Arlen Specter says, "See ya!" to the GOP - switches parties.

[Jag_Warrior]

The Pennsylvania senator's decision would give Democrats a 60-seat majority in the Senate if Minnesota DFLer Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator. The margin would allow Democrats to break Republican filibusters.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43887297.html?elr=KArks :D CiUo3PD:3D_V_qD3L:c7cQKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

[Roamy]

good riddance to Arlen SPHINCTER

[Jag_Warrior]

If the GOP allows the Club for Growth to pick who can and can't be a Republican elected to office, I figure the GOP will drop from the 21% nationwide identifiation it has now to somewhere in the mid teens.

Here's is where I believe Limbaugh was right a few months ago, or maybe prophetic (without meaning to be): without a complete failure of Obama's policies, the GOP might soon have more in common with the Whigs than anyone guessed. The GOP has gained the reputation as the party of "No"... as in no new ideas ("hey, I know, let's cut cap gains taxes to cure that swine flu thingy"), no compromise ("you're either a neocon or an Evangelical and you're with us, or you're anything else and you're against us!"), and no plan going forward ("fewer people in the GOP just means we can save money by renting a smaller convention hall in 2012 - see, it's all good"). IMO, the neocons are going to do to the GOP what they almost did to America: ruin it for everybody else.

IMO, it's time for a major 3rd party to step forward in the U.S.! It may quickly become the 2nd party. More Americans now identify themselves as Independents (38%) than either Democrats (35%) or Republicans (21%). Over the past year or so, the two categories that have changed the most are Republican (down sharply) and Independent (up sharply). There should be some sort of home base for fiscal conservatives or moderates, who are social libertarians or moderates. Right now, there is no place for them (us) to go. Ross Perot, where are you, buddy???!!!

[anthonyvop]

The only thing that changed was that there is a "D" after his name instead of an "R".

[Jag_Warrior]

Seems like a lot of average Americans are removing th "R" from behind their names too... and replacing it with an "I". Some of the "D's" can come join us too.

I don't get a commission or anything, but anyone who hasn't read it yet, I recommend you pick up a copy of Lou Dobbs' book, Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit.

[anthonyvop]

Seems like a lot of average Americans are removing th "R" from behind their names too... and replacing it with an "I". Some of the "D's" can come join us too.

I don't get a commission or anything, but anyone who hasn't read it yet, I recommend you pick up a copy of Lou Dobbs' book, Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit.
Registered Independents are the same as those who put down "undecided" on a poll a week before an election.

Ignorant people who shouldn't be encouraged to vote.

[edv]

Why do Americans keep equating Republicans and Neo-cons?
From my memory one of the greatest American Neo-cons was JFK.
Or am I missing something in the definitions?

[libra65]

The only thing that changed was that there is a "D" after his name instead of an "R".

I totally agree. Arlen is my Senator. He has always voted for what he thought was right no matter what side of the aisle proposed the bill. He obviously is going to continue to do so as his first vote as a Democrat was a NO to Pres Obama's budget. Keep em guessing Arlen.

[Jag_Warrior]

Why do Americans keep equating Republicans and Neo-cons?
From my memory one of the greatest American Neo-cons was JFK.
Or am I missing something in the definitions?

In this context, "neocon" refers to the neoconservative movement: basically followers of Leo Strauss' idealogy (Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, et al). Some were also former followers of Leon Trotsky's idealogy. There is nothing which equates (all) Republicans as neocons. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's unlikely that a (modern day) neocon would be a Democrat. But a neocon could be a Republican, or a member of some fringe party.

The "civil war" within the GOP, being spoken about over the past few months, has the neocons and Evangelicals on one side (the stronger side) and basically everybody else on the other side (the side that is shrinking away and looking for a saner place to hang their hats). Prominent Republicans who are not neocons include Christopher Buckley (William F. Buckley's son), Colin Powell, Jonathan Bush (George W's first cousin) and perhaps the most prominent anti-neocon of them all, Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat Buchanan describes these neocon "New World Order" types, that are helping to sink the GOP, as, "the people who show up late and uninvited to a dinner party, eat all the food and then claim that they were there from the beginning... and even helped plan and pay for the event."

One of the more prominent and vocal neocon organizations on the prowl now (one which fully supports the "you're either with us or you're against us" mindset) is the Club For Growth. They have attacked John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, in addition to many others who didn't bow down to them. This is one of the groups that wanted to take down Specter... whether it meant the GOP would lose that Senate seat or not. Specter named them in his speech last week.

Even conservative pundits are beginning to describe the exodus from the GOP as "the brain drain." People who don't fancy the look of a tinfoil hat on their heads are just walking away from the GOP. That's why many people (myself included) believe that short of a series of major FUBAR's by Obama, the GOP tent is going to keep getting smaller and smaller. Just as people flocked to Obama, they may flock to a(ny) GOP candidate if Obama royally screws the pooch. But as it stands now, more Americans prefer to be considered independent of party affiliation, rather than be considered Republicans or Democrats.

[Jag_Warrior]

Registered Independents are the same as those who put down "undecided" on a poll a week before an election.

Ignorant people who shouldn't be encouraged to vote.

Hmm, this as opposed to people (or sheeple, as I refer to them) who blindly cast their vote as soon as they see whether the candidate has a "D" or "R" after his name?

[Mark in Oshawa]

It is weird. Only in the US are people supposed to have a little identifier to tell all who you support and only in the US do you basically have 2 parties that often say different things but often do the same thing.

I have nothing against Spector. I am a Canadian who views US politics with interest only because when a bad president runs things into the ground, it takes part of our economy with it.

Spector didn't change parties because he disagreed with the Republicans, heck he would agree or disagree as how he figured people would take it out on on him in the next election cycle. He quit the GOP because it was clear he was going to get creamed in the next GOP primary in PA. In Canada, you usually change parties and get creamed in the next election because it is the first sign of having no values. I don't know if Arlen can be accused of this or not.

I do know this much tho. The Republicans are in a unique spot if they choose to see it. Obama owns the White House for the next term. The Dems own the Senate and House. If things are a mess in 4 years, they can just sit back and say "they have all the power they need to make the changes they needed and they still screwed the pooch" That's it. You cant blame it on anyone at that point.

I suspect, and history is honest on this, that the GOP will gain strength and get something back in either the Senate or House first, and eventually the presidency, either in 4 or 8 years. Nothing is a constant in US politics except no independent movement has ever had any relevence for any more than an election cycle or two.

The system works best with 2 parties, and it would work better if the two parties were different to offer people choices. The problem is the GOP just got creamed trying to be moderate. No one is close to the Dem's than John McCain in the Republican party, but he had a charimsa defienciency and Obama won. That is all this is. Everyone wants to look like a winner now and Arlen is no different.

That's ok. As I said, everyone will figure it out and life will go on. I just wish Obama wasn't left of Leon Trotsky on domestic issues. This economic "justice" bs is just code for "if you are rich, you wont be when I get done with you". That doesn't work and never has. Nationalizing the auto industry and banking industry to some extent will be a mess too. Just ask the British on how well getting involved in the British auto industry worked out.....

[Jag_Warrior]

Spector didn't change parties because he disagreed with the Republicans, heck he would agree or disagree as how he figured people would take it out on on him in the next election cycle. He quit the GOP because it was clear he was going to get creamed in the next GOP primary in PA.

I believe you are correct up to a point. Specter admitted that he left the GOP because of the primary challenge from Pat Toomey (president of the Club for Growth). But I don't think it's correct that he didn't have issues with the GOP. He said quite clearly that he did. His issue with the GOP is the same issue that many have: it is being overly influenced by this vocal band of country club types, who are exclusive in their view of who can be a member in good standing of the GOP. The GOP in Pennsylvania is now smaller than it's ever been, according to one piece I read. What's left are fewer in number, but steadfast in their beliefs. Many of the ones who have voted for Specter in the past are now either Independents or Democrats.

I agree with you that there are ebbs and flows to politics, and political views. But this idealogical fight within the GOP is not going away. As I said, the people may be ready to vote for a(ny) Republican if Obama's plans go to hell. But at the core of the GOP, there will still be a struggle for what the party stands for.

If the GOP is going to be controlled by and made up of nation building, New World Order neocons and people who test their faith by letting rattle snakes bite them on Sunday morning, am I hoping & wishing for a center-right 3rd party for those of us who don't swing that way? Well, hells yeah, I do! Ross Perot had it... and then (literally) lost it. IMO, Pat Buchanan, Christopher Buckley, Jonathan Bush and Jack Kemp (beat that cancer, Jack), some number of progressive Democrats and some of the less radical libertarians should have a sit down ASAP. :s mokin:

We already know (oh so painfully well) that the neocon way doesn't work. So if Obama's way doesn't work, I say the correct answer is somewhere in the middle... not back to either idealogical extreme that has been proven wrong.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I believe you are correct up to a point. Specter admitted that he left the GOP because of the primary challenge from Pat Toomey (president of the Club for Growth). But I don't think it's correct that he didn't have issues with the GOP. He said quite clearly that he did. His issue with the GOP is the same issue that many have: it is being overly influenced by this vocal band of country club types, who are exclusive in their view of who can be a member in good standing of the GOP. The GOP in Pennsylvania is now smaller than it's ever been, according to one piece I read. What's left are fewer in number, but steadfast in their beliefs. Many of the ones who have voted for Specter in the past are now either Independents or Democrats..

The problem is what is a Republican? What values does one have to be holding to be a member of the GOP? What is a Democrat and what base values do you need to be in there? Arlen could be either at the drop of the hat and THAT is why many GOP members are not missing him one bit. That can be good in a sense, but Arlen I think did it almost to defy anyone to pin him down on any idelogy. I suspect his new party only will love him as long as he plays nice with them...and if he holds true to form, he will alienate them at some point.


I agree with you that there are ebbs and flows to politics, and political views. But this idealogical fight within the GOP is not going away. As I said, the people may be ready to vote for a(ny) Republican if Obama's plans go to hell. But at the core of the GOP, there will still be a struggle for what the party stands for..

They are trying to decide if they will be a conservative movement dedicated to some form of less government and a more success friendly tax structure or will they be just a slightly different form of Democrats? John McCain proved that being a Democrat lite wont work, people will vote for the real thing.


If the GOP is going to be controlled by and made up of nation building, New World Order neocons and people who test their faith by letting rattle snakes bite them on Sunday morning, am I hoping & wishing for a center-right 3rd party for those of us who don't swing that way? Well, hells yeah, I do! Ross Perot had it... and then (literally) lost it. IMO, Pat Buchanan, Christopher Buckley, Jonathan Bush and Jack Kemp (beat that cancer, Jack), some number of progressive Democrats and some of the less radical libertarians should have a sit down ASAP. :s mokin: .Center right party? What is that? It is the GOP balancing off the politics of the far right vs the moderates. The Democrats have taken a pretty firm swing to the left. George Soros is driving that bus behind the scenes and I am not seeing any moderate tone from some of the policy Obama is pushing. Maybe on Afghanistan but certainly not from some of the people he is appointing to high offices. At some point, people will realize that the radicals have taken over THAT party as well, but the media will never notice THAT. One only has to look at the softball questions in that media conference last week to understand they were not holding Barack's feet to any fire...


We already know (oh so painfully well) that the neocon way doesn't work. So if Obama's way doesn't work, I say the correct answer is somewhere in the middle... not back to either idealogical extreme that has been proven wrong.

I despise the "neocon" handle. IT means NOTHING. Is a Neocon someone of a hard conservative position on domestic issues as well as foreign policy? The only people using "Neocon" to define people in the GOP are usually using it in a derisive manner because they don't agree. Lets call Wolfowitz an idiot but his ideas were his ideas, they really didn't do much in the end. Bush was more government friendly than most Republican Presidents. Only have to look at his TARP program to see that...Obama has not changed any of THAT policy and I don't see the US military out of Iraq in any great change to what Bush's plans were either.

[Jag_Warrior]

The problem is what is a Republican? What values does one have to be holding to be a member of the GOP? What is a Democrat and what base values do you need to be in there? Arlen could be either at the drop of the hat and THAT is why many GOP members are not missing him one bit. That can be good in a sense, but Arlen I think did it almost to defy anyone to pin him down on any idelogy. I suspect his new party only will love him as long as he plays nice with them...and if he holds true to form, he will alienate them at some point.

I think you've touched on something important. If one looks at this from the standpoint of being a dominant or major (national) party, wouldn't you want to include as many people as possible, and not exclude any more than you had to? As for what is a Democrat? I think the Dems learned a lot after the Reagan beatings: to sit mum on that one. Of late, the Republicans are like the gift that just keeps on giving. Loosely taking a phrase from Ross Perot, "we all have that crazy aunt in the basement... but you make sure she doesn't get out when the mics are on." As a national party, these days it's hard to figure out who a Dem is or isn't. When things get tight, that might come back to bite them. But unlike the Republicans, they seem to work pretty hard to keep their "crazy aunts" from getting in front of the mic too often (Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, et al) - and yeah, I agree that the media doesn't go out of their way to roast them like they do the Repubs. But knowing that is the case, the GOP needs to put Michelle Bachman, Dick Cheney, Rick Perry and several of their other goof-ball jabber-jaws in a sack and throw them in the river, IMO. They ain't exactly helping the cause.




They are trying to decide if they will be a conservative movement dedicated to some form of less government and a more success friendly tax structure or will they be just a slightly different form of Democrats? John McCain proved that being a Democrat lite wont work, people will vote for the real thing.

But John McCain won the GOP primaries over those "real things". :confused: People (in the GOP) had their chance to vote for the real thing and they didn't.



Center right party? What is that?

A party that is dedicated more to a domestic agenda that includes libertarian ideals, respecting free markets (but not necessarily laissez faire capitalism) and a foreign policy agenda backed by a strong defense, without the "nation building" that the neocons so cherish, as well as effective diplomacy.



I despise the "neocon" handle. IT means NOTHING. Is a Neocon someone of a hard conservative position on domestic issues as well as foreign policy? The only people using "Neocon" to define people in the GOP are usually using it in a derisive manner because they don't agree.

Was Bush a neocon? He didn't let on that he leaned that way when I voted for him in 2000. As a matter of fact, he distinctly said that he was against "nation building" going into the 2000 campaign. I was more for McCain at that time, but I felt that I could accept Bush based on that. That was what really put me in his camp. Looking back on that sad period, I honestly can't say what Bush was. Poor old George may not have known what he was either. But I do think that his masters were neocons. The direction of our foreign policy during that time spells that out pretty well.

Neocon. Neoconservative. It's a political label - like when Palin tried to label Obama a "socialist", even though she herself had redistributed income to the people of Alaska through a windfall profits tax on oil companies, McCain favored a mortgage stop gap loss measure that would have had the government pay the banks for their mortgage losses with taxpayer funds and Bush/Paulson offered Wall Street no-strings-attached bailouts using taxpayer money. So are they all socialists? How much is enough to put one in a camp or under a label? I see your point. So maybe like the term "socialist", coming from people who themselves have used or favored certain socialist policies, the entire belief system of a person might not be covered. But at the same time, some aspects of their belief system might make that shoe fit. Or maybe not... it's a case-to-case determintation, IMO, and I admit it is often subjective. But it is being used by people from within the GOP too. I do agree it's usually a derisive term, or it has come to be - and for good reason. There were Eisenhower Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, Reaganites... I don't think anyone would want to be known as a Bush Republican or a neocon though. But whether it's Buchanan wailing on the neocons (hey, that's what he calls 'em :D ) or Huckabee and Ron Paul giving the Club for Growth types holy hell and "what for", I do think their observations are very telling (considering that the national party needs a concise message like it needs oxygen), when it's suggested that the direction that the neocons and Evangelicals are taking the party might be one that would exclude people like Eisenhower, Goldwater... and maybe even Reagan. :eek: No wonder Specter needs a new home. No wonder only 21% identify with the current GOP.

For people like Buchanan, who really were there when the dinner party took place, maybe there are some sour grapes that these new kids have shown up and taken over. But I believe a lot of that sourness is because the new kids have taken the party to its lowest level in more than a generation. Many suggest (and I agree with them) that what Reagan built, the neocons have virtually destroyed.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Current GOP is showing nothing because they are losers right now. They are still licking their wounds. This has little to do with ideology at this point. You keep insisting that it is, and I will just disagree, knowing that it is part of the process for any losing political party to spend half a year whining, biting and clawing at old wounds. Spector bailing is just evidence of that process. He has to get re-elected and next year he has to start looking at his primary process. His personal issue is he isn't Republican enough for the GOP of PA. It always will come back to that. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face that the Republican voters of PA are swinging to the right, but I think they want some consistency. The one thing I have noticed about Spector is his spectacular ability to dance between the right and left and the party diehards will tire of that act.

As for why did they put McCain into the top slot last year? I would wager a majority of Republicans wanted him because they didn't think a conservative Republican could win after 8 years of Bush. I don't think god could win after 8 years of Bush. That said, McCain was flailing in the polls against Obama most of the year until he picked Palin as a sop to the right wing of the party. Then his numbers went up until it was clear that Palin was a little wacky and/or McCain's handlers had her so confused on what she was allowed to say, everyone lost confidence.

AS for Palin being a socialist? In a sense yes. I think real socialists tho take this redistribution of wealth thing a lot more seriously than psuedo socialists or right wing populists trying to win some favour with the common man. Obama has pretty much nationalized the banks or at least, a good number of them, had GM fire out the door their CEO ( even tho it was deserved, it isn't Obama's call), told Chrysler that he didn't like their plan and they should be in Chapter 11 and do a deal with Fiat with a gun to their head, and he has spent money at a pace that is dizzying. You cannot tell me that Obama doesn't have some socialistic tendencies.

The one thing I understand about socialist style governments in libreal democracies is I have lived under them most of my life. I recognize one when I see one. Obama is running to the left of some of our left wing politicians in Canada, something I thought I would NEVER see.

[F1boat]

Honestly I was bit afraid of the GOP, as from what I read it was turning too religious for my taste, so if the Dems are getting stronger now, I am happy :)

[Jag_Warrior]

The Current GOP is showing nothing because they are losers right now. They are still licking their wounds. This has little to do with ideology at this point. You keep insisting that it is, and I will just disagree, knowing that it is part of the process for any losing political party to spend half a year whining, biting and clawing at old wounds.

Mark, it's really not me (or just me) that keeps insisting on this point. Top Republicans seem to believe they have an issue. Olympia Snow just said many of the same things that I said above. Maybe they need to get rid of her too? As one Republican put it on Meet The Press a few minutes ago, "Reagan said you have to have the temperament to get your point across, without frightening small children and animals." This fellow on MTP (a former GOP congressman) believed that the GOP was failing in this regard, and they were in danger of becoming a regional, small tent party. His main concern was that to hold onto the rural, southern vote, they'd lose the white collar suburban vote. The Club for Growth is the group/PAC that is taking a lot of heat for where the GOP finds itself. I think it's bigger than just this one group. But even some Republicans describe them as a hit squad. And yeah, they are PURELY driven by idealogy. I know how hit squads work. I gave a fair amount of money to the NRA's ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) when Clinton/Reno were attacking the 2nd Amendment. And like Roman Praetorian Guards, we cut down enough gun-grabbers in Congress that even Diane Feinstein is afraid to bring the matter up now. Now, that was some beautiful dagger work, if I do say so myself. Why do you think Obama and Eric Holder went suddenly mute after jabber jawing about banning (make-believe) assault weapons? Their fellow Dems told them, "You boys are on your own if you go down that path. We're not going to die for your cause." So hit squads work. But they can be used for good or bad (which I guess is decided based on which side of the gladius you're on).

I have my opinions, but it's really the words of the GOP big boys that I am using here. Considering how the Dems and Repubs worked together to exclude Perot (and any other candidate not in the Big 2 Club) from nationally televised debates in 1996, I wouldn't really care if they both imploded. They both contribute to the game being fixed, IMO.

I wouldn't care which party got muscled aside by my dream of a third party (that would hopefully become one of the primary two). It's just that the GOP is currently the one in complete disarray right now. Some say, "don't kick a man when he's down." I say, "what better time to kick a man than when he's down?! You can get to the head, ribs and kidneys SO much easier!" :D

Imagine a party that was (for the most part) socially libertarian on domestic AND foreign affairs, and had the intellectual horsepower to (CORRECTLY!) employ the core beliefs of supply-side economics? Oh my, I'm getting myself all worked up now. I better go take a cold shower. :s mokin:

[Jag_Warrior]

Just as a followup, since I just read this on the Christian Science Monitor site:



- The question of whether the party can stage a revival without welcoming Northeastern moderates came to the fore on television talk shows Sunday morning.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Specter blamed the inner workings of the conservative movement for his own departure, and suggested that “there has to be room for people who are moderates.”

- Joe Scarborough, a conservative commentator and former Republican congressman from Florida, said the party needs to take a page from Democrats, who have become more competitive in some hard-to-win districts by recruiting candidates who don’t toe the party line on issues such as gun control or abortion.

- Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, threw some weight behind this view, commenting that the most important vote that a lawmaker in Congress makes is the one that determines which party sets the agenda in the House or Senate.

The Republicans did not distance themselves from conservatism. But the fallout from the loss of Specter suggests that the lack of moderate lawmakers in the Republican Party will be under scrutiny as a potential part of the GOP’s comeback agenda.

- Specter: “It would be my hope that the Republican Party would turn away from the Club for Growth,” he told “Meet the Press” host David Gregory.

He accused the group, a financially influential voice for conservative ideology, of playing a significant role in an effort to purify the party’s ranks. The club has funded primary-election challengers to moderate officeholders within the party, he said, even though the new candidates will not be able to win the general-election vote.

- While that’s not the only factor behind the decline of moderates, Republicans of all stripes are now looking at a worrisome trend: The party no longer holds any House seats from New England.

- The debate over Specter, and his public response to critics, came as the nation mourned a former vice presidential nominee for the GOP: Jack Kemp, who died Saturday.

Like Ronald Reagan, whom he served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, former congressman Kemp came to symbolize a blending of conservative views with a big-tent vision for party membership.


Emphasis on Kemp added by me. I was a great fan of Jack Kemp. The basis of my early adult economic beliefs came from Kemp. I liked his style. I admired his desire to see all succeed, if they just had the will and an opportunity. I didn't agree with him 100% on all issues, but he didn't require that of people - and I believe that's one big reason why he was SO well respected on both sides of the aisle.

Reagan and Kemp knew how to bring people in, so as to make the tent bigger. IMO, these Club for Growth whackos just want to chase people out, I guess so that they can save money by renting a smaller tent.

R.I.P., Jack Kemp... who described himself as a "bleeding heart conservative." God be with you.


http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/03/specter-reagans-gop-is-gone/

[Hondo]

I believe that any politician, regardless of party, while actively holding office switches political parties to a party different from that which he/she used to win that term in office should be required to surrender that office until the next election. He or she would then be allowed to run again for that office with their new party.

To run for office with one party and switch to another once elected and holding office is nothing short of fraud.

[chuck34]

I believe that any politician, regardless of party, while actively holding office switches political parties to a party different from that which he/she used to win that term in office should be required to surrender that office until the next election. He or she would then be allowed to run again for that office with their new party.

To run for office with one party and switch to another once elected and holding office is nothing short of fraud.

I would agree with that. Leiberman sort of did that after he was beaten in the primary. Something that maybe Specter should have thought about doing. Now I'm hearing that the Dems are none too happy about his vote against Obama's budget. And that he's gonna have a tough fight in the Dem primary too.

The man is old (79 I believe). He should have seen this (the pole that had him down by 25 or so) as a sign, and retired quietly and with dignity. Now he'll always be remembered for THIS, not anything good he may or maynot have ever done.

[chuck34]

But John McCain won the GOP primaries over those "real things". :confused: People (in the GOP) had their chance to vote for the real thing and they didn't.


Some say that Huckaby and Romney split the "conservative" vote and that's why McCain ended up winning. I'm not totally sold on that, but it does make some sence.

[chuck34]

Mark, it's really not me (or just me) that keeps insisting on this point. Top Republicans seem to believe they have an issue. Olympia Snow just said many of the same things that I said above.

Now Olympia Snow is a "Top Republican"? Boy we're really in trouble then.

[Jag_Warrior]

Now Olympia Snow is a "Top Republican"? Boy we're really in trouble then.

By virtue of the fact that she is a United States Senator, I would think so. But the question that follows what you posted was:

Maybe they need to get rid of her too?

She said yesterday that she often felt like a cast member on Survivor, when she didn't tow the party line. It's not like she's a straight up commie. So why would the party make a long serving Republican Senator (from a fairly non-Republican state) feel that way? What's to be gained by excluding these people? I don't get the logic... I really don't. Maybe the Club For Growth needs to take her out too, and run someone much more conservative and consistent. Wonder how that would work out for the Senate vote count??? ;)

Judd Gregg was on CNBC this morning. Maybe he's not a top Republican either? But he said that the (current) GOP would be happy to have the odds that Mine That Bird had in the Kentucky Derby. He came from nowhere and won the race. He reckoned that maybe the GOP could do that too. So the GOP is relying on a Hail Mary strategy???

[Jag_Warrior]

Some say that Huckaby and Romney split the "conservative" vote and that's why McCain ended up winning. I'm not totally sold on that, but it does make some sence.

OK, I'm with you there. My memory, she not so good these days. So I can't remember who dropped out first, but I think it was Huckabee. So my question would be, how did the remaining "real conservative" do against McCain? Did he beat McCain silly in the remaining primaries, once the "vote splitter" (whichever one that was) got out of the race?

Here's another question, since you may keep up with this more than I do. Why would the Club For Growth be going after people like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul? Why the ill feelings? Are they not "conservative enough" in the eyes of the CFG? What do you think of the boys & girls in that group?

[BTCC Fan#1]

As a European I have to say I view the entire US political establishment with a tinge of political snobbery. Both parties seem to have their fair share of people like Michelle Bachmann who spout such cr@p it sometimes beggars belief they managed to get out of school let alone elected to national office..

I watched portions of both the Democratic and Republican conventions last year, and wow, to an outsider it was like the Republicans were on a different planet.. I suspect the Republicans will only recover if they stop spouting the same old pseudo-religious moralising nonsense tempered with scare-mongering, which as has been said in a lot of the press recently does just seem to be an appeal to a hardcore 'base' of voters who frankly, are a bunch of wing-nuts, and judging by the polls, a minority in the US as a whole.

[chuck34]

By virtue of the fact that she is a United States Senator, I would think so. But the question that follows what you posted was:


She said yesterday that she often felt like a cast member on Survivor, when she didn't tow the party line. It's not like she's a straight up commie. So why would the party make a long serving Republican Senator (from a fairly non-Republican state) feel that way? What's to be gained by excluding these people? I don't get the logic... I really don't. Maybe the Club For Growth needs to take her out too, and run someone much more conservative and consistent. Wonder how that would work out for the Senate vote count??? ;)

Judd Gregg was on CNBC this morning. Maybe he's not a top Republican either? But he said that the (current) GOP would be happy to have the odds that Mine That Bird had in the Kentucky Derby. He came from nowhere and won the race. He reckoned that maybe the GOP could do that too. So the GOP is relying on a Hail Mary strategy???

When I think about "Top Republicans" I think of people that have a pretty Conservative voting record, which Miss Snow does not have. I think of people like Mike Pence and Eric Cantor.

But I agree with your point the Republicans should not be making anyone feel as an "outsider". But the Leadership (Michael Steele, et al) need to take some steps to clarify the Republican voice. And some people's toes will get steped on along the way, unfortunately.

And yeah, the Republicans might be long shots down the road. But I remember the Democrats being on the ropes not too long ago either. I remember calls of them being a dead party in '02. Things change, and they change quickly.

[chuck34]

OK, I'm with you there. My memory, she not so good these days. So I can't remember who dropped out first, but I think it was Huckabee. So my question would be, how did the remaining "real conservative" do against McCain? Did he beat McCain silly in the remaining primaries, once the "vote splitter" (whichever one that was) got out of the race?

Here's another question, since you may keep up with this more than I do. Why would the Club For Growth be going after people like Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul? Why the ill feelings? Are they not "conservative enough" in the eyes of the CFG? What do you think of the boys & girls in that group?

Romney droped out first. And by that point the nomination was fairly well decided.

Honestly I don't have a clue what the Club for Growth is or why they would be targeting people like Huckabee and Paul. I know I have my issues with those two guys. Huck did some tax raising in Ark. as well as some deal with pardons, that I don't really remember right now. Ron Paul is great on economics, but I'm leary of his foriegn policy stance. Plus he seems to be a "9/11 truther" or at least hangs with them. So I tend to think he's got a screw loose or something.

[Jag_Warrior]

Thanks. What's a "9/11 Truther"?

I'm really not up on all of Paul's positions, but isn't he more of a libertarian when it comes to foreign policy? Ya know, "you hit me and I beat the living hell out of you... you don't hit me and I leave you alone"? The CFG tends to go after people on fiscal issues, so I'm guessing it's something he's said or done in that area... but I'm not sure.

[Jag_Warrior]

And yeah, the Republicans might be long shots down the road. But I remember the Democrats being on the ropes not too long ago either. I remember calls of them being a dead party in '02. Things change, and they change quickly.

Both parties have had their low points over the past 25 or so years that I've been paying attention. But I think 21% is a low for at least a generation, if what Buchanan said was true. He said the mid-60's were bad, but once the Dixiecrats left the Democrats over civil rights, things got better for the GOP. Going by him, this is worse because they're getting regionalized... unless Obama's policies begin to go south real fast. That's why I said early on, Limbaugh had a point (sort, kinda - bad for the country might = good for the GOP).

[Jag_Warrior]

As a European I have to say I view the entire US political establishment with a tinge of political snobbery. Both parties seem to have their fair share of people like Michelle Bachmann who spout such cr@p it sometimes beggars belief they managed to get out of school let alone elected to national office.

Michelle is probably certifiable. Sweetheart has got some real issues within her cranial cavity. See, with decent looks, you can get far in life.

In that thread I had about Sarah Palin, I described a buddy of mine's wife who has this deep, purple passion hatred for Palin. I mean, it's the real deal - almost scary. I imagine if the two of them ever got within arms reach, there would be hair-pulling, blouses tearing, low blows, high-heels in the air... I'm trying to talk my buddy into taking his Mrs. to a Sarah Palin event - and don't forget the camera! :D

But I was having dinner with them about a week ago, right after Ms. Bachman made some kind of whacky comments about there being some strange coincidence that the last big flu outbreak in the 70's also happened under a Democrat President (in fact, Republican Gerry Ford was still in office). It's on YouTube and it is funny. As we were talking about that, my buddy's wife said, "Ya know, all things are relative... and maybe Sarah's not as much of an idiot as I first thought." As a compliment, I guess that was sort of a back-hand to Sarah's tender bits, but it also goes to say how far out in la-la land Bachman is.

There was a crazy congressman from Ohio (I think) named Traficant. Now he was about as bonkers as one could get. Nobody could top him. But ol' Michelle comes close.

[chuck34]

Thanks. What's a "9/11 Truther"?

I'm really not up on all of Paul's positions, but isn't he more of a libertarian when it comes to foreign policy? Ya know, "you hit me and I beat the living hell out of you... you don't hit me and I leave you alone"? The CFG tends to go after people on fiscal issues, so I'm guessing it's something he's said or done in that area... but I'm not sure.

A 9/11 Truther is one of those nut cases that thinks 9/11 was some sort of inside job. The planes were on remote control, the buildings had bombs in them, all the Jews were told to stay home from work that day, that sort of stuff.

As for Paul's foreign policy, he is a bit libertarian, which is fine, I'm there on a lot of things. But he wants to pull all our troops out of Germany, Korea, and anywhere else we have them. Which on some levels makes a lot of sence. But then if you think about it, it is much easier to "beat the living hell" out of someone if you have bases at least in the same hemisphere.

Like I said, I don't know much about the CFG, but you say they go after people on fiscal issues. Therefore they are probably targeting Ron Paul for wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve, going back to the gold standard, or something along those lines. I'm not sure either.

[chuck34]

Both parties have had their low points over the past 25 or so years that I've been paying attention. But I think 21% is a low for at least a generation, if what Buchanan said was true. He said the mid-60's were bad, but once the Dixiecrats left the Democrats over civil rights, things got better for the GOP. Going by him, this is worse because they're getting regionalized... unless Obama's policies begin to go south real fast. That's why I said early on, Limbaugh had a point (sort, kinda - bad for the country might = good for the GOP).

I'm thinking that there are more parallels with the aftermath of the '74-'76 elections. Everyone was saying then how the Republicans were too far to the Right, heading for obscurity as a regional party, loosing all relevence, etc. Read this speech. Sub in Iran/Korea for some references to Communism etc. and I think you'll agree, it's just as true today as it was in '75.

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp

[Mark in Oshawa]

Both parties have had their low points over the past 25 or so years that I've been paying attention. But I think 21% is a low for at least a generation, if what Buchanan said was true. He said the mid-60's were bad, but once the Dixiecrats left the Democrats over civil rights, things got better for the GOP. Going by him, this is worse because they're getting regionalized... unless Obama's policies begin to go south real fast. That's why I said early on, Limbaugh had a point (sort, kinda - bad for the country might = good for the GOP).

Jag...21% for the party, but 34 % of the population says they are "conservative" which is more than admit to being "libreal".

As for whether the Republicans are dead, As it was pointed out, see the Democrats in 2002. As for whether the Republicans are out of touch and should move to the center, again, McCain RAN from the center and Obama ran from the left, and Obama won pretty handily. If not for the religious right coming out to support Palin, McCain would have been HAMMERED.

No, for either party to win, they have to cater to the whackjobs on either side of the spectrum while never once giving them full voice. Obama was a leftist candidate who had that base energized to vote and work for him, and got all the moderate non commitited types because after Bush, the mood was there for a change in look. Give this recession and 10 % unemployment rate going past the next two years, you watch how fast the Republicans gain ground. They have NO ownership on anything that has happened since the Democrats have the majority in both houses and the Presidency. In short, they have no political cover if their policies don't work.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As a European I have to say I view the entire US political establishment with a tinge of political snobbery. Both parties seem to have their fair share of people like Michelle Bachmann who spout such cr@p it sometimes beggars belief they managed to get out of school let alone elected to national office..

I watched portions of both the Democratic and Republican conventions last year, and wow, to an outsider it was like the Republicans were on a different planet.. I suspect the Republicans will only recover if they stop spouting the same old pseudo-religious moralising nonsense tempered with scare-mongering, which as has been said in a lot of the press recently does just seem to be an appeal to a hardcore 'base' of voters who frankly, are a bunch of wing-nuts, and judging by the polls, a minority in the US as a whole.

First off, if you are going to spectate on the US political scene, you have to grasp that the conventions spend most of their time preaching to the converted. THey are trying to get their base energized and what is said often is NOT what is actually held to once the President is elected.

Secondly, America is a far more wide spread political spectrum with many different constitenucies at war within these parties and your look at the world would likely dovetail in with the Democrats, but make no mistake, your view would be on the left of the Democratic party, whereas in Europe it likely wouldn't be on the left of any socialist/liberal party.