Skip to main content

Wednesday, and there's always something for the pundits to talk about. if it ain't swine flu, it's Hurricane Specter.

NY Times editorial:

Is the new swine flu virus that has killed many people in Mexico and has spread to the United States and other countries the start of a much feared pandemic? Or is this yet another false alarm — the latest in a long history of worrying that some day a hugely lethal flu strain might sweep through the world and kill tens of millions of people, much as it did in 1918-1919?

It's nothing like 1918 as of now. But it bears close watching. And all that H5N1 preparation is a huge help.

NY Times expert opinion on swine flu (yeah, we still call it that).

Politico:

Arlen Specter’s break from Republicans is the latest in a trip-hammer series of reversals that leaves the GOP more beaten and less popular than either major party has been in decades.

Tim Fernholz: The big fights come next.

James Oliphant:

Some party leaders see [Specter's] move as purely election-driven, others as a signal that they need to be more inclusive. But a recent poll says GOP voters want to move further right.

How can they? They already break the right margin.

WSJ:  

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat underscores his former party's political downward spiral.

In losing control of the House and Senate over the past four years, congressional Republicans have also lost much of their ideological and geographic diversity -- raising questions about the GOP's viability as a national party. The party has suffered in particular in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, and among moderates.

Chron Editorial:

The number of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans has slipped to a quarter-century low of 21 percent.

Arlen Specter is not the only one who has grown disenchanted with a party that once prided itself as a "big tent" that welcomed divergent views.

No one wants to be a Republican.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:23 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Weird - not on front page? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fnb, sherlyle, raincrow, nonnie9999, HylasBrook

    Why didn't specter go indie. Its weird. He didn't really have too many nice words for dems yesterday, although I loved his blistering comments on the state of the republican party.

    "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

    by heart of a quince on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:28:07 AM PDT

  •  when the big tent... (8+ / 0-)

    becomes a tiny little circus tent, there's not much room for anyone...


    larger version

    ...especially when these idiots are taking up a lot of the room...


    larger version

    I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

    by nonnie9999 on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:30:08 AM PDT

  •  No one wants to be a republican indeed. (5+ / 0-)

    If they go farther right they will become the Whig party. Plus when you have Rush at the helm of the ship you can expect it to sink. Good articles a plenty.

  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

    It's nothing like 1918 as of now..I agree with this.

    Sachin

  •  Olympia Snowe from today's (14+ / 0-)

    NY Times

    There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.

    "I can't believe you can get pregnant from sex that lousy." From one-woman play "Exit Cuckoo".

    by hester on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:36:20 AM PDT

    •  Hurray (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, WestWind, nonnie9999, nosleep4u

      That means we won the "culture war".

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:38:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We did win the culture wars & with (4+ / 0-)

        a changing demographic they (repubs) are way behind the times. To say nothing of how "irreligious" it is to be so hateful towards others.

        "I can't believe you can get pregnant from sex that lousy." From one-woman play "Exit Cuckoo".

        by hester on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:58:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Michael Moore said this several years ago (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hester, McJulie

          in one of his books...that we had won.

          •  It's in Dude, Where's My Country? (0+ / 0-)

            He has a chapter where he shows that the American people overwhelmingly support liberal/Democratic policies, but don't always correctly assign them to the correct party/candidate.

            Which gives you some idea of the reason why the Republicans are in the mess they're in. If even during Rove's "permanent Republican majority" years people were already Democrats at heart and voting Republican only out of habit, brand loyalty, or misunderstanding ...

            Well, when that turns around, it really turns.

    •  I guess she's talking abortion, Terry Schiavo, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, WestWind, CParis, nonnie9999

      and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

      Welcome to the new Democratic Party, Senator Snowe (soon to be D-ME or I-ME).

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:41:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Snowe and other female GOP politicos should know (0+ / 0-)

      Part of the reason McCain was never able to gain support among Independent and moderate Dems (who liked him in 2000) was his choice of Palin as VP.

      On the orders of the religious rightwing, only an anti-choicer would do.  And when the GOP looked around, they found that eliminated all of their female heavy hitters - Collins, Snowe, Bailey-Hutchinson, Todd-Whitman...they were left with the junior varsity - Gov "I can see Russia" Palin.  

      What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. ~ Dan Quayle

      by CParis on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:41:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's ironic that Mitch McConnell and a few (7+ / 0-)

    other Republicans got to the heart of the reason for Spector's defection.

    They claim that Spector switched parties for purely political reasons and for personal gain.

    Their intention is to downplay Spector's defection.  Yet anyone who isn't blindly partisan (which leaves out most Congressional Republicans) would read that as a sign of the trouble the Republicans are in.  When a senior party member jumps ship for 'personal gain' he clearly thinks the party is going to be out of power (and out of relevance) for a long, long time.

    Any hope of getting Snowe and Collins to switch?  I would love to have the two Maine ladies on board - would be a great geographical book mark to have 2 lady Democrats serving an East Coast and West Coast state.

    The land was ours before we were the land's...Robert Frost, The Gift Outright

    by HylasBrook on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:38:11 AM PDT

    •  Only if they're primaried (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WestWind, CParis, HylasBrook

      And I don't see that happening with Snowe. Collins just won election. I don't like Spector but am glad for his switch but at the same time he's almost 80. He's probably only got one more term and with his recent health issues it may not even be a full term. As a GOP leader I wouldn't so much worry about Spector but how many people further down in the political power structure are going to switch to the Dems. The congressional reps, state legislators, state AGs, other state elected pols etc. etc. Similar to what happened during the Reagan era with Dems switching to Repubs.

  •  Why does this scare me? (6+ / 0-)

    Some party leaders see [Specter's] move as purely election-driven, others as a signal that they need to be more inclusive. But a recent poll says GOP voters want to move further right.

    How much farther can they go? Its called Fascism.

  •  I've seen this before... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fnb, HylasBrook

    We have the numbers (at least on paper) to lead the country away from the disaster the Rethugs gave us.  But we must hold our guys accountable.  We need real change now.  Fix education, healthcare (not insurance), workers' rights, envrinmental problems, etc.

    We still have too many pukes in our leadership to screw things up.  We have to keep them honest.  Nancy, Harry, et. al. have not shown themselves tough under fire yet.  Their stockpile of dry powder must be used now for our benefit.

    In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

    by TampaCPA on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:41:50 AM PDT

  •  Listening to McConnell on NPR... (7+ / 0-)

    .
     . . . audio from his whinefest press conference from yesterday talking about the majority (in the Senate) "running roughshod over the minority" and eliminating "checks and balances" that the American people want.  I'm just not the type, anymore, to scream at radios and televisions.  But if I were, I'd've been screaming:

     A.  You mean you're pitching a hissy because your little, regional rump party can't whole hog impose its putrid, rapacious, craven desires on the rest of the United States and her citizenry; and,

     B.  "Checks and balances"???  That has NOTHING to do with Senate rules.  Checks and balances refers to the tension between the 3 branches of Federal Government.  Now McConnell's either an ignoramus (which I don't think he is) or is blatantly lying -- well, duh.

     And, regarding "B" above, yet again no Media Heather had the brains, background or guts to call McConnell on that.  Gad.

     bg
    ________________

     

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

    by BenGoshi on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:43:56 AM PDT

  •  Brits pissed off at their Iraq "legacy". (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WestWind

    The ordinary soldier rarely frets over legacy but the commanders do. There is an edginess to briefings. A sensitivity, as if the top brass is unsure of how their time will be judged.

    Colonel Richard Stanford, the British officer who advised the head of the Iraqi forces, quoted an American general: "It is not about how it started, it is all about how it ends".

    There is hope in Basra. The 14th Iraqi army is proving effective and competent.

    But there is another legacy that is being debated - what the Iraqi invasion and operation has done to Britain.

    It is a question about reputation, about Britain's standing in the world.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

    From Alabama to Obama - You've come a long way baby.

    by amk for obama on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:44:29 AM PDT

    •  Some more brit regret. Too little, too late (0+ / 0-)

      Sir Jeremy Greenstock was the diplomat who eloquently made the case for war. This is now his verdict.

      "It wasn't legitimate in the eyes of most of the punters out there at the beginning," he told me, "and the effects of the operation through the invasion were not high enough to earn respect. So we carry some of that unpopularity."

      "They say British forces were overstretched and under-resourced and there was not the political will to support them in the fight against the militias"

      Lord Ashdown, a marine turned politician, had also supported the invasion.

      He says that "the war and the failure to construct peace afterwards, which was grievous and didn't have to happen, that's done us damage overall".

      Both men say that in the eyes of the world Britain is linked to the Americans.

      "We will forever be associated with the Americans," said Sir Jeremy.

      From Alabama to Obama - You've come a long way baby.

      by amk for obama on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:08:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, Duh. (0+ / 0-)

        Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.  And now, it seems, the Brits are preparing to turn the government back over to the Conservatives, spanking themselves for their ill-fated fling with Tony Blair, Bush's poodle.  My friends in England are so angry that they're willing to punish themselves for the sake of punishing the liberal party.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:54:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They can learn a thing ortwo from Al Rodgers here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WestWind

    How can they ? They already break the right margin.

    From Alabama to Obama - You've come a long way baby.

    by amk for obama on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:47:37 AM PDT

  •  Specter's "Election-Driven" move. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Coilette, CoExistNow

    .
     Well, duh:  Most Pennsylvanians have rejected Republicanism (at least what it's become under McConnell/Gingrich/Cantor/Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox/et mal).  Therefore, Arlen Specter, who wants to continue on as a Senator from the Keystone State, is trying to align himself with the political mood and viewpoints of the great majority of people in his state.

     What's so "Oh!  Shocking!" about this?  Of course, we here know that it's not.  It's just a GOP and Media Heather spin to make a very normal move by a (moderate) politician (who's seen his party lurch Rightward) seem like something otherworldly.  

     bg
    _______________

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

    by BenGoshi on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:49:13 AM PDT

  •  FYI: Obama/Specter news conference in 5 minutes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliticalJunkessa
  •  What's the damn problem? (6+ / 0-)

    I don't see what the big deal is. They want to move the GOP farther to the right. And we want them to move the GOP farther to the right. Sounds like a unanmimous consent on that strategy to me.

    •  Exactly. See mine about about "Election-Driven" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yellowdog

      .
       This whole thing (GOPers like McConnell lurching back and forth between hissy-fitting and good ol' denial) illustrates their deep, psychological disorder, to wit:  they wanted and made the GOP shift to the Radical Right which, by definition, is not where the American citizenry is and now they're all pissed-off that The People have refused to move with them.  So they're sulking.  Loudly sulking (if there's such a thing).

       bg
      __________________

       

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

      by BenGoshi on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:00:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You expect reality to stop a Republican whine? (0+ / 0-)

      No, you probably don't. But I had to commment!

      Member, The Angry Left

      by nosleep4u on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:40:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Former Republican President denounces torture! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wvmom, Coilette

    George W. Bush Calls Torture "an Affront to Human Dignity Everywhere

    The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.

    No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.

    True, others have brought this up.

    I want to make the point that since Bush himself has called for it and Obama is preserving a number of related Bush policies, Obama should respect Bush's vision here and do the right thing.

    Bush says its ok.

    Torture good, Marijuana bad.
    Doc in the Twitterverse

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:58:09 AM PDT

  •  What is it about cause and effect that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WestWind, CParis

    conservatives have such a hard time keeping straight what comes first and what comes next?

    Specter's departure hasn't beaten the GOP.  Specter, like so many others, is leaving an irrational and illogical organization.  Simple.

    If you listened to McConnel's whining, you would have heard him explain that the role of the minority is to "check" the majority party and provide "balance."  That the three branches of the federal government are designed to do that seems to have escaped their notice entirely.  Or maybe it's just that they're operating within a new paradigm in which the executive proposes law, the legislature writes it and the courts are supposed to sign off before the executive puts on his stamp of approval--i.e. they see themselves as part of a Constitutional dictatorship with written laws, instead of the whim of the decider being determinative and their job is to provide pro forma opposition.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 04:59:27 AM PDT

    •  You've got an anti-science group running things.. (0+ / 0-)

      Don't expect them to pay much attention to outcomes.

      The solution comes from a preconceived idea of how things work and if what they try doesn't pan out they just do the same thing again.

      Over and over and over.

      That's why we had Bush/Cheney manipulating intelligence to support their belief that Iraq had to be attacked.

      That's why climate change deniers are largely right wing Republicans.

      This is a group that "knows what's best" and they're used getting their way, even if it means that their minions have to lie to them about what's really happening.

      Even when they fail in business enterprises they find an underling to fire or are safety-netted by one of their fellow travelers.

      Call it the cult of the rich, powerful, and out of touch.

      15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

      by BobTrips on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 06:40:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  about McConnel's notion of checks and balances (0+ / 0-)

      While I agree that the minority party can serve a useful function in dissent - this is the first time I've ever heard legislative opposition referred to as a check.  Am I alone on this?

      We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. - FDR 1936

      by AndersOSU on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:35:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Was the GOP ever a big tent? (3+ / 0-)

    I am 53 and seem to remember that they have always had litmus tests for being anti-choice and anti-gun control.

    The only courage that matters is the kind that gets you from one moment to the next. --Mignon McLaughlin

    by WestWind on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:01:27 AM PDT

    •  All that stuff was thrown into (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WestWind, raincrow

      the mix when they were trying to come back after Watergate. Choice wasn't an issue until after Roe v. Wade, which was around the same time as Watergate. And in the 60s they had absorbed the most racist Dixiecrats.

      There used to be some true moderate Republicans. (The first Black senator was a moderate Republican from Massachusetts.) It was for them principally a matter of fiscal responsibility, not low taxes per se.

      Then the ideologues got hold of the party and this is the result.

      You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

      by yellowdog on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:38:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Katydid, yellowdog

        The R's of the 50s and 60s claimed to represent the ideas of limited government, civil liberties and fiscal responsibility.  Had they stayed true to those principles, Republicans would have opposed the Terry Schiavo federal intervention because a competent state judiciary had already determined that her husband was legally competent to make her end of life decisions.  Had they stayed true to those principles, Republicans would have supported gay marriage because the issue of marriage is something that can be entrusted to state governments. Had they stayed true to those principles, they would not have allowed George W. Bush to nearly double the national debt by waging a war of choice in Iraq.  The list goes on and on.  I think we are witnessing a messy divorce between the libertarian 50s and 60s wing of the party and the 70s to 90s wing that wants the federal government to dictate policy on numerous issues that the federal government quite rightly ought not to be involved, e.g., marriage, family planning, stem cell research, prayer in schools, gun laws, etc., etc.

        •  I would LOVE to have the 60s GOP back (0+ / 0-)

          across the aisle. We'd actually be able to get useful legislation passed without the current intransigence AND genuine conservatives would push back HARD against the Obama Justice Department's continuation of the consolidation of government power over the individual that has been insidiously stripping away more and more of our Bill of Rights since the advent of Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. Our current DOJ's agenda in federal court appears almost indistinguishable from the Bush/ Cheney/ Gonzales DOJ. Terribly, terribly dangerous.

      •  bargain with the Moral Majority (0+ / 0-)

        came about in the Reagan era.  Funny thing is that Reagan never went to church, didn't really care about abortion.

        Before then, religious leadership pretty much stayed out of politics (other than the obligatory Billy Graham prayer).  

        What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. ~ Dan Quayle

        by CParis on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:47:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

        and one of the consequences of that was the re-definition of fiscal conservatism, from wanting to limit spending and deficits, to just wanting to cut taxes.  I.e. from something arguable to something just simplistic and stupid.

        Member, The Angry Left

        by nosleep4u on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:48:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP is to the right of Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CParis, raincrow, Coilette

    They are already defending torture.

    What's next. Support for stoning gay's.

    On Jindal's ambitions. "He looked like a fake Rolex after you've just seen the real thing."

    by You Get What You Deserve on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:06:07 AM PDT

  •  Small gov't GOP doesn't work, either (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, Micheline, JC from IA

    The more rational among Republicans are arguing for a return to their small government roots "true conservatism" as the recipe for a return to power.  But that too is not viable in the current situation [it may be in a different situation, e.g. peak oil caused nations to splinter].  

    But the problem with this is that shrinking government doesn't work right now, not even for Republicans.  Starting with Nixon, EVERY Republican president has participated - fully - in expanding the reach of government (ok, don't question me too closely about Ford).  Reagan.  G. H. W. Bush. GW Bush.  They may not have wanted to expand government, but it happened anyway, because situations arose which demanded federal participation.  

    Middle Eastern wars, economic collapse, resource depletion, climate change, pandemics - how are these going to be even addressed at the individual state level?  

    So, Republicans may chant the limited government mantra in hopes it will return them to power, but the reality - and the experience under 5 different Republican presidents - dictates otherwise.

    Democrats should challenge this mantra when Republican chant it.  Ok - how can individual states deal with problems so global in nature?

    •  The best arguments for federal intervention in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CParis, raincrow

      the affairs of the states came during the times when acid rain was destroying forests all across the Northeast.  The fact that OH and PA were spewing all the pollutants into the air that fell on the Northeast in the form of acid rain made believers in federal intervention out of many states' rights devotees.

      The big headache that the Republicans are gearing up to give the Democrats now centers around the deficit/debt.  Despite the abyss that W's policies threw the economy into and the budget surplus he squandered, leaving the country with a tripling of the deficit by the end of his administration, it took him eight years to do it.

      Now Americans are watching Obama do the same thing in three months, and it's horrifying, even to many Obama supporters.  Republicans are going to make hay out of this stratospheric deficit/debt, and the Democrats are going to have to convince the electorate that such spending is necessary now but will be contained later, while not raising the taxes of the middle class.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 06:11:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who wants to be a Republican? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, Radical Moderate

    My cousin Byron does.  It makes thing entertaining at family dinners.

  •  No one wants to be a Republican. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wom Bat

    Not true. Like Rick and Ilsa always having Paris, the GOP will always have that same 20-30% that would never abandon the Idiot-in-chief.

    The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."

    by sizzzzlerz on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:55:10 AM PDT

  •  Right-left? Wrong issue. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know how conservative the Republican party is or isn't, but I do know this:

    When you screw up and you ignore people's needs, you are not going to win a lot of seats.

    It's OK to be a conservative.
    It's not OK to have a viable answer to the needs of the day.
    It;s not OK to try getting by as nothing but a Pander Bear.

    The Republicans start with a major handicap -- the MSM is on the other side.

    Good candidates can overcome that handicap because people like the press just a little more than they like child molesters.  Ronald Reagan did it masterfully, and he did it the same way, more or less, that FDR did it:
    with an optimistic theme and a vision for America's future.

    He didn't win with "No, No, No, No way".
    Even George Bush -- who didn't need to fight the press so much thanks to its feeding frenzy on Bill Clinton and Al Gore's campaign mis-steps -- offered up more than "No, No, NO".  

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 06:02:39 AM PDT

  •  Start a new party! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Katydid

    Moderate republicans should break with the extreme right party that the republican party is, and start a new party. Maybe the conservative party. And leave the republican party in the dust. The democratic party will be the center left party, the conservative party will be the center right party and the greens and republicans will be the wing alternatives.

    All good...

    •  It's a damaged brand... (0+ / 0-)

      But it's still a valuable brand.

      I suspect the more moderates will let the crash finish, the current loudmouths totally fail, and then they'll clean up the mess and start back toward power.

      My money is on a group of more reasonable business/state government types to emerge post next year's election.

      Keep your eyes on Republican governors.  

      Look for competent Republican business people who hold back during the next 18 or so months, say little, and try to get some accomplishments under their belts.

      15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

      by BobTrips on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 06:47:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NOWTBAR: acronym of the week (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wom Bat

    No One Wants To Be A Republican

    Has a nice ring to it.

    big badda boom : GRB 080913

    by squarewheel on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:20:14 AM PDT

  •  "Republicans can't win without the crazies" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CParis, raincrow

    that's what a lot of people've been saying for years.

    Not, they can't with WITH them, either.

    They are so, so, screwed. And they deserve it. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

    Member, The Angry Left

    by nosleep4u on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:23:29 AM PDT

  •  Republicans are "breaking the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    right margin?"  No problemo.  Just switch from "portrait" to "landscape," and keep on truckin'.

    The most violent element in society is ignorance.

    by Mr MadAsHell on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 08:18:09 AM PDT

  •  "Hurricane Specter," huh? Good line. (0+ / 0-)

    Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man. --A. E. Housman

    by Wom Bat on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 08:21:46 AM PDT

  •  Specter will make a lousy Democrat (0+ / 0-)

    And no telling what devil's bargains he might want when the Senate Dems really, really need 60 votes. I don't trust this miserable excuse for a "moderate," but for now, HE'LL DO.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site