Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, February 18, 2019

The following has been excerpted from It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, a new book by congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein.

Ornstein, who works at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and Mann, who works at the centrist Brookings Institutions, have laid out a compelling argument that explains how the Republican Party has systemically undermined the capacity of both Congress and broader federal government. You can purchase it here.

It is traditional that those in the American media intent on show- ing their lack of bias frequently report to their viewers and readers that both sides are equally guilty of partisan misbehavior. Journalistic traditions notwithstanding, reality is very different. The center of gravity within the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its legendary moderate legislators in the House and Senate are virtually extinct. To be sure, a sizable number of the Republicans in Congress are center-right or right-center, rather than right-right. But the insurgent right wing regularly drowns them out. The post-McGovern Democratic Party, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent, has retained a more diverse constituency base, and since the Clinton presidency, has hewed to the center-left, with an emphasis on the center, on issues ranging from welfare reform to health policy.

Anyone who has reviewed the voluminous literature on the intellectual and organizational developments within the conservative movement and Republican Party since the 1970s will find that an unremarkable assertion.

The conservative critique of the Great Society social welfare programs and of the regulatory state, the mobilization of the Christian right, and the development of supply-side economics set the policy plate of the modern Republican Party. Over the course of the last three decades, the GOP has become the reflexive champion of lower taxes, reductions in the size and scope of the federal government, deregulation, and the public promotion of a religious and cultural conservatism. The striking changes in the nature of the Republican Party over the past fifty years are especially well documented in the book by political historian Geoffrey Kabaservice, Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party. He notes, “movement conservatism finally succeeded in silencing, co-opting, repelling, or expelling nearly every competing strain of Republicanism from the party, to the extent that the terms ‘liberal Republican’ or ‘moderate Republican’ have practically become oxymorons.”

Republican presidents Eisenhower and Nixon and congressional leaders such as Senators Everett Dirksen, Hugh Scott, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole, and Representatives Gerald Ford, John Rhodes, and Bob Michel, pragmatic institutional figures who found ways to work within the system and focused on solving problems, are unimaginable in the present context. President Reagan ushered in the new Republican Party but governed pragmatically. The steps he took in office, as well as those the two Bush presidents took, were so far outside the policy and procedural bounds of the contemporary GOP that none of them could likely win a Republican presidential nomination today without disavowing their own actions.

Reagan was a serial violator of what we could call “Axiom One” for today’s GOP, the no-tax-increase pledge: he followed his tax cuts of 1981 with tax increases in nearly every subsequent year of his presidency. George H. W. Bush agreed to a 1990 deficit-reduction package that included tax increases and budget process reforms, turning back significant congressional Republican opposition (led by Newt Gingrich) along the way. And in more recent years, conservatives turned sharply against George W. Bush’s advocacy of broad immigra- tion reform (a violation of “Axiom Two”), expansion of govern- ment in health care and education (Oops! There goes “Axiom Three”), and steps to deal with the financial meltdown. That legacy, and Barack Obama’s election and extraordinary measures to limit the damage from the financial crisis and deep recession, prompted the formation of a right-wing populist Tea Party movement, which the Republican establishment subsequently embraced.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit12
  • Print this page
  • 56

30 responses to “Not Your Mother’s Republican Party: How The Shift Happened”

  1. howa4x says:

    The south is still in control of the Republican party. Little did Nixon know when he started his southern strategey would it result in the destruction of the more centerist wing of the party. Dick Armey of Texas took control of a loosely constructed Tea party and along with Fox and friends turned their rage from the financial bailout and directed it toward Health care reform. Due to the southern contingent of this new party, racism runs deep,and white supremacy has found a home. The election of the 1st black president has brought out the worst in our society, and has caused many in the party to develope a blood hatred of him even though the programs like healthcare reform would benefit them and their families. There is no hope of working with this group. I know a few Tea party people and you cannot reason with them, and facts are meaningless. The other problem is dealing with them is they get angry easily when presented with anything that dosen’t fit with their tightly woven mantra, and yell. No matter what he says Mitt romney will not stand up to them no matter what he says. Young people, women, Latinos, independents, gays all have a choice. Any vote for thses people or Mitt will turn the clock back, corporations will be in complete control, Unions with be gone and workers will have no rights, the enviornment will become polluted, and we will be at war. It’s that clear for everyone with a brain.

    • montanabill says:

      Interestingly, I also know many tea party people and have attended tea parties in several states. I found absolutely no racism of which they are always accused. In fact, except for activists from outside (liberal activists), there was never any mention of race and there were usually black Americans in the crowd or speaking. As far as not being able to reason with them or having a tightly woven mantra, you hwoa4x and most of the posters to this article are exactly the same. A mirror image. In fact, your last two sentences are most damning: falsehoods and dismissal.

      • howa4x says:

        The Tea party is made up of people who are easily manipulated by Republicans to be against regulations that benefit them and their families. Take health care reform. First off the individual mandate that drives the tea party to make fools out of themselves at public debates, was concieved by Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley both Republicans, and with the help of the Heritage foundation which is a right of center think tank to counter Hillary care and is not socialism as the tea party calls it, rather a plan to make the insurance companies richer. At the time the HC act was written 34 million people lacked health coverage of which 50,000 per year died because of it. You and the Tea party didn’t seem to care about that. Climate change is a fact! The only scientists that think its not are paid by the oil companies. Its not you that will suffer the consequences of this but your children and theirs will, but you don’t seem to care about that either. We have an epidemic of diabetes in children from their obesity and one of your leaders, Sara Palin said I think I should bake them some cookies. She also didn’t know why Paul Revere made his ride and actually said he rode to warn the british not to take away our guns,(U-Tube) which is better than Michelle Bachmann who said the revolutionary war was fought to free the slaves. We have another serious problem with chilhood asthma, from more particulates in the air, but the Tea party wants less regulation of the coal fired plants so the rich that own stock can get richer. So lets talk about the people the Tea party calls the Job creators. These super rich who make up the 1% whose wealth is 256% higher than a millionaries. Like Mitt Romney, who is worth 250 million. Did he create any jobs wiht that money? No he put into offshore accounts in Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands. In fact Bill during the Bush tax cuts 2.9 million jobs left America.Also a fact you can look up.
        Finally when tea party rallies have a picture of the president sitting in a mud hut with a bone in his nose, that is racist to the core. In fact not all Republicans are bigots, but if you are a bigot you’re a Republican

        • montanabill says:

          You are so ill informed and close minded that any further discussion or refuting your so-called facts is a waste of time. Do some more research on sites other than far left echo chambers. You don’t even have to do it on right leaning sites, there are plenty of impartial sites. Do you not think the right has just as many ridiculous statements made by Democrats? Look up Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. And next you need a job (probably now), find a poor guy to hire you.

          • Haats says:

            Oh a Hannity watcher? Should have saved his breath.

          • howa4x says:

            Well Bill I’m not an unemployed occupy person but one in his mid sixtes who spent 34 yrs in Public health and enviornmental protection, served on the board of a teaching hospital, and was on the State health planning board , and now a consultant in Homeland security, so I’m not getting my opinions from a left wing site, rather from years of experience. I dealt with issues like trying to treat the uninsured. Since they lack insurance they flock to emergency rooms for primary care. This is the most expensive way to deliver it and it costs taxpayers upward of a 1 billion/year. Most of Health care insurance premiums go to: 20% for Wall st, and another 45% for running the insurance companies. The CEO of CIGNA made 24 million last year. So do you want to tell me that this is a good way to deliver care? Should we leave the system alone? The Affordable healthcare act says 80% of premium dollars should go for direct patient care. What’s wrong with that?
            I don’t like the individual mandate either and we should have had a public option which is the most cost effective way to do this. But Fox and friends convinced you it’s socialism so you’re against it and know so little about it.
            The Bailout of the banks was not done by Obama but your hero GW Bush, who by the way started 2 unfunded wars that we borrowed the money from China for, and a drug benefit that was also on borrowed money.
            Why should the taxpayers that the tea party defends let corporations pollute for profit and have the tax payers clean it up, as in Fracking. What is the problem with these companies doing it in a responsible manner. They don’t do it that way because Wall st wants it’s profit.
            As I wrote the Tea Party likes to put up posters with a bone in Obama’s nose, but in reality it’s the Tea party members that have a ring in their noses, and are pulled with lies by Hannity, Beck, O’Reilley, Coulter, Limbugh, who all get paid very handsomely by the corporations to get you to vote against the interests of your family and children.
            BTW Im’ a registered independent and don’t belong to either party

          • montanabill says:

            Without that nasty profit that companies make, they wouldn’t be paying taxes and they wouldn’t be employing people who also paid taxes. Without that, judging from your resume, you would have been unemployed. So at what point did you put more back into the economy than you took out? And yet you have the gall to tell those of us who actually create the economy how to run our businesses and how much we should be taxed to cover the non-producers? You can call yourself an independent, but you are a socialist.

          • howa4x says:

            Bill I’m not against capitalism. Ive just seen the worst of it. I don’t care if companies make a profit but not at the expense of the enviorment. I’ve been involved with cleanups from companies dumping their waste. The tax payer is on the hook for that. Why should that happen? I thought the tea party was for lower taxes. 80 year old people are not producers anymore, should we do away with them so someone can make more money than they ever need, so if I think we should take care of them am I a socialist?If I think we should protect our children from being poisoned am I a socialist?So maybe you want to turn the clock back to the good old days of robber barron capitalism where the rich can do whatever they want just because our tax laws say they can make 256% more than anybody else.
            The fact is that the middle class as you know it was built by the labor unions that demanded a fair wage from the companies they worked for, not by the previleged class. The fact that the tea party wants to do away with unions is how it works against the middle class. Don”t you understand that? So if you make every state a right to work state then employers will pay lower wages, and the economy will go down hill because there will be no middle class to buy anything
            As for me having the job I had you’re right it shouldn’t exist. It does because people are selfish and greedy and will hurt anyone, the old, sick or defensless, ruin the land and pollute the water and air to make a dollar more. Why do we need police for that matter? You can call me a socialist all you want if it makes you feel good. The problem is the future is comming. Do you want one where there is the rich and everyone else, or do we as a society want to have them employ people using tax incentives and produce goods and services that are made in a responsible manner.

          • montanabill says:

            I can’t argue that some companies haven’t been bad actors any more than I can argue that parts of government are not bad actors. Question: if someone has lived for 80 years and been productive, why haven’t they provided for themselves? Every person’s position in life except for those hit by catastrophic illness or born with severe handicaps, is determined by the choices they have made or are making. The tax laws don’t say a word about how much more one person can make than another. That, I submit to you, is based on the choices people have made. People who make good choices, work hard, make sacrifices and succeed are simply living the American Dream. Those that make poor choices, don’t really want to work more than necessary, don’t want the right education, don’t want to sacrifice to either climb the corporate ladder or succeed in a business of their own, have no right to complain about the former, how much they make or that they should somehow be subsidized by the former. Successful people have no qualms about helping those who truly need a helping hand, but subsidizing those who simply have made bad choices, not so much. If we don’t allow our rich to have money to invest, there will be no middle class. Government run economies have a rich class (the politicians) and a poor class (everyone else). Businesses will pay their workers whatever it takes to make them competitive so they can stay in business. If you want a better salary, then you need to learn a needed skill. Unions disrupt that formula. It is why our manufacturing has left, our railroads are marginal and our car industry marginally competitive. There is absolutely no place for public sector unions since the people they negotiate with don’t actually produce an income or control a product.

          • howa4x says:

            True I believe the federal government is too big,and we have too many layers of government adding state and local, so we need a conversation to decide what businesses government should be into at what level. I’m not a social darwinist like you. Some people do make bad choices, like criminals and some have no choice because they are born into a situation that they have no control over, like having a crack addicted mother, or going to a school in a gang infested area. I believe that the sole function of government is to protect its citizens, and too seed industries that will provide future jobs. If we want to have a productive society we need to give everyone tools to succeed. Every school should be held to a preformance standard, and so should every family if you want them to be in a social darwinistic system
            I too am against the welfare state and have seen first hand the damage it has done. It has been a victum of the law of unintended consequences. We started out to protect children, and so fashioned a system that said only mothers with no husband could collect it. It was instituted at a time when discrimination was more rampant. Black men were more likely to be discriminated against than women, so less likly to provide for them. This system excluded the male from the family, and had a number of generations grow up with out effective role models. This is where the attraction to gangs was alluring to black youth since it provided a family. . Secondly the black communities lacked capitalization so drugs became the largest youth and adult employer and addiction was a by product along with prostitution and the spread of disease, so a child growing up here already starts with a disadvantage. so what is the role of Government here? We can say hey you made your choice now live with it, but what choice did they make? These situations don’t fit slogans and are more complex.
            Now lets talk about the tax code. I’m for a flat tax 16% for everyone no loop holes. I’m even for giving corporations an incentive tax wise to hire new people. what I’m against is corporations that are given tax breaks for no reason other than to give to politicians. What bothered me about the Bush tax cut is that companies took it and created more jobs overseas, 2.9 million than here. Take Haliburton, the company that Cheney was CEO of. They recieved a 6 billion contract(tax payer dollars) for the Iraq war, and moved their corporate headquarters to Dubai to avoid paying taxes on that money. So what is their responsibility to we the people. Under a darwinistic approach they made a great decision, but are you comfortable with that situation? Is that right in your mind? Or Cisco moving their head quaters to Ireland. Should they be allowed to get a government contract? How do situations like this fit into your parties philosophy?
            Lastly are you on social security or medicare or do you have family that is? Do you think it should be abolished and everyone fend for themselves? Just curious.

          • montanabill says:

            First, look up Dawn Loggins story at the Huffington Post. The tools to succeed are everywhere but the individual must be motivated to find them and use them. Blacks in this country have had more capitalization than Orientals coming to this country, but with far different results. It is culture, not color or handouts that can make a difference. I’d love a 16% flat tax, but it might have to be a higher number to meet the needs of our debt. If it were proposed, I can hear the screams from the ‘tax the rich’ crowd now. What they don’t know is that the majority of American millionaires pay income taxes at an effective 33% rate because at that income, virtually every allowed deduction has a percentage of income factor that eliminates the deduction for them. I live in a non-income tax state but pay personal state income taxes in a half a dozen states in which I don’t live. The number of wealthy that live solely off of capital gains is pretty small. As far as corporations, it is a global market. We could put ‘buy American’ on contracts, but that too would have unintended consequences. It is a perplexing problem. I am on SS but donate it since I have no need for it. I’m also on Medicare because company insurance only covers full time employees and I have to have some insurance to get into some health care facilities, but I also have the freedom to choose doctors who will not accept Medicare. I find they provide better care because they can take time with you. I certainly don’t think either of these programs should be abolished, but changes have to be made to keep them viable. As for my employees, I have paid half of their SS and Medicare since I first started my first company. I also have contributed the maximum allowed by law to an IRA (used to be called SARSEP) account for them each year, that’s 15% of salary. And for those above 100 employees, I have a nearly equal 401K plan (government disallows the IRA type after 100 employees). These retirement plans are my choice, not some union’s. They have company paid health and dental care plans, but with the cost increases we were hit with this year, that may have to change. My employees are hired because they possess a talent my businesses need and they are willing to work to build a better company. They are well paid with good benefits. Those that coast or cause problems or have a sense of entitlement are soon working for someone else. I haven’t done bad for a really poor kid with health issues raised on a dirt street in the poor side of town. And I didn’t request or accept a single government dollar along the way. My party (Democrat, Republican or Libertarian) is the party that supports individual effort and self-reliance. This country was built by those people.

          • howa4x says:

            I congradulate you for being socially responsible and would hope that everyone is, but sadly they are not. As I wrote I’m not against a capitalistic society and think those who invest capital and work hard should be rewarded. Today what troubles me is that the Wall st that used to raise the capital needed for new ventures is now using a fast track system that trades up and down by pennies, which amount to millions when the volume is high, and not investing in new ventures. Also while companies have a responsibility to investors they also have a responsibility to the country. An example is Haliburton after getting a 6 billion Iraq contract moved their corporate head quaters to Dubai to avoid paying any taxes which is wrong. Cisco moved to Ireland for the same reason. Both should be denied any future government contracts since they are no longer American companies. To live here people can’t just think of it as a reward but also a responsibility. Given my background I also believe companies should produce in an enviornmentally sound manner. I’ve been involved in cleanups of land fouled by companies that declared bankrupcy and left it to the taxpayer to clean up. thses cleanup can run into the millions, so Fracking which uses carcinogens like Benzene to extract gas on one hand preform a benefit for cheap energy and on the other can cause extreme damage to water supplies like they are finding in Ohio. Who will pay that cost? If an aquifer is contaminated the cost could be in the billions to purify it. This brings up the question of why do they need carcinogens anyway. Aren’t there some safer chemicals?This goes along with the responsibility to the nation. We are not just a series of individuals ,even though we enjoy freedoms, but more of a connected people and share a responsibility. We need to take care of our sick, and old and vulnerable. that is what seperates us from tribal peoples. I’m with a start up now and it’s much harder to raise capital. the days of people like yourself starting from notihng and going higher is waining. I’m happy for you and your family that your life is successful. Just be aware that others can’t walk in your shoes so easily.

          • montanabill says:

            I do agree that companies need to be responsible for their environmental impact and it needs to be a part of their business plan from day one. As a westerner, I have spent many days traversing the old mining and logging areas. Many times I have had access to pictures taken when the towns were in full production with denuded hills, slag piles everywhere and dirty streams. Those were areas of complete and total devastation. Today, 150 years later, you can see that nature can make a pretty good comeback. There are still isolated streams that are polluted that will take many more years to clear, places where logging roads still can be detected on the hillsides and the rubble remains of old smelters, but compared to what was happening during their boom years, nature has prevailed. In many places it hard to tell that thousands of people once lived there.
            I do have some questions about fracking. Isn’t it possible to do without contaminating chemicals? Just how are these chemicals getting back to the surface so fast when it takes a decade or so for ground water to seep a fraction of the distance down to the aquifers?
            It is hard to generalize about our sick. Is it because they were born with a problem, acquired it through no fault of their own, or is it because they made bad choices like drugs or unsafe sex? There are nearly 88 million Americans who are not working because they have given up looking for a job and yet I can look in almost any paper in the country and find help wanted ads. Do we really need to support the people who have/had choices and make bad ones? The people who truly deserve help are a small fraction of the people who today receive government assistance and that is the bone of contention between the parties. One proposal out there is that if you receive government assistance (not SS or Medicare), then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote since you will always vote for the party that promises to keep giving you stuff. Perhaps we also need to change the voting requirements for passing legislation. If no bill could be passed without at least half of each party approving it, the country would not be so divided as when some legislation is passed by only one party. Then legislation would either be really bi-partisan or not enacted.
            Good luck with your start-up. I remember people saying back in the 1960’s, “it’s hard or impossible to start from scratch and become a millionaire today”. Wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now, though I will admit there seems to be a much larger set of regulatory roadblocks.

          • howa4x says:

            I agree completely with people taking responsibilityfor their lives. As a public health official that was my job, making holding people responsible, for their actions. We had a racially and ethnically diverse population, where I worked, so it was intersting to see how different populations lived. I had enforcement capabilites and we held all neighborhoods to the same standards. I was in and out of everyone’s apartment, and found missconceptions of people to be unfounded. The filthiest apartment was one in which a white family lived and the cleanest one was in public housing where a black woman lived. If we are going to change America we have to start doing that everywhere, holding all areas of a city to the same standards. Sadly cities ignore populations and there are certian areas that inspectors won’t even go in for fear of crime. This is how cities begin to become run down. They regenerate when blocks and blocks are condemned and the peopel are moved out or the shock troops of one ethnic group begin buying a block and renting it to gays and artists who will move in. Government is knocking down the old high rise public housing units , and replacing them with low rise units that are defensible.
            In rural areas ignorance prevails. Some of the poverty is due to children having babies because they have not been educated on family planing issues, and coupled with a lack of support they are homebound or live with parents. I don’t know why we on one hand want people to emerge from poverty but cut programs like family planing that could prevent this from happening, or head start which provides preschool education, and summer camp that will help these kids later on and allows the parents some single to work. Lack of day care prevents people from getting jobs. The skill level of people is this situation falls and as we move to a knowledge based economy the work force needs to be smarter. We want to cut school lunch programs and it’s been proven that giving children healthy meals will raise their test scores by 30%. We need to revise our view of drug use and treat it like a disease insead of a crime. right now we spend $50,000/yr to incarserate and $8,000 to educate, so get tough laws are going to bankrupt us. Also we have to sentence youthful offenders to a place where they can be educated and taught a skill instead of just punished. Every prisoner should be forced to earn a GED or skill, or not be paroled. There are 2 million of them in prision. do we really want them to come out wiht no education or skills?
            AS for enviornmental, 100 yrs ago there were fewer points of pollution and the areas not as populated as today. When the resource was exausted or not profitable, people moved on and the land regenerated. The world didn’t have China adding 1 new coal plant every week, or huge population centered around an energy producer. We will move in 10 yrs to 9 billion people on earth. We can’t live in a world where we exhaust every resource. We can’t feed everyone now. What happens when we turn on the lights for everyone, where will the energy come from? These are all the issues we should begin discussion on now. If we don’t act responsibly and commit to sustainability then what will our futures be?

          • montanabill says:

            The best reply I have to most of points is history. We have had many of these programs since the 60’s. In fact, we have added program on top of program. Are we seeing any progress? Once a program is started, it is never stopped whether it works or not. I can’t really agree with some of the stuff about poor rural areas. Yes, that life does exist, but since I came from that environment and those people don’t live in isolation, I can tell you that only they can decide to make the change like Dawn.
            As for the environment, we can do everything possible to create a green world but so long as the world’s population continues to grow, there is no feasible solution. We will run out of clean water, clean air, resources and food, and no amount of government solutions, short of forced population control, will change the outcome.

          • Beverly Farrell says:

            you must be from montana bill do you know what is really happening in the rest of the country? poor guys dont hire both sides have ridiculious crap comming out of their sides. Can we find a place to meet. the polorization is going to kill our country. everyone has pressure on to make a living except the rich who are feeding off all of us. this has to stop the center will not hold. solutions please think of some thanks for reading this

          • montanabill says:

            I travel the country extensively so I do have a very good idea what is going on. Here’s a clue to a solution: everyone seems to be worried about the rich getting richer. Of course they will, they keep doing the things that got them rich in the first place, if not in the U.S. then anywhere in the world they can make a profit. These people want to grow their U.S. businesses. They want to hire more people because that will help their growth. But they can’t and won’t do it when they are being demonized, over-taxed and regulated to death. New businesses can’t be created because of the over-regulation and roadblocks. Investors know that all this makes it very hard for a new business to succeed, so they are wary about lending or bankrolling new businesses. The solution is directly contrary to everything the left believes. Without American business, there will be no middle class or vibrant economy capable of generating the wealth needed to pay down our enormous debt or pay for maintenance of the country’s infrastructure or its defense. Is every one being equally poor a solution? So I ask you, just how does the left’s philosophy instruct us in how to rebuild American business?

  2. jimmiethec says:

    Many of the dynamics that were present in the failure of democracy in Germany during the rise of Hitler are alive and well here in the US today, including scapegoats and violent, anti-government armed groups. We are only missing the impotent, bumbling Von Hindenburg and a rampant case of hyperinflation. We may have found our impotent chancellor in Romney. There appear to be a number of charismatic demogogues out there who are ready and willing to become the catalyst should Romney be elected.

    • oldtack says:

      I was going ot voice my opinion but after reading your article -what else could I add. I thought for a moment that I was reading some of my own writings on the subject.

      Many older adults in this country are aware of the FALL of Hitler and the Third Reich but very few know one whitt of the RISE of the Third Reich. It and the Tea Party are almost mirror images. Unfortunately – with the dumbing down of History and the demise of reading skills most younger citizens are totally unaware of th eReich and it’s history. This group comprises the majority of the Tea Party.

      • jimmiethec says:

        Sadly, what you say is true regarding our educational system and the Pee Tardies.  I think it was Alexander Hamilton who expressed doubts about “the people’s” ability to govern themselves.  Given the drift over the past 50 years it seems he was right.  Perhaps monarchies and dictatorships make more sense for the average person as these forms would relieve “the people” from having to think. It hurts muh haid.

  3. Coigne says:

    The Republican Party is not prt of the problem. It is The Problem.

  4. The problem is that the Republican Party isn’t a political organization with an actual “ideology” any more. It has degenerated into a religious cult for those at the bottom and criminal enterprise for those at the top.

    The Republican Party is now a self-sustaining machine with money going into one end and propaganda coming out the other, which in turn generates more money.

  5. valray says:

    When a few Republicans sit and plan to fight against this President on the very eve of his inauguration and make sure that he fails in everything he trys to do. You are not sure if it is the Republicans or not! Then what is wrong with you? (Prefect example of all the lights on and Nobody is Home!)

  6. Bigspender says:

    Forget al-Qaida and the haqqani network. The real and most formidable enemy we face in this country is congression republicans. Seriously folks! If you voted for these clowns you have a lot to answer for. Please don’t make the same mistake again this year.

  7. Jamesv says:

    america,,the tea party and republican party,is america,s brand of communistic ideology,run amuck and,cannot be tolerated ,america vote democratic and make america respectable and decent again,,, GOD BLESS AMERICA,,, J.V.C.INDEPENDENT CNDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT 2012

  8. Ibsyboy says:

    The GOP’s decent in to self destruction, is Shakespearean in scope. The have made the moderate wing of the party the spot on Lady Macbeth’s hand. In constant fury to remove the damned spot of moderation, and as in Macbeth, have exposed the treachery of their deeds. The complete breakage of the Law making and Bill passage customs of the fraternity once known as Congress. A place where bold things were achieved through compromise and a single-mindedness in serving the people who voted them into Office. It is a new civil war being fought within the political process, that is a no holds barred determination on the liquidation of the opposing party. The first shot was fired by Newt Gingrich with his Contract with America, where he unveiled a new tactic of destroying the opposition, and in due time the entire political process of America. He ran the flag of partisanship up the flag pole as a signal that all bets were off, to the victors belong the spoils, and spoiled it became. Like a finely written Shakespearean play the self destructive nature of the GOP was born. They unhatched a plot against their own self interests and have convinced their constituents to follow along. Little did they know, a small band of renegades would take them so seriously, and form the Teahadist Party, to drag the GOP even farther to the Right than had been anticipated. The end is near. 2012 should be their undoing. The anticipated ugly and negative strategy of anti-Obama ads will not play as well as they are hoping. Gingrich failed to gain traction with the dog whistle and red meat. The nation is tired of the negativity, the hopelessness and contemptuousness nature of the Right’s clarion call. When you mess with America’s TV viewing by interrupting their favorite shows with repetitive negative ads, you are asking for trouble. Here’s to an end to an era of incivility, propagandizing and wholesale attempts to turn neighbor against neighbor for political gain. Down with the Oligarchs, up with Democracy for all. Obama 2012.

  9. Heinz-Guenther Pink says:


  10. rustacus21 says:

    Oddly enuff, Americans view this as a game. Something to laugh about. No big deal. Even while the south lost the war, they’re winning the battles. Northerners, to their discredit, have assumed a guilty posture for being “Democratic” enuff to allow ‘justice’ & ‘equality’ to extend FAR beyond where s’erners ever would. This is the reason for the timidity among Dems in their “conditional” support for the president, as well as voters continual flirtation w/authoritarian conservative policies that are slowly carving out the heart & essense of OUR Liberal/Progressive Constitutional Democracy. The ignorance of history is far too evident here, as a goodly majority of American voters don’t have a firm enuff grasp of issues to understand that 3 consecutive Republican administrations have delivered the NATION’S wealth to the rich, cutting themselves (middle class/poor conservative voters) completely out of the equation. Why would any 1 impoverish themselves & in the process, allign themselves w/unjust s’ern racists? If Republican conservatives are so adept at Democracy, why have all of their executive terms since 1981, ended in absolute & total disaster for the American Middle Class & poor? Why are seemingly logical adults terrified of rumors, lies & distortions they know to be untrue? Why is this even a (presidential) contest when we can clearly see Romney is a befuddled, incompetent & bewildered baffoon? The result of the expiration of low student loan rates, for example, has meaning for future generations of Americans. Going the conservative posture means only rich elites will be ‘qualified’ for business, policy & judicial leadership posts. Rich elites. There’s a class war 4 sure. Weapons are of the mind & the mindless (conservative voter) makes the war no longer worth fighting, if their ‘mob’ is comprised of mindless zombies…

  11. William Deutschlander says:

    Unfortunately the Republican Party has lost any clue as to governance by MAJORITY RULE, They are dedicated to the concept of “My Way or the Highway”, also known as a DICTATORSHIP!

  12. howa4x says:

    I agee with dismantling older programs that don’t have success. I do differ with your idea that everyone can be a successful entrapeneur. For every Dawn there are 10,000 who aren’t. Right now our biggest issue is the school drop out rate, and they make up the single biggest part of the chroinically unemployed. We need remedial training and raise the skill level of these people to create a workforce that can be used in the knowledge based economy.I agree with Sen. Colburn R Okla who says we have 64 different training programs when we really need 3. They would probably work better at the state/county level since those sectors of government would see the needs in their areas better than the Feds. This is where the discussion of how much government we need is useful.Who can do it better, be more effective, and control costs? The program that would be needed in NJ might not be the one needed in Montana. Instead of the broad brush strokes that both parties use to either want to get rid of a program or save it. We need a serious look at our needs to keep the economy runing and what problems impact it. The discussion needs to get past just regulation since if companies behaved better and were socially and enviornmentally responsible, you would need far less so the pendullum swings both ways. We have to look at what drains our economy, what are the future workforce issues, should we encourage business development of the cities since all the infastructure is in place or build father out where transportation is an issue, and environmental factors come into play. Business has a stake in solving these issues since it will affect the buying power of the population, and determine where the workforce will come from. Issues like cost effective health care, family planing to keep people from stupid socially costly mistakes, education both college and technical, transportation.
    There isn’t a seperation , unless we create them. We need everyones ideas.Liberals need to listen to conservatives and visa versa since a review of history shows that neither party or philosophy works by itself. We both agree that the problems we face are daunting, we can only solve them with out demonizing anyone who has a different idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.