone does it, just never personally seen it). Moore has a serious persecution complex and he couldn't admit he was wrong. If there are enough Republicans who feel this way (and I live in the heart of Bible country), then I could definitely see a split. Even my lady friend was put off, and she is a very strong Catholic and Republican.

[Buccaneer]

Vote Libertarian.

[Easy Mac]

Vote Libertarian.
America is a land who likes to vote for winners. :)

[Jon]

I think you're right that the Republican party, once the home to what we called "Rockefeller Republicans" who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, has been almost completely dominated by Bush Republicans, who are socially conservative and fiscally in-between (larger government, smaller taxes, deficit spending). Not sure where the Rockefeller Republicans have gone - I think they tend to vote for the lesser of what they see as two evils.

I think you're right, although some northeastern democrats were Rockefeller Republicans at one time. Howard Dean, who has been portrayed as a left wing zealot, is, if you look at what he did in Vermont and actually look at what he believed before he let the left wing take over his campaign, is in line with those old views. ( i know i'll get flamed here)

In many ways, my views are line with the old school rockefeller republicans who were forced out of the republican party. Except for the archane drug laws.

[Buccaneer]

America is a land who likes to vote for winners. :)
Except if you live in some of the states where the electoral votes have already been decided (Bush in the West and some of the South, Kerry in the Northeast and some of the Midwest) where many votes are for losers. Might as well then make a stand on principles.

[Easy Mac]

I do, I abstain. :)

[Buccaneer]

I also wonder whereas there were Rockefeller Republicans, there were many Truman Democrats (which JFK and LBJ were). I witnesses Clinton (and Carter to some extent) bringing in left-wingers and taking the party to the radical ends. To me that is no different than taking the Republican party to the other end (both in perception, of course). I think in reality, the parties (and their groupies) talk extremist but the way politics and legislations get done, it all falls in the middle anyways. It is my strong preference for gridlock: a govt that governs less, governs best.

[Jon]

I also wonder whereas there were Rockefeller Republicans, there were many Truman Democrats (which JFK and LBJ were). I witnesses Clinton (and Carter to some extent) bringing in left-wingers and taking the party to the radical ends. To me that is no different than taking the Republican party to the other end (both in perception, of course). I think in reality, the parties (and their groupies) talk extremist but the way politics and legislations get done, it all falls in the middle anyways. It is my strong preference for gridlock: a govt that governs less, governs best.
I disagree with this statement. Carter and Clinton weren't liberal democrats. Clinton was a moderate left person who brought the Democratic party toward the center. Balanced budgets and welfare reform are not liberal programs, both of which Clinton wanted.

[Bubba Wheels]

I disagree with this statement. Carter and Clinton weren't liberal democrats. Clinton was a moderate left person who brought the Democratic party toward the center. Balanced budgets and welfare reform are not liberal programs, both of which Clinton wanted.

Clinton ran as a moderate and governed as a liberal. Both welfare reform and the balanced budget were forced on him by the Republican Congress.

[clintl]

Clinton ran as a moderate and governed as a liberal. Both welfare reform and the balanced budget were forced on him by the Republican Congress.

Welfare reform, yes. But Clinton made excellent progress on the budget deficit every year of his presidency, including the two that the Democrats were in control of Congress.

FWIW, if you want fiscal discipline, it appears to me that having a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Congress works pretty well, while any other combination currently seems to feed the irresponsible urges of both parties.

[Bubba Wheels]

Welfare reform, yes. But Clinton made excellent progress on the budget deficit every year of his presidency, including the two that the Democrats were in control of Congress.

FWIW, if you want fiscal discipline, it appears to me that having a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Congress works pretty well, while any other combination currently seems to feed the irresponsible urges of both parties.

Not to forget though, much of those 'spending cuts' came out of defense and, yes, intelligence. We now pay the price for that.

[rexallllsc]

Not to forget though, much of those 'spending cuts' came out of defense and, yes, intelligence. We now pay the price for that.

I don't think it matters how much we spent on intelligence if the people in charge an incompetent.

[SFL Cat]

I disagree with this statement. Carter and Clinton weren't liberal democrats. Clinton was a moderate left person who brought the Democratic party toward the center. Balanced budgets and welfare reform are not liberal programs, both of which Clinton wanted.

Wrong, Clinton ran as a moderate. He certainly didn't govern that way, at least at first. After promising to "focus on the economy like a laser beam," his first executive action was to allow gays in the military.

He justified his retroactive tax hike by whining about how the projected deficits (all Bush senior's fault, natch) were going to be even worse than his people thought they would be. Of course, even with those tax hikes, the five and ten year projected deficits in his budgets still showed drastic growth (doesn't matter how much you increase revenue -- and I'd make the argument that tax CUTS do more to spur economic growth and increase revenues collected by the government -- if you still spend more than you collect).

What almost broke his presidency was his and Hillary's ill-fated attempt to socialize U.S. medicine (the policy meetings surrounding the plan weren't open to the public and the details of these meetings were kept secret). This issue alone cost the Democrats control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years during the midterms.

The new Republican Congress started making noise about balanced budgets and welfare reform. It was at this point that Clinton realized his political future depended on disassociating himself from the left wing zealots and policy of his party. Although he publically sniped at such Republican initiated legislation as NAFTA, Welfare Reform and Balanced Budget. He signed every one into law. With an unemployment rate at where it is now (amazing how when Clinton was running for re-election it was the best economy in 40 years -- now its the worst economy ever) he defeated a weak Republican challenger (Bob Dole, easily the worst Republican candidate in the past 25 years) for a second term.

Clinton could have really secured himself a decent legacy. With the projected surpluses from the balanced budget, he could have begun to address the problems in the social security system. After the first World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of our embassies in Africa, and the suicide attack against the U.S.S. Cole, he could have at least laid the groundwork for a war against terrorism. But he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to tackle such tough political issues. Instead he spent most of his second term trying to cover-up a BJ in the oval office. Sad.

The real black mark on the Clinton administration was the largely successful espionage efforts by the Chinese. They stole enough rocket and missile technology from us to advance their programs by 25 years (they recently put their first man into space). It wouldn't surprise me at all if 10-15 years down the road we find ourselves in a new arms race with the Chinese. All the funny-money with Chinese fingerprints that wound up in the Clinton campaign was also deeply troubling.

[Tekneek]

The real black mark on the Clinton administration was the largely successful espionage efforts by the Chinese.

It is not really espionage when the door was left open and you were invited in, is it? The government knew, and approved of, much of the "sharing" that I've read about. The biggest stuff involving Loral, I thought.

[Tekneek]

Vote Libertarian.

Talk about the party of the individual. The GOP doesn't come close anymore. They fight against the individual almost as much as the Democrats.

[Bubba Wheels]

It is not really espionage when the door was left open and you were invited in, is it? The government knew, and approved of, much of the "sharing" that I've read about. The biggest stuff involving Loral, I thought.

The major change occurred when the Clinton Administration changed the vetting of sensative information to be traded or shared from the responsibility of the Defense Department to that of the Commerce Department.

[SFL Cat]

It is not really espionage when the door was left open and you were invited in, is it? The government knew, and approved of, much of the "sharing" that I've read about. The biggest stuff involving Loral, I thought.

I doubt anyone in the government (even the Clinton administration) would give the Chinese the green light to access rocket and missile technology that would give them the capability to hit us with ICBMs. What we gave them access to and what they took were two different animals.

Before, they didn't have that capability. Now they do.

[GrantDawg]

The GOP has a possible fracture with the far right, and the Democrats have a possible fracture with the far left. I think they both have an equal shot of splitting, which is just above 0%.

[sabotai]

The problem I see for the democrats, however, is that the extremists on the left have a place to go. The Green Party. The (religious) extremists on the right don't. The Libertarian party doesn't support religion in the government (no room for it after they're done stripping it down. :D), so the religious right wouldn't go there..there's no where for them to go.

But could that struggle between religious right and moderate republican rip the party in two (and turn out to be more of a problem for the GOP)? The fed up extremists in the democratic party just go vote Green. I think that's why dont' see the split in the democratic party as much as you do in the republican party.

Just thinking out loud here...

[judicial clerk]

Vote Libertarian.

I think Kodos would say "go ahead, throw your vote away!"

In Oregon, the republican party has a problem that may be present in other areas. Moderate republicans have a tough time winning the primary, and the right winger who does win has no chance in the general election. The newest democratic governor was a weak candidate, but the republicans chose to put their most right-wing candidate against him, and the republican lost.

I am fiscally and foreign policy conservative. I am socially liberal. I like most of the morals espoused by the relisgious right, but the zealots rub me the wrong way.

All the gay bashing bothers me. It seams so similar to other forms of discrimination that formerly were acceptable in the U.S. (ie blacks and women). To me, not letting gays have legally recognized marriages (or civil unions or whatever) is the same as not letting black people sit at the front of the bus or not letting women vote.

I say WWARD.

[sabotai]

What Would ARnold Do?

[GrantDawg]

The problem I see for the democrats, however, is that the extremists on the left have a place to go. The Green Party. The (religious) extremists on the right don't. The Libertarian party doesn't support religion in the government (no room for it after they're done stripping it down. :D), so the religious right wouldn't go there..there's no where for them to go.

But could that struggle between religious right and moderate republican rip the party in two (and turn out to be more of a problem for the GOP)? The fed up extremists in the democratic party just go vote Green. I think that's why dont' see the split in the democratic party as much as you do in the republican party.

Just thinking out loud here...
I could see the possibilty of a "Religious Right" party, but I think the same numbers would go to it as democrats going to the green. It wouldn't be a true "split," because they would only pull like 2% of the vote. The reason is just as what is stated above, Americans like winners. I have a pretty good ear on the RR, and they would honestly rather back a winner than vote as a "statement." They fear putting a democrat in the White House much more than electing an idiot (not saying Bush is an idiot, just making an observation).

[Ryche]

If you don't like how far the Republican party is moving to the right, get involved. Go to your local party meetings. That's where it's decided who runs.

I do believe the parties go through stages where the extreme sides get more and more power until they go too far and the other party gains control. That creates a snap back to the center. Currently it's the Republican party creeping to the extreme. Eventually, maybe after 4 more years of Bush, maybe 4 years after that, I think you'll see the moderate Democrats regain control.

[WussGawd]

Clinton ran as a moderate and governed as a liberal. Both welfare reform and the balanced budget were forced on him by the Republican Congress.

Um, no they weren't. Actually, they were forced upon him by deficit hawks in the Democratic party, particularly Paul Tsongas, who made big early gains in the '92 primaries emphasizing it before Clinton stole his thunder.

As for welfare reform, it really is nothing more than cosmetic. Welfare (not social security or medicare, which are separate entities) is actually a very small portion of the Federal government.

Note that I do not oppose welfare reform (although I'm not sure what purpose is served leaving thousands of kids home alone after school so mom can make $6 an hour at Wal-Mart), in principle, but moderate Democrats grabbed hold of the idea pretty handily

[WussGawd]

dola. Bruce Babbitt, former Arizona governor and Secretary of the Interior under Clinton, also made deficit reduction a centerpiece of his primary campaign in 1988 (although I don't think the Democratic Party as a whole was ready to come around to that way of thinking just yet...then again, neither were the Republicans of the Reagan years).

[WussGawd]

If you don't like how far the Republican party is moving to the right, get involved. Go to your local party meetings. That's where it's decided who runs.

I do believe the parties go through stages where the extreme sides get more and more power until they go too far and the other party gains control. That creates a snap back to the center. Currently it's the Republican party creeping to the extreme. Eventually, maybe after 4 more years of Bush, maybe 4 years after that, I think you'll see the moderate Democrats regain control.

I think what happens oftentimes is that one party overreaches in trying to please the more extreme elements of its membership. The Republicans seem to be doing this at the moment. The record deficits, anti-women, pro-Christian wing currently running the White House and dominating leadership positions in the House and Senate undoubtedly turn off the more moderate elements of the party, just as the more extreme Green elements and the PETA crowd leave me and a lot of more moderate Democrats cold.

A generation ago, nobody would have conceived of the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and (on most things anyway) having a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court). I strongly suspect in a generation we may see a gravitation in the other direction...historically, at least since the civil war, this has been the pattern.

[Buccaneer]

Besides, the 'chicken littles' were screaming about this very same issue (future of the GOP) in the mid-1980s. Things go in cycles, as they have always done.

[sterlingice]

It is my strong preference for gridlock: a govt that governs less, governs best.
I finally find something I agree with Bucc on. I'm completely in favor of governmental inertia.

I really favor one party in Congress and another in the White House because that's when things really grind to a halt. Whenever one party has control over both, things start getting done to further an agenda one way or another and that's when stuff happens and typically that isn't good. When you don't need a consensus and have to cater somewhat to the other side and the interests of the minority, that's when bad things happen.

SI

[Tekneek]

I really favor one party in Congress and another in the White House because that's when things really grind to a halt.

This just keeps them from doing a lot of NEW stuff, but does nothing to help rid us of all the crap they've already done. While doing nothing is good, it still falls short of the ultimate goal (repeal of laws), IMHO.

[sterlingice]

Clinton could have really secured himself a decent legacy. With the projected surpluses from the balanced budget, he could have begun to address the problems in the social security system. After the first World Trade Center bombing and the bombing of our embassies in Africa, and the suicide attack against the U.S.S. Cole, he could have at least laid the groundwork for a war against terrorism. But he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to tackle such tough political issues. Instead he spent most of his second term trying to cover-up a BJ in the oval office. Sad.
Am I the only one that found the projected surpluses going to fix social security mentioned right before the "laying the groundwork for a war against terrorism" argument a little hollow. First you want fiscal restraint, then you want a ton of money spent. Pick one or the other. Something about "fuzzy numbers" comes to mind.

Yeah, the second term of Clinton's presidency (and the first, for that matter) were a waste. But you can't tell me that it was because he spent the second term trying to cover up a blow job. I'm pretty sure a blow job only takes one night to cover up, two if you're really bad at coming up with stories. But it does take a couple of years when the government is putting you on trial rather than running my damn country.

SI

[Leonidas]

As of now, we're probably both Republicans. What the thread highlighted for me is the divisions that are apparent within the Republican party- on the one hand, you have people like me, who are Republicans primarily because we see them as the party of the individual, and see their economic philosophies in line with mine- a laissez faire attitude towards governance for the most part. For some of us- its the economy stupid.. :D


Aadik, I think you should dump the Republican Party and become a Libertarian, because that's how you are describing yourself. I once considered becoming a Republican because they said all the right things about individual rights and the economy, but the reality is there really is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to running the government. Look at the huge deficit Bush has run up. Also, Republican Congressmen and Senators pass through as many pork barrel projects off our tax dollars as any democrats. I think there are a lot of people out there who are Republicans for the sake of going against Democrats, but deep down really should be Libertarians. Makes me wonder if people thought they could make a go of a third party and stand up to thje two party system if we might not actually be able to make some significant changes.

[BishopMVP]

Vote Libertarian.In Massachusetts, the Libertarian Party might pass the Republican Party and become the opposition at some point in the not too distant future. There aren't many people up here who agree with the social aspects of the Republican Agenda, but many people do agree with the fiscal conservatism part (witness the 44% or whatever that supported the elimination of income taxes last election after both Democrats and Republicans campaigned against it.) The Republican Party has tried to respond to the overwhelming hold of the Democrats on the State Houses by effectively nominating Democrats, and this has pissed off a lot of people who would like them.

[Bubba Wheels]

I finally find something I agree with Bucc on. I'm completely in favor of governmental inertia.

I really favor one party in Congress and another in the White House because that's when things really grind to a halt. Whenever one party has control over both, things start getting done to further an agenda one way or another and that's when stuff happens and typically that isn't good. When you don't need a consensus and have to cater somewhat to the other side and the interests of the minority, that's when bad things happen.

SI

Well, we pretty much have that now, as the so-called Republican Senate acts more Democrat than the Democrats themselves did in many cases. So in effect, until some real conservative Senators are ever elected, you can probably count on the Senate to swing Democrat on many issues even though thy claim to 'lean' otherwise.

[chinaski]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38275
can you explain why you would post this link? It seems as if you only read the headline and didnt read the full story.

This 'homosexual leader' didnt literally mean terrify and torture people, if thats what youre getting at.

[RendeR]

Amazing, first I find a fairly polite and on topic discussion, on POLITICS, no less....then as I read through I find something that I agree with BUC on?? what the hell is happening.....

[Scarecrow]

Aadik:

I know that you are not specificly correlating the "God Hates Fags" people and the far-right of the Republican Party, but it might be interesting for you to know that Rev. Fred Phelps and the rest of his clan are actually Democrats.

Now I didn't read more than the first half of the first page in the "God Hates Fags" thread (why should I, I have to see these people on a daily basis), but I would agree that the Republican Party is leaving the moderates behind. But I also think that the Democratic Party is also starting to forget about the conservative democrats (particularly the union workers).

I would predict that in 10-15 years, there will be a 3rd party comprised of the union democrats and as Jim said, the Rockefeller Republicans. We'll end up with a bunch of gun-toting, anti-abortion, tree huggers that will reduce taxes. :)

[sterlingice]

I would predict that in 10-15 years, there will be a 3rd party comprised of the union democrats and as Jim said, the Rockefeller Republicans. We'll end up with a bunch of gun-toting, anti-abortion, tree huggers that will reduce taxes. :)
I can see the campaign poster now. There a wife with an umbilical cord on one hand and a money in the other. And the husband has his arm around a tree and a gun in the other. And what a glorious day it will be ;)

EDIT: Wait, that makes it sound like the wife just sold her baby. Aw hell, even that's legal! Hoorah! :D

SI

[SFL Cat]

Am I the only one that found the projected surpluses going to fix social security mentioned right before the "laying the groundwork for a war against terrorism" argument a little hollow. First you want fiscal restraint, then you want a ton of money spent. Pick one or the other. Something about "fuzzy numbers" comes to mind.

Yeah, the second term of Clinton's presidency (and the first, for that matter) were a waste. But you can't tell me that it was because he spent the second term trying to cover up a blow job. I'm pretty sure a blow job only takes one night to cover up, two if you're really bad at coming up with stories. But it does take a couple of years when the government is putting you on trial rather than running my damn country.

SI

Of course, Clinton could have told the truth in the first place and let the public opinion chips fall where they may. At worst, he might have been forced to resign, but then Algore could have stepped up and it would have been business as usual. It wasn't a totally bad thing, though. As others have said, the less legislation coming out of DC...the better.

As far as social security goes, somebody is going to have to overhaul it or do something to put it on firmer financial standing, otherwise the day is coming when we'll get our paychecks and see that half of what we made was taken by Uncle Sam to pay for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Overhauling SS won't be popular politically, so I'm not holding my breath for it to happen anytime soon, but it does need to be done. All I'm saying is that with a historical budget surplus (and I'll agree with you...lots of fuzzy numbers come out of DC, so the idea of a budget surplus could have been smoke and mirrors -- despite the fact that both parties were claiming it existed and furthermore were trying to take credit for it) Clinton was probably in the best shape of anyone to tackle the issue. If he could have done something in this area, he might have something other than a BJ to showcase as his legacy.

[SunDancer]

Is the Liberation Party a newly formed party? What the principles of this party? It seems like they are becoming a new real threat? Are they far off from running a candidate for President?

[sabotai]

...are you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell sometimes. :)

[BishopMVP]

Is the Liberation Party a newly formed party? What the principles of this party? It seems like they are becoming a new real threat? Are they far off from running a candidate for President?If you aren't joking - http://www.lp.org/

They've been around for a while, based on the ideals of "America's heritage of freedom:
- individual liberty and personal responsibility
- a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity"

They've run a candidate for President for a while, and along with the Greens are the most prominent 3rd-parties. If you check the link, you can see two Libertarian presidential candidates having a shooting duel in Texas as a fund-raiser.

[Buccaneer]

They have been on the presidential ballot since I started voting in 1980 (I voted for their candidate in 1984 and/or 1988, I believe). Their problem (which I am not a party member, nor will I be) is that they need to start at the grass-roots level, like local elections. They have finally starting doing that in the state of New Hampshire (which is one of the reasons why my wife and I will be moving there in the future - "Live Free or Die") where they are concentrating on the local representatives (where they have millions of them in the legislature). I haven't heard if they have made any headways in the last year or two?

As far as the party itself, I certainly agree with their fundamental principles but in some of the platforms, their practicality is not right: like disbanding the military and having no immigration laws. Much like any candidate running on a party's platform, one does not always agree with everything. But at least they are consistent with the ideals of a very limited central govt (think Jefferson) - if you don't want the Feds to invade in one area of your life, it shouldn't be in any area of your life. I certainly don't go that far for practical reasons but at least I want to get others to start thinking in that direction instead of the usual bigger and bigger federal govt that the Republocrats believe.

[Leonidas]

Bucc, you make good points on the head in the sand foriegn policy ideas of the Libertarians. But you also eloquently state that you can't always agree with everything your top choice advocates,

Another problem the Libertatrian party has I think is the tendency for people with Libertarian ideals to drop it and vote Republican out of fear of the Democrats. I freely admit myself to having this fault. I know deep in my heart I am a Libertarian, but it's really hard to not go the pragmatic route and vote for a Republican because the Democrats really scare me with their touchy-feely, lack of rational thought form of politics. But I think the the current administration may have finally pushed me to go Libertarian all the way this time around. You'd think Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would teach the SOBs in Washington that the public is getting sick of the two party system, but the two parties seem to be only getting worse. I think I'll finally put my money where my mouth is and go away from the two parties. I hope a lot of other folks do as well. Something's got to change.

[Buccaneer]

Leonidas, nice words. A year ago, I made up mind to vote for the Lib. candidate this year because I knew that any one of the Dems running would not win Colorado. SkyDog and his wife feel the same way because none of us would stomach having a Dem president again. But since then, not only has my 'hatred' of the Dems and Kerry grown deeper but interestingly enough, my resolve to vote Lib has grown much deeper that I'll be voting that way no matter who would win Colorado.

[Glengoyne]

I am a registered Democrat, but in reality vote more than half of the time for Republicans. I would love it if the John McCains of the Republican party were in power. As it is the power brokers are making sure that the nominee is from the Bush Cheney mold.

[Crapshoot]

Aadik, I think you should dump the Republican Party and become a Libertarian, because that's how you are describing yourself. I once considered becoming a Republican because they said all the right things about individual rights and the economy, but the reality is there really is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to running the government. Look at the huge deficit Bush has run up. Also, Republican Congressmen and Senators pass through as many pork barrel projects off our tax dollars as any democrats. I think there are a lot of people out there who are Republicans for the sake of going against Democrats, but deep down really should be Libertarians. Makes me wonder if people thought they could make a go of a third party and stand up to thje two party system if we might not actually be able to make some significant changes.

leonidas, I am more of a libertarian at heart- that ebing said, I don't neccessarily believe in taking them to the extremes that some libertarians do. For example, I am in favor of some sort of welfare net, because I accept there are people who fall through the cracks due to no fault of their own. I guess I see in the Republican party the potential to be Reasoned libertarians.

For what its worth, I think most of you know that Im not American - not that this should affect the debate in any way, since I do live here- its just that the I am a Republican/Democrat/Tree-Hugger/Facist bit means I can't vote like the lot of you..:D

[Jon]

Clinton ran as a moderate and governed as a liberal. Both welfare reform and the balanced budget were forced on him by the Republican Congress.

CLinton ran as a democrat who wanted to balance the budget. As for welfare reform, the plan he signed was his plan and not the Republicans. He vowed to "end welfare as we know it" when he ran, meaning he wanted to end it as an entitlement, which he did. It did not take a republican congress for him to do that. In fact, when he signed the welfare reform act, he was perceived as ready to be reelected, and could have signed a more moderate democrats alternative plan.

[GrantDawg]

CLinton ran as a democrat who wanted to balance the budget. As for welfare reform, the plan he signed was his plan and not the Republicans. He vowed to "end welfare as we know it" when he ran, meaning he wanted to end it as an entitlement, which he did. It did not take a republican congress for him to do that. In fact, when he signed the welfare reform act, he was perceived as ready to be reelected, and could have signed a more moderate democrats alternative plan.
Exactly. Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" (basically, it was just a Southern Democrat that moved further to the left). He did a huge turn left once in office, and then Dick Morris got him to pander to the right after the 1994 election. SFL Cat's post of the history of the Clinton legacy is a really good synopsis.

[Sharpieman]

For those of you who've avoided the morass that is the "God Hate Fags", I understand- for those who've read it, I think it leads to some interesting observations. I think people like Bubba are racist bigots, who would be best left in a theocracy- Bubba thinks people like are sinners who will burn for eternity. As of now, we're probably both Republicans. What the thread highlighted for me is the divisions that are apparent within the Republican party- on the one hand, you have people like me, who are Republicans primarily because we see them as the party of the individual, and see their economic philosophies in line with mine- a laissez faire attitude towards governance for the most part. For some of us- its the economy stupid.. :D
On the other hand, you have the Bubba's of the world- who see the Republican party as the moral party so to speak- working to ensure the judeo-christian nature of society imprinted, and hoping to set up a sort of moral majority to create a religous, "morally sound" fabric. As someone who can never be considered a social republican (Im pro-choice,except in the late 2nd and 3rd trimester, pro-gay rights, and very much a free-trader, be it at the percieved cost of jobs), I find it scary that these interests are supposed to be represented by people I view as far socially constrictive and controlling than I would like. I don't think this is a limited debate- here in Pennsylvania, we have seen the recent Specter-Toomey primaries to see just how this debate has played out. What Im interested in is people's take on the question- does the Republican party have to take a road to travel and define itself, or is it viable for it to continue to straddle the middle-ground and attempt to unify these diverse interests. Im not really looking for discussion of Republican vs Democratic here- rather, Im asking people to put on their political theorists hats and consider what they see the future of the Republican party as.
Although some of the posts have deviated somewhat from the actual question, most of the answers are pretty good.

My belief is that the Republican Party will go through a number of stages. I think the possibilities of these stages mainly depend on Bush's re-election. If Bush gets re-elected, I expect Bush's policy to be more heavily religiously motivated. We have already seen a glimpse of this with his insistence on faith based prisons and tax breaks for Christian organizations that help the less fortunate. There can also be an argument that the religious faction of the Republican Party has also driven the FCC to crack down in "indecent" material.

If Bush gets re-elected and presumably widens his "Jesus driven policy" the Republicans will experience a heavy backlash from party moderates, and this will probably lead to the polarization of the religious faction for a few years.

If Bush loses, I see the religious faction of the Republican Party getting stronger and will continue to be a thorn in many sides.

*Opinion*
Speaking as a liberal Democrat, I would just like to see the old Republicans back (even though it won't happen) because I see the religious faction as an enormous threat to Americans rights and liberties.

[Jon]

Exactly. Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" (basically, it was just a Southern Democrat that moved further to the left). He did a huge turn left once in office, and then Dick Morris got him to pander to the right after the 1994 election. SFL Cat's post of the history of the Clinton legacy is a really good synopsis.

The New Democrats preexisted Bill Clinton as a national candidate. The concept was started after the 1980 election, when Reagan killed Carter and, viewed as more important by the New Dems, was the Senate takeover by the Republicans. It was formed by Colorado and midwestern dems, not southern ones. As for Clinton, he really is not that liberal if you look at what he believes and what he did as governor of Arkansas.

As for the Clinton legacy, imo, one of his biggest failures was to move the Democratic party to the center like he intended. He campaigned as a moderate, but pandered, not to the right, but to the left when he first took office. His post 1994 moves actually were, in many ways, what he campaigned on. To say that his last several years were spent simply covering up a bj is not a correct assessment. I know Clinton wasn't the topic, but I just have to respond to those who take whatever opportunity they get to bash Clinton. He wasn't perfect, but he was still, in my opinion, a great president. He had one of the most successful presidencies in history, in that he enacted most of what he promised. (okay, before I'm flamed I would like to concede that I don't have the name of the study in front of me, I don't remember it, but it was done by Michigan State Univ., who has the most comprehensive database of political science date in the nation. And, please remember, this is my opinion, not a research paper).

As for the Republicans, I don't think the religious right is going to destroy the party. They are going to be okay. Most campaigns are candidate centered rather than party centered and the region usually dictates what ideology the nominee has. Although the right wing will control the party (as the left wing controls the Dems, that's just how it is), the fact that more moderate people will ultimately win most of the elections (since the party cant' control the party label) will prevent the religious right from dominating too much in the future. This is the legacy of the state-run primary, I guess.

[GrantDawg]

The New Democrats preexisted Bill Clinton as a national candidate. The concept was started after the 1980 election, when Reagan killed Carter and, viewed as more important by the New Dems, was the Senate takeover by the Republicans. It was formed by Colorado and midwestern dems, not southern ones. As for Clinton, he really is not that liberal if you look at what he believes and what he did as governor of Arkansas.


I re-read my statement, but I couldn't find where I said he "invented" the New Democrat. I said he ran as one (which if you'll read the articles from 1992 you'll see that referenced over and over) and how he embodied it.

[Jon]

I re-read my statement, but I couldn't find where I said he "invented" the New Democrat. I said he ran as one (which if you'll read the articles from 1992 you'll see that referenced over and over) and how he embodied it.

I'm sorry for not being clear. I wasn't trying to say that you said that he invented it. I was trying to point out that a New Democrat is more than simply a southern democrat who moved to the left. It was a national movement designed to reflect the fact that the politics of the left just don't cut it anymore. He wasn't the first, but was the first presidential new democrat. Joe Lieberman is also a "new Democrat," as is John Edwards.

On a side note, this whole conversation (and seeing Chris Rock's never scared) of left and right has made me wonder-- do you really think most people are ideogical -- or do you think they base their opinions on the issues? I tend to believe the latter, but I think the group here is more ideological than most people (which is not a bad thing).