Republicans Attempt Political Suicide Part N
It appears that far right candidate Christine O’Donnell just beat sure thing in the general election hope
fulless Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican senatorial primary ! It is widely believed that this is worth almost a full expected seat for the Democrats.
It means a possible narrative post election day might be that Republicans blew it by nominating extremists. George McGovern wasn’t really extreme, but Democrats have not forgotten 1972. Not to get ahead of myself but just to get ahead of myself, the Republicans might learn a lesson this year.
i think the way you are formulating this whole question is cause for concern.
who cares about republicans and democrats?
why speak of these two parties as though we owe any alleigence to them as an institution?
that’s not democracy, it’s gang rule.
what matters are the people elected and whether or not they will represent us well. who cares if it’s from team coke or pepsi?
i see this dissention in the ranks of the republicans as a good sign. it means that the “party” will need to stop seeking to promote itself and start asking its constitents what they want again. isn;t that how democracy is supposed to work?
they may be a few angles and odonnels who are not the machine politicans who can win, but even if they lose, it’s worth it to reshape a party that has lost its small government roots. if some short term destruction is the price of doing so, such is life. in the long run, you get a more representative party.
it’s time to go back to voting for people whose ideas we beleive in, not voting our gang allegiance. that’s a lesson equally valid on both sides of the aisle.
political parties are, in many ways, the enemy of actual democracy. we have been witnessing how ugly partisan politics are for far too long. how many votes have we seen on pure party lines? is that really the kind of democracy we want?
Mr. tyger –
We have to care about Republicans because of the damage they can, and are eager to do to the country. I come pretty close to hating the Democrats, but the Republican alternatives are so awful that 1) I am compelled to vote and 2) I am complelled to vote AGAINST Republicans. I can’t think of a single Republican who is representing us well now. And look what they put up in the last Presidential election – an aging political opportunist cum tool of big finance who has never taken a principled position on any issue, ever; and a vacuous know-nothing quitter, who can’t even stand up to a light-weight like Katie Couric.
The Republican party never had small government roots – that is a Goldwater era myth, belied by the policies of Reagan, and even Nixon. They are tools of multi-national corporations, to an even bigger extent than the Dems.
Plus, look at their heritage – Nixon’s southern strategy, Watergate, Reagan’s speech in Philadelphia Mississippi, Lee Atwater and the dirty tricks Karl Rove learned at his knee, Supreme court interference in the 2000 election, more recently granting human status to corporations, so they are even more free to buy elections.
If you care in the slightest about democracy, you have to vote against all Republicans.
I’m glad to see the Republicans cleaning house. Republican leadership does not represent its base. Knowing what a phoney Obama has turned out to be. Democrates should follow suit.
Two years ago, loudmouth Democrats in the media and blogland were crowing that the Republican Party was dead. Well, be careful what you wish for, Demos. The Tea Party voters (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) are not going away.
David has a slingshot and knows how to use it.
The Hill will change. It’s now just a matter of time. Plenty of budget fights ahead.
It doesn’t matter what fruitcakes got elected here. What matters is that the political elite of the 2=1 party system finally starts shaking in their seats. It is time that the lobbyism cleptocracy is overcome and democracy is restored.
If this aim could be reached I could endure even 4 years of Palin.
Palin 2012: Go With The Mayans
Onward to victory then! Congrats to the Toilet Paper Express! This has to be the GOPs best idea since Newties ingenious Contract With America.
While tromping around on the State elections sites I found this set of interesting numbers in MD. http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/results/primary/StateResults_office_008.html
MD 5th Congressional District Steny Hoyer’s seat
Hoyer total vote for: …………..21,355 …… 80.68%
Hoyer total vote fagainst ……… 5,114 …… 19.32%
Rep. winner total vote Lollar … 13,578 ……. 59.7%
Total Rep. vote against ……….. 9,167 ……..40.3%
Total Republican vote …………. 22,745
It is easy to assume that Lollar will hold the entirety of the Republican base vote. At this point Lollar wins against Hoyer without counting the potential cross over vote.
If that happens, it will be a huge political shock.
Robert said: “But, of course, I am completely out of touch.” S’not what I said. I claimed you were too far removed to get the feel of the races. Quite a difference.
BTW, the pundit was a talking head from Politico. don’t remember who.
See my latest analysis. The pundits keep talking about the Demss loss of the independents, but in my estimation, almost as important will be the crossover votes.
Good candidates tap into the core concerns of the electorate, and I think the TPers are pretty much attuned.
Obama is pretty darn close to what he said he would be while campaigning – unlike Clinton, who campaigned as a progressive and governed as a centrist conservative. I’ll grant that Obama is not a liberal in any meaningful way. What makes him a phony in your estimation?
that argument doesn’t make any sense and rests on huge factual fallacies.
these democrats passes a useless pork filled stimulus bill to pay off supporters. it had a flash in the pan impact that is rapidly leaving nothing but the debt it ran up.
then they used arguments like “we have to pass it to see what’s in it” on a helthcare bill that no one had read while violating their own promises about posting the bill with enough notice that people could read it before voting.
and you trust them?
my libertarian vioews are not idealist not impractical. they are very simple and easily implemented.
governement does very few things well, has perverse incentives, and is bought by special interest groups.
nothing will stop that.
so the answer is smaller governement. to take lobbiest infulence out of governement, you have to take influence away from governement.
under coolidge, the US had a federal budget of around 2% of GDP. why do we need 10-15X that?
small, limited government is not some wild utopian ideal. it’s the basis for the foundation of this country in which the rights of the individual are supposed to be paramount.
look at how well that mandate for $1tn in subprime loans to “disadvanatged” buyers under the CRA worked out.
i’m not claiming it was the sole cause of this blow up, but it, along with democratic darlings freddy and fannie sure played a big role.
“ it’s worth it to reshape a party that has lost its small government roots.” tyger tyger
Funny, how much we hear about small government vs big government rather than good govt vs something else. Or about effective govt vs what we generally end up with. What is the value of size comparisons? Who is it that knows the ideal size of government in a society thaqt is constantly growing in size and in ambition. What aspects of this too big government would we jettison first? Should we shrink the government down to a size that would assure its inability to protect its citizens? How about reducing the government’s commitment to infrastructure. Do we really need an interstate hwy system with smooth roadways and bridges? If the Corps of Engineers discontinues operations would our dams and levies be safe guarded from deterioration? Would they be adequate to the task of holding back the waters of the rivers and gulfs? Would that be small enough for our conservative friends in the southeast? Should we pull out of forest fire services and leave the west coast and north east to the ravages of nature? Where do we start this small government reform? Whose pet projects get closed down first? Do we really need any over sight of our financial industry in spite of its fraudulent inclinations? What would be the savings if the Supreme Court were to be disbanded? There are lots of good quality federal and state courts across the country. Why the need for such duplication?
So where exactly do we start this government reduction plan? Or do we just reduce the taxes of anyone who is tired of supporting their government? That might be a lot easier. Just a thought. And why didn’t the government shrink to a smaller size when the Bush conservatives got into office? Or, was it only the anti-fraud aspects of the government that were seen as too big once the conservatives were in power? So tell me, what’s the right size government for a very large and complex country? Or maybe we could start looking for an effective government, a government that actually takes steps to deal with fraud, waste and the living and working conditions of the 95% of its citizens that don’t earn $200,000 each year.
“What we are seeing today is the implosion of government run economies around the world and the possible end of progressivism.” tk
Just two points regarding your lead sentence. First, how would an economy function if there were no legal structure defining that economy? Where would that legal structure come from if not from a government, which is the means by which all societies and their economies have functioned since mans’ first organized groups. Some governments do a good job over a specific period of time. Some governments need to improve their performance in the arena of economic function. Note that tk’s statement makes no sense as it implies that there would be some other form of economic process other than that which is set up and maintained by a government. The “private sector” functions within
the economy. It does not run the economy. China is a good example of a government structured economy which has been rather successful in the past twenty years. Of course our government and private sector has been doing all that they can to assist the Chinese government and the Chinese private sector reach its economic goals.
And what the government’s role in the economy has to do with the end of progressivism is any one’s guess. So tk scores two fouls in a single lead sentence making his entire comment less than logical.
By the way, I’m still waiting for any reasonable response to my immediately previous comment which is posed mostly as a question. Just how small should the government be? And which activities should we first eliminate? Try to get beyond your own personal needs and anti-social ideology. How about revising the tax laws so that all religious organizations pay taxes on their property and incomes? Lots of revenue potential there.