Skip to main content

When I was growing up in the 1950s the conventional political wisdom was that it was the Democrats who engaged in wild raucous public political battles with each other. Republicans settled their differences behind closed doors and presented a dignified buttoned down image to the public. There was the famous quip of Will Rodgers, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat".

The 1948 election encapsulated the contrasting images. Harry Truman, that feisty little man from Missouri traveled around the country on his train shaking his fist and giving em hell. The new deal coalition split into three separate tickets with Truman having to compete with two third party challengers as well as the Republicans. Thomas Dewy, who was described as looking like the groom on top of a wedding cake, preserved his dignity and awaited his inevitable coronation which somehow just didn't quite come off.

Now the Republicans are spending truck loads of money tearing each other apart while the Democrats are discussing whether anybody will even bother to challenge Hillary Clinton. What has happened to the American political scene in the past 60 years?

I think that one of the biggest changes is that the Republicans acquired the socially conservative southerners. They were a major source of problems for the new deal coalition. The South seems to be where some of the most fractious battles with the Tea Party are taking place. Thad Cochran is rather the epitome of the traditional southern senator. He presents the benign face of the old south oligarch and was resting on the laurels of his seniority and the privileges that go with that. Now he has been reduced to going out and stumping for black votes. Just what is this world coming to!

I have never been able to feel that I have really gotten a grip on what the Tea Party is really about. Much of it looks like a bunch of right wing nuts who really aren't wrapped real tight. However, the lunatic fringe doesn't pull in big political money. The TP does.

During the new deal there was a mostly behind the scenes division in the Republicans in terms of cooperating with the policies of the Democratic administration. It was basically along the lines of the East Coast financial elite with international interests and Midwestern business whose financial interests were fundamentally different. The East Coast crowd was typified by the Rockefeller interests. They supported the adoption of the Social Security program and used their resources to influence the policy. FDR was willing to cooperate with them as long as nobody caught him talking to them. He eventually brought Nelson into his administration. The Midwestern crowd, as typified by McCormick were adamantly opposed to anything that would increase labor costs.

There is some indication that we may be seeing a bit of a replay of such a divide between the interests of Wall St and those of people like the Kochs. One of the many ways in which things are different now is that the Sons of the Confederacy are playing on the other team. Restraint and moderation is not part of that culture.            

Originally posted to Richard Lyon on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 01:10 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

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

    •  In the 1800s (4+ / 0-)

      Legal means "good".
      [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 01:31:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Role of Racism (11+ / 0-)
      "I have never been able to feel that I have really gotten a grip on what the Tea Party is really about."
      At it's core, the Tea Party is about racism.  The Tea Party is composed primarily of the most racist of conservatives, who are attracted to the Tea Party because the Tea Party permits (and yes invites) those racist expressions that the  Republican Party avoids.

      Now the Republican party has a problem: they like the votes the Tea Party gives them, but the obvious racism of those voters is unseemly (i.e. protesting that "black voters" voted for Cochran).

      Stirring up racial animus is a good way to get the many proletariats to fight each other rather that the wealthy elites.  So wealthy elites are happy to create and fund the Tea Party.  

      The Republican party is kind of caught in the middle between the wealthy oligarchs who fund them and the racist genie those wealthy elites have unleashed.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 06:07:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you can go a step further (11+ / 0-)

        and argue that the Tea Party is really about Ignorance.  Racism finds at least one of its parents is Ignorance.

        The sad thing about Ignorance is that those who possess it are normally at least dimly aware that it puts them at a disadvantage, and it makes them feel powerless and ashamed.  

        The Tea Party is about empowering the ignorant, which answers a basic need.  It releases them to put their ignorance on unabashed display in the heat of a feeling of righteous indignation, which they feel ennobles them.

        I would not wish to return them to shame, but to eradicate their ignorance with education, which is empowering in and of itself.

        Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

        by Gustogirl on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:50:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The hard part of educating them is (7+ / 0-)

          that admitting that they were wrong, still brings a feeling of shame. So they're stuck in a position where they have to feel stupid or they have to admit they were wrong. (I'm going to start mixing metaphors here.) So the only response to that that doesn't involve feeling shame is doubling down. And doubling down here means digging themselves deeper into a hole. Usually making it twice a deep.

          •  Willfully Ignorant (10+ / 0-)

            Their ignorance isn't innocent, it is willful. They don't care about facts or rationality when those don't support them having their way. It's really that simple. This isn't a problem of inferior education, nor of ineffective policy communication. It's a problem of them not truly supporting the democratic basis of our Constitution. When they are getting their way, they "support" democracy. When they don't get their way, however, they cry, tyranny! As Jon Stewart once informed them; "you're confusing tyranny with losing". No patriots, they.

            The Tea Party base is as anti-democratic as GOP wealthy elites, they both desire to exert tyrannical control over the nation, as evidenced by their repeated government shutdown attempts. What they wealthy desire is a plutocratic utopia with no taxation for them. What the Tea Party desire is to exert tyrannical control toward maintaining a cultural supremacy based in bigotry. Nearly all of the Tea Party policy objectives reflect that. Their irrational hatred of this President reflects that.

            The irrational fear and hate which GOP leadership and elites have quite intentionally stoked and hoped to harness among the GOP base, is turning on them. I believe that we are witnessing the well deserved self-destruction of the GOP, the beginnings of which was visible a couple of years ago. In the meanwhile, the rest of us are in serious danger, while the GOP, and especially the Tea Party, controls any part of government. I truly believe they represent an existential threat to our Constitution, our liberty, and our security.

            •  Not Ignorance, Faith (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              as authoritarian followers, they believe what they are told, and the worse it conflicts with reality, the more aggressively they fight to believe it and make it true. It is a movement fueled by cognitive dissonance and guided by a handful of charismatic sociopaths, who naturally draw authoritarian followers to themselves.  Their dogma is produced by think tanks to make them the useful thug caste in this corporatist debacle.

          •  Thus, is Cognitive Dissonance born n/t (0+ / 0-)

            La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

            by dconrad on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:39:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. (4+ / 0-)

          They are the return of the Know-Nothings.  This group, with its primitive hatreds and fears, will never go away.  It's hell when they're organized and funded.

          "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

          by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:22:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ignorance and... (9+ / 0-)

          I've said that the three legs that support modern right-wing ugliness are ignorance, fear, and hatred. The Tea Party has pretty much relied on these three feelings and have become experts at strirring them up among their base.

          Fear: of the Black Man and his hordes of Kenyan Muslim Communists coming after you and your guns (not necessarily in that order), fear of losing their little shreds of power (which leads to more guns and voter ID laws to "take back our country"), and fear of not bring able to "keep what's yours." Fear of Agenda 21, solar power, bike trails, REGULATIONS, and "Central Planning" (if you fancy yourself an intellectual like David Brooks).

          Ignorance: in the way they laugh at science and facts, and rely on emotion (usually outrage). Ignorance in bald-facedly lying and quoting each others' lies as if they were evidence. Ignorance in shouting "FACT:" in front of every lie, as the trolls love to do.

          Hate (which can be dressed up a little nicer as "resentment"): resentment of anyone whom they believe to be undeserving, which is pretty much everyone who isn't like them. This is the feeling that Mitt Romney called out with his "47%" remarks, and the rest of them dog-whistle with their "food stamp President," "welfare queens," freeloading immigrants and anchor babies, and "makers vs. takers" talk. Resentment in simply believing that they are better people who deserve more rewards for just being who they are. (This is partly a byproduct of feeling "saved" for a lot of the right-wing Christians, who don't think Jesus really expected people to actually act well toward others, but just to make a lot of noise and feel special).

          The resentment harks back to tribalism; the ignorance harks back to superstition, and the fear creates a constant paranoia that feeds consipracy theories. It's the Dark Ages all over again.

          But the Kochs and other anarcho-capitalists are quite happy to feed this fear, ignorance, and hatred, just to get rid of taxes and regulations. If they cause bloodshed and the unraveling of civilization in the process, well, not their problem... they can build walls around their mansions and hire some mercenaries to shoot anyone who tries to get in.

  •  They decided to appeal to the insane (23+ / 0-)

    First it was the raving Fundies, then they made the decision to go all the way, create the Tea Party and elevate full-blown maniacs to be the core of the Party. They have to convince the loons that they're 'one of them', so they have to look and act like them. And there's not a lot of dignity inside a lunatic asylum.

    How dare you use my own words against me?? - Chris McDaniel, (Teahadist), MS

    by Fordmandalay on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 01:45:40 PM PDT

    •  From Reagan to Bush (12+ / 0-)

      the Republicans were pretty successful at manipulating the fundies without having to actually do very much for them. Something else happened. Putting it all down to personal insanity doesn't really account for it.  

      •  ? Movements, Movements That Move, Make Progress (11+ / 0-)

        Reagan was a radical racist rightwinger who launched his winning 1st general election contest in Philly Mississippi. But he lived in far more liberal times than today, hemmed in by a double-strength labor, an economy largely trapped onshore whose workers had influence in government, a very weak super rich class and a journalistic press.

        "Something else happened" is the entire rightwing revolution took about 10 thousand steps, with the whiney hippies protesting all the way along, as all the adults pointed up and said "see the sky didn't fall down last night."

        The single biggest change is the collapse of our only credible enemy empire, which freed the economy to move production offshore without risk, and freed the rich to go to war against the people without the risks of presenting a divided front to a dangerously threatening world.

        The fundies helped make Reagan, they didn't all appear later as certain specific organizations of them did.

        If you think the Republicans never did anything for the fundies before the 21st century, you need to sit down with some reproductive rights activists. We might still reach the point where abortion becomes impossible before it becomes illegal.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 02:19:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reagan started out as a left leaning (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          allie4fairness, gffish

          leader in the Screen Actors Guild. It was butting heads with the Communists in that organization that pushed him to the right.

          I din't say that they never did anything for the fundies. I said that they didn't give them control of the party and policy. They are now attempting to take that control.  

        •  The crazy right was here all along. (10+ / 0-)

          Among Republicans there were the John Birchers, Goldwater, etc. I remember when Reagan was just a water carrier.  He appeared on the UTex campus all the time ca. 1960. Seems like he was there every other week! Goldwater lost big.  But Reagan had already taken up the mantle--just took him another 20 years so he'd look dignified!

          And another source?  The Civil Rights Act that drove the rightwing southern Democrats right into the Republican party. There were a lot of racist nuts in the Democratic party--even in leadership. Jesse Helms, anyone? But LBJ signed the CR Act--and, lo, they became Republicans.

          A lot of it does come from the south. But there are pockets of it all over--when fundamentalist Christianity reigns, be it Catholic or Protestant. All it takes is a local demagogue--no matter how crazy--to stir up the mess.

          •  Crazy might be relative. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I don't see Goldwater as crazy.  His trigger finger may have itched too much and his governing philosophy was less activist.  However, compared to today he was perfectly sane.  I believe he was prochoice and regarding gays in the military he once said, "I don't care if you are straight just as long as you can shoot straight."

          •  I think as a corollary of the Southern Democrats (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            silverfoxcruiser, Shawn87

            being driven and openly welcomed into the GOP as a result of the Civil Rights Act, a lot of Northern moderate to liberal Republicans have been driven into the Democratic party as their views on issues such as the Civil Rights Act and other issues have led to them feeling alienated in the GOP.  In the 60s, there were still quite a few moderate to liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller.  Even as recently as the 1990s, you had a handful of  moderate to liberal Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords.  Now the moderate wing of the GOP is all but extinct, and the liberal wing has been officially extinct ever since Lincoln Chafee lost his seat in 2006.  The closest thing to a moderate in the current GOP is Susan Collins, and if you look closely at her voting record, it really isn't all that moderate.  She votes with her party on virtually all of the major issues.

            We have nothing to fear but fear itself

            by bhouston79 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:32:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The democrats started to triangulate (4+ / 0-)

        To make up for the crazy voters the Democrats triangulated to pick up the GOP Shifted further

        At the same time the meme developed that these Condervatives were the majority

        In fact they believe they are

        As do the democrats and the press

        At the same time economic loses and changing demographics makes them afraid they are not

        Its easier to control losers (or people who believe they are )than winners (or people wig believe they ate )

        Hence the flip between the parties

        Both parties have flipped rolls

      •  The Koch Birchers also happened (13+ / 0-)

        They've been laying in wait for the craziness to reach the tipping point where white America will be in the minority, and those who fear losing their white privilege are ready to take extreme action to protect it.

        Kochs founded organized groups to fuel their fear and fund the extremists in any form they find them.

    •  The fundies came to the Democrats (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      First and were turned down...then they went to the GOP.

      We are not powerless!! "Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet."– Alice Walker

      by nocynicism on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 06:33:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In the midst of a bitter divorce, they shot (7+ / 0-)

    each other.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 01:52:49 PM PDT

  •  As Joe Scarborough says...Winning isn't everything (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silencio, allie4fairness's the only thing........(paraphrased)

    •  A value system learned (4+ / 0-)

      in 'Animal House' type fraternities — farm teams for today's GOP — where any mention of "the common good" gets you bounced.

      •  Nope. Football. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Bear Bryant used to say that winning isn't everything, but it sure beats coming in second.

        Scarborough is a real piece of work, but he was a GDI at Alabama. Ran for Student Government Association president against the Machine greek candidate but dropped out in favor of another independent.

        Don't have a source. I just know because I was there.

        Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

        by susanala on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 06:23:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Football fershur (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kentucky DeanDemocrat

          From wiki:

          The quotation is widely attributed to American football coach Vince Lombardi, who probably heard the phrase from UCLA coach Henry Russell Sanders. Lombardi is on record using the quotation as early as 1959 in his opening talk on the first day of the Packers’ training camp. The quotation captured the American public's attention during Lombardi's highly successful reign as coach of the Packers in the 1960s. Over time, the quotation took on a life of its own. The words graced the walls of locker rooms, ignited pre-game pep talks, and echoed from the rafters of banquet halls.


          by Uncle Cosmo on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:53:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Duh, they became neoliberal Democrats. (19+ / 0-)

    Was their really much difference in economic policy between the moderate Republican Bob Dole and Bill Clinton? So now, the Bob Doles are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, and the Dems have virtually sawed off the leftist branch of the Party.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 02:08:23 PM PDT

  •  They sold out in 1980 (4+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 02:20:54 PM PDT

  •  they became Progressives. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Silencio, Dirtandiron

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 02:51:17 PM PDT

  •  John Wilkes Booth had the last word, it seems /nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanisMaximus, Dirtandiron

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 02:52:05 PM PDT

  •  Bob Dole... (9+ / 0-) retrospect is someone who I would respect today as a reasonable, dignified Republican.

    I'm a liberal, but we need a viable opposition party. I hope the Bob Doles of the country assert themselves soon.

    "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

    by CanisMaximus on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 03:07:16 PM PDT

  •  I gre up in the 50s and here's my take - (25+ / 0-)

    Eisenhower was moderate enough that the Democrats tried like hell to get him to run as a Dem.

    JFK's charisma and tragic death plus Goldwater's extremism enabled the '64 landslide which facilitated the War on Poverty, and the Civil & Voting Rights Act.

    Then Nixon's  Southern Strategy enabled a new Republican majority, and they got too used to occupying the White House. For 24 years, from 1968-1992, Republicans occupied the White House for 20 years. It would have been all 24 years except for the "luck" of Ford pardoning Nixon and Carter being from the South.

    And it was probably "luck" that Ross Perot came along and split the vote in '92 and let Bill Clinton slip in with a plurality. And then the Republicans went' berserk - "We own the White House, how dare someone other than a Republican occupy the Oval Office". Whitewater 'investigations' for 6 of Clinton's 8 years, culminating in his impeachment for daring to say "I did not have sex with that woman". I was an Independent those years, often voting Republican. But Newt Gingrich pushed me into voting Democratic (while remaining registered Independent). GW Bush & Iraq pushed me solidly into the Democratic side.

    Then Al Gore won the 2000 election, but the SCOTUS decided otherwise. Then for 8 years Republican were happy and harmonious again, happily voting to double the national debt because  . . . well, because it's for tax cuts for our patrons (aka the 1%) and the 'war on terror'. Then the voters stabbed them in the back and elected that socialist muslim Kenyan, and all hell broke loose.

    Maybe another 8 years of Hillary or Elizabeth Warren in the White House will get them to clam down and realize that being stupid, hateful, obstructionist isn't such a cleaver strategy and they won't win elections until they act like adults again.  

    David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

    by Dave in AZ on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 03:43:28 PM PDT

  •  I wish I could remember the exact quote (11+ / 0-)

    but it was an observation by Molly Ivins.  She said that, before Reagan, your establishment Republican was rich, connected, an insider.  Your basic conservative citizen was kind of loopy, weird, the kind of guy who burns leaves in his backyard to obscure the vision of men in black helicopters.  Reagan made that type of conservative respectable and mainstream.  

    That's the gist of it.

    "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

    by Silencio on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 03:44:04 PM PDT

    •  Goldwater was definitely courting (3+ / 0-)

      people like the Birchers. If he had gotten elected we would have seen them in power sooner. Nixon continued the Eisenhower tradition of moderate domestic policy. It wasn't because he had a kind heart. It was because he wasn't interested in it and turned it over the Eherlichman.

      Nixon was chasing the southerns just as much as Reagan. He just didn't catch as many.

      •  Not to in any way defend or advocate republicans, (0+ / 0-)

        but you got both Goldwater and Nixon about as wrong as you possibly could.

        Both of these men were products of their society. They were
        wrong, but had little perspective from which to gauge the validity of their viewpoints.

        Barry Goldwater, once he was confronted with the reality his beliefs created, ended up being far more "liberal" than President Obama is today.

        Nixon was a severely damaged son-of-a-bitch created by the California oligarchs during the depression. In large part because of this, he was abandoned by the "serious" republicans until they tipped to the fact that the very same reasons that they hated him were what made him electable.

        The bottom line is that both men did exactly the wrong things at exactly the right time out of their sincere belief that it was best for the nation. They were patriots by the literal definition.

        [pey-tree-uht, -ot or, esp. British, pa-tree-uht]

        1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

        We haven't had one of these in the White House for a very long time.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 04:29:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree with you at all. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kentucky DeanDemocrat, daveminnj

          Goldwater's "liberalism" was pure libertarian.

          •  Perhaps the difference is that I knew the man. (5+ / 0-)

            I didn't know, or ever meet Nixon, so my information there is all second hand, but I grew up with and around the Goldwaters and even from the perspective of a little kid, the transformation was obvious and profound. He was wrong. He came to understand on an intensely personal level that he was wrong, and I don't think he ever really got over it.

            But the point was, and this is what I believe makes all the difference, he always did what he thought best for the nation. There was no compromise in that area, and believe me, rich as he was, he could have become far richer if he'd gone along with what some of the movers and shakers, especially the assholes in Texas, wanted, but there was never any question about it.

            "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

            by Greyhound on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 05:17:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was not talking about the dynamics of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bruh1, purplepenlady

              his personal psychological development, but the political alliances he formed and the policy positions that he ran on. Those are on the record. A personal acquaintance is not required to analyse them.

              To the extent that one can ever get an accurate view of the person behind the political image, Goldwater struck me as a down to earth and not unpleasant individual. His politics impressed me very differently.  

              •  The best we can do with what we know is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                all that any of us can ever do. Try putting the shoe on your own foot.

                I'm guessing that you are an ardent supporter of the President, even if not, there are certainly many here who fit that description.

                What happens if you come to the realization, along with so many others around the world, that he has exacerbated an already terrible situation by doing what he sincerely believed to be the best thing, only to find that his actions enabled an even worse scenario that the future will have to deal with?

                I can give you a list of things this President has done that have or will turn out to be just that. Are saying that you will judge him as harshly? I don't think so.

                I'd certainly never vote for 1960s Barry Goldwater today, any more than I will ever vote for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't translate into blanket derision for her as a person (her husband is another story altogether).

                Just Like Goldwater, she was completely wrong many times and being that wrong that many times precludes any possibility of ever earning my vote, but it doesn't follow that she is some monster whose very name is pure evil. I'm sure that, should the opportunity ever arise, I would find her charming and engaging and enormously interesting on a personal level, but I'd never, ever support her in any way in a campaign to become the President.

                As I tried to convey in my original reply, The difference is in intent.

                •  I'm not an ARDENT suporter (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  of any politician. It all needs to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

                  •  No argument here at all on that point. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Ignore what they say, watch what they do.

                    The institute and process itself is set up to ensure that people with a firm commitment to making it better are now excluded. Some few can get through due to political irrelevance, being from the right family, etc., but they're never going to be allowed into a position where they can do anything that hurts the people that matter.

                    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

                    by Greyhound on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 06:34:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  They registered as Democrats. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    unfangus, blueoasis

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

    by Greyhound on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 04:13:06 PM PDT

  •  The same thing... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that happened to the police...

    Only a government drowning in arrogance and hubris or a government run by psychopaths and sociopaths would pick [Russia as] an enemy. Paul Craig Roberts

    by dharmasyd on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 04:13:29 PM PDT

  •  New Dixiecrats (6+ / 0-)

    In the 50s, American gothic racialists who felt left out of the political system could still find a home in the Democratic Party, but this state of affairs didn't last long. Once the Civil Rights Act was signed by LBJ, the racialists were even more out in the cold for a while, but they were soon opportunistically welcomed into the GOP by Richard Nixon et al. It took a few decades, but the GOP is now well established as the home of the “New Dixiecrats”, and it is exhibiting the same disorganized, mean-spirited, quixotic behavior the Democrats were previously known for.

  •  It'll be a huge step forward (2+ / 0-)

    when we — and the stenographic press — stop mischaracterizing dull-normal reactionaries as "conservatives".

  •  I miss Senators like Hatfield, Javits, (6+ / 0-)

    and even Mitt's dad, George Romney.

    We do need opposition parties of smart, principled people.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 04:41:02 PM PDT

  •  It's hatred and fear (8+ / 0-)

    And it's no surprise that it's most venomous in the south, where they have clung to their "right" to their culture of hatred and bigotry all these years.

    A black president in the White House has them foaming at the mouth and they can't escape their anger, to the point that it blinds them to any logic whatsoever.

    It's also no coincidence that there are fundies at the root of it. Fundamentalist religious people don't function on reason; they are programmed to operate on blind faith.

    Where there's hatred, bitterness, selfishness and fear, you will find Republicans. Unfortunately, we have a surplus of those at the moment.

    Mediocrity cannot know excellence ~ Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 04:54:23 PM PDT

  •  Simpler explanation (9+ / 0-)

    The Democrats are the conservatives now. The Republicans are radicals.

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 04:59:11 PM PDT

  •  The Old Days That Never Were. (0+ / 0-)

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 05:01:27 PM PDT

  •  What happened? (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan--Bush I--Clinton--Bush II Supreme Court picks.  I agree with those who have argued that the Supreme Court is the most powerful of the three Branches.

    Oh, and there's this:  Anything that a member of the Bush family touches immediately turns to shit.

    "Soylent Green is people too, my friend!" Guess Who

    by oldmaestro on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 05:03:20 PM PDT

  •  We gave Republicans back their literature and told (0+ / 0-)

    them we were Democrats. We knew the Republicans took our literature and threw it in the trash. We always felt very superior to the Republicans, they never seemed dignified to us.

    Child forgotten in car? -- Use open source E-Z Baby Saver -- Andrew Pelham, 11yo inventor E-Z Baby Saver

    by 88kathy on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 05:13:55 PM PDT

  •  The parties flipped (7+ / 0-)

    From the founding of this country, the two parties have been "a northern party" and "a southern party"

    From the time of the civil war, the northern party was the Republican party, with alliances among the blacks  (I thought I read a really good diary about how black votes won the election for U.S. Grant, but I can't find it) The Democrats were the southern party with an alliance among the catholics.  

    Starting in 1968 with Nixon, and continuing ever since, the Republican party made a concerted effort to become the southern party.  Reagan was able to pull off appealing to Southerners and keeping the northerners in his fold, but it didn't last.   The Eisenhower - Rockefeller, "northern" republican party has pretty much flipped democratic (not 100%)  Blacks have flipped to democrats, and Catholics have pretty much stayed in the democratic fold (except for the bishops)

  •   The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the advent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zinman, Matt Z, Lovepolitics2008

    of cable news networks, and talk radio, has brainwashed millions of people into believing all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories.

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 06:26:11 PM PDT

  •  "Misconception that Tea Party is Populist..." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CFAmick, worldlotus, Richard Lyon, Yonit

    Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the “Newest Right”

    ...most progressives and centrists, and even many non-Tea Party conservatives, do not understand the radical force that has captured the Republican Party and paralyzed the federal government...

    The data, however, show that Tea Party activists and leaders on average are more affluent than the average American. The white working class often votes for the Newest Right, but then the white working class has voted for Republicans ever since Nixon. For all its Jacksonian populist rhetoric, the Newest Right is no more a rebellion of the white working class than was the original faux-populist Jacksonian movement, led by rich slaveowners like Andrew Jackson and agents of New York banks like Martin Van Buren...

    ...In fact, the role that antigovernment sentiment in the South plays in Tea Party movement support is the strongest in our analysis.

    The Tea Party right is not only disproportionately Southern but also disproportionately upscale. Its social base consists of what, in other countries, are called the “local notables”—provincial elites whose power and privileges are threatened from above by a stronger central government they do not control and from below by the local poor and the local working class...

  •  What happened? Ask Eisenhower's ghost. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    “My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there." - Rumi

    by LamontCranston on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 08:20:15 PM PDT

  •  GOP got took over by the John Birch Society (2+ / 0-)

    "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 08:55:53 PM PDT

  •  To think I actually used to "listen to the other (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    side" occasionally in the "old days." This is before the polarization, the hatred, the implacable positions, the venom pouring out of talk radio, white backlash against people of color, Fox News, conservative think tanks, and on and on.
    I won't see the end of any of this in my lifetime. You younger people here might see that "paradigm shift" where new models and new memes and new ideologies take over.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:00:36 PM PDT

  •  The Tea Party movement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    can be traced back to the various liberation movements parodied in Life of Brian, when Jewish Zealots rose up against Roman taxation and religious oppression, specifically requiring Jews to recognize the religion of the rest of the Roman Empire.

    In US political history, it began with the Federalists, the original Party of No to President Thomas Jefferson, who accused him in 1800 of having a plan to burn down all churches in the US. They imploded in 1815, leaving a political vacuum on the Right for 18 years until the Whigs became the second US party of big business.

    The Republicans were split on the question of slavery before they were formed. Were they the party of Lincoln, intending to leave slavery alone where it existed, but prevent its spread, or were they ardent Abolitionists? Did they want to let the South go, or conquer it? Did they want war at all costs, or peace at any price?

    The answer is yes, to all of the above and more. And then there was the fact that the Republican Party was the party of big business, anti-labor, anti-farm, anti-anything that threatened their money and power, and eventually pro-anybody who hated anybody and anything enough to vote for their tax cuts, subsidies, and deregulation measures.

    But now the Tea Partiers are no longer willing to be the Useless Idiots of the rich. They want their hatreds implemented, including hatred of banks and big business.

    There is a good deal more to the history of the greedy, hate-filled, and deluded in the US, whom Republicans have taken so much trouble to concentrate in their own party, to the point where it is tearing the party apart.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:35:05 PM PDT

  •  1961? (0+ / 0-)

    No further text forthcoming

    Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies, We were roaring drunk on petroleum -Kurt Vonnegut

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sat Jun 28, 2014 at 09:51:42 PM PDT

  •  The Chamber of Commerce took over after Nixon (0+ / 0-)

    Our last liberal/progressive and... Republican president was Nixon.  He gave us a good minimum wage and the EPA and nearly gave us universal health care.

    Then came the Powell Memo that initiated the corporate takeover of the republican party.

    Sad to say but Obama could only hope to achieve 10% of the gains of our last "liberal" president, a republican.  Perhaps if he were willing to fight from the bully pulpit like FDR did....  

    He did what he said he would, seek reconciliation between the "parties".  His failure was to fail to see it was not the "parties" but it was the "corporate industrial complex" he was up against.

    The solution is Elizabeth Warren for President.    

  •  The "dignified" Republicans started dying off (6+ / 0-)

    when the GOP made the decision to to get in bed with Evangelical Christianists in the 1970s. Once they cast their lot with people who believe that Adam and Eve had vegetarian dinosaurs for neighbors in the Garden of Eden 5,000 years ago, the future direction of the GOP was sealed. It's now a de facto theocratic party, and craziness is the only result.

  •  I never could understand the phrase (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "God fearing". I've often asked highly religious friends why should a believer fear God? If you follow the tenants and ask forgiveness of sins, there is no need of fear. I usually got blank stares and wordless mouth movement.

    So movements based on fear and hatred will eventually, tear themselves apart. History shows this time and again. Because that fear and hatred drives them to purge their "best and brightest" because they aren't "true believers". But don't write the R's off just yet, what we are seeing today may be a repeat of what happened that started the movement that culminated in the Goldwater of the 60's.

    Oh, and on Goldwater. It was Goldwater who told then President Clinton to simply order the military to accept gays and not to do "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". A pretty Liberal thing from someone who was an icon for the Conservatives.

    Lastly the "dignified" Republicans you're thinking of are pretty much what my parents called "country club" Republicans. Elite, upper middle class at worst, economically conservative, moderate or liberal on social issues. There's fewer of them because the middle class is nearly wiped out.

    "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." ~ Sun Tsu

    by coyote66 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 12:08:11 AM PDT

    •  Well, in reponse to the first question, the idea (0+ / 0-)

      is that God is infinitely just, righteous, and all-powerful---and we aren't. He is also a right son-of-a-bitch in enforcing the moral code.  The idea that 'God is Good' doesn't mean that 'God is a Nice Guy'.

      Also following the tenets is extremely difficult, and asking for forgiveness in this sense requires actual (not just stated) remorse and desire for atonement.  Like you can't just say you accept Christ as your savior, for example, you have to actually accept him.  (although I'm jewish anyway, but no matter :)   If you don't, you burn.  BURN.

      So yeah--I can see why fear comes into play here.

      •  :) I've also greatly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Namazga III

        enjoyed pointing out that Jesus was Jewish as well. Something some of the self righteous have a hard time wrapping their brains around.

        Yes you are exactly right. But personally (considering the Christian Bible's Old Testament) I've thought the God in that book to be the God to be feared. It seems that God is one who might at any time, decide He has had enough of our pettiness and unrighteous behavior and nearly wipe out humanity again. Funny thing is: the idea of Hell and how one would be sent there is one that (largely) grew out of illiterate priests.

        "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." ~ Sun Tsu

        by coyote66 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ronald Reagan's speech 8/3/1980 Philadelphia MS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit, mjd in florida

    The Saint made a speech on 'states rights' to seek the white supremacist vote that had had been expelled from the Democratic Party but not yet voting GOP.

    Reagan made thinly disguised criticisms of using federal agencies to hunt and prosecute those who murdered civil rights workers.

    With that speech, Reagan severed any remaining link the GOP had with Abraham Lincoln.

    The GOOPERs won the WH for 12 years knowing they had the white supremacist vote locked up.

    But Aug 3 1980 is the one day Rush Limbaurgh, Anne Coulter, Paul Rand and others who claim that the GOP is the party of Civil Rights will never mention

    Nor will paid GOOPER minstrels such as Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson will ever mention this speech.

  •  Perhaps Barry Goldwater put it most (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    succinctly when he said, "The Republicans are selling their soul to win elections."

      ~Quoted by John Dean in Conservatives Without Conscience

  •  They acquired them by actively (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    courting them.  As far as the tea party is concerned, that astro-turf group funded by the Kochs, I look at them as modern day Birchers.  Helps me at least try to understand such incredible hate.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 07:52:59 AM PDT

  •  Ed Anger (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I remember studying the Ed Anger columns in the supermarket tabloid Weekly World News back in the early 80's. It was for a university course. Ed Anger gave a voice to the voiceless masses who we're struggling to understand a world that was rapidly changing. It was an appeal to the unsophisticated, the people without the tools and resources to have any power.

    Morton Downey came along almost as an incarnation of Ed Anger. Later Rush Limbaugh tapped the same vein. Most of us sat back and laughed at the ridiculousness of all of these characters.

    This may have been a largely untapped slice of the electorate that had not previously been organized along coherent lines. They are unsophisticated and angry; this is what unites them. Recently, some very sophisticated people (Dick Armey, et al) have pushed the organizational process along and sped it up.

    It is literally tabloid politics the Republicans have tapped and organized. Nothing is out of bounds. The political equivalent of 'Aliens Ate My Lunch' and 'The Monkey Face Boy.'

    The link below is to Wikipedia's entry for Ed Anger. An example they give is "...Arm teachers with stun guns." What a quaint notion. These days Ed Anger would argue, "What!! Only stun guns!?!?"

    Ed Anger

  •  The last dignified Republican IMHO was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    Lincoln Chafee prior to his switch to labeling himself as an independent.  He was a true moderate/liberal Republican, who was better than many Democrats on some issues including his opposition to the Iraq War.

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself

    by bhouston79 on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:35:34 AM PDT

  •  I think that one of the biggest changes is that (0+ / 0-)

    .... the Republicans acquired the socially conservative southerners. They were a major source of problems for the new deal coalition. The South seems to be where some of the most fractious battles with the Tea Party are taking place.

    That's what happens when those only fit to be servants get ideas above their pay-grades! Same thing happened in Russia, 1917.

    Southern Whites and Bolsheviks have the same desires.


  •  Sorry, I cannot answer that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon

    From my very first contact with the US political system, I was kidnapped by Leftists in Berkeley and Oakland California that taught me Ronnie Ray-Gun was an undignified, crypto-fascist scary monster (they even gave me a button for my book bag that said the latter part) and it was a pretty effective indoctrination.

    It was only later that I learned Abe Lincoln was a Republican causing me to ask more or less the same question you ask now.

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 10:45:29 AM PDT

  •  . (0+ / 0-)

    the sane republican party seems to have passed away a long time ago .... like the non-globalist democrats

    "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." -James Madison

    by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 11:27:33 AM PDT

  •  The answer to your question... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SherwoodB, Mauricio well as to a whole host of other is:  Ronald Reagan.

    The damage this man launched on this country is darn near incalculable.  Everything you bemoan was put in play by Reagan's handlers.  We reap what Reagan sowed.

    When you punch enough holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 12:14:08 PM PDT

    •  Add Lee Atwater to to that list (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Two words: Willie Horton

      The 1988 election and the success of ads like the infamous Willie Horton piece that Bush #1 used set the tone.  The take no prisoners politics that followed, lead by Newt Gingrich, after Clinton's election became the model that reached its full fruition in what happened after Obama was elected.  

      The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

      by Do Something on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 01:50:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the "Moral" "Majority" is what happened (0+ / 0-)

    To court and maintain relations with delusional fundies, candidates had to start embracing the b.s. of that particular worldview.  Ultimately, that means denying science and honest reasoning and pulling out of one's a** whatever will bring out those particular voters.

    As fundies/evangelicals became more and more of the base, candidates wanting those votes engaged in more and more 'truthiness' of soundbites and slogans that resonated with fundies/evangelicals.  And THAT means acting as though if one just believes hard enough and shouts loud enough, belief becomes reality. (like WMD)

    For the past several cycles, those chickens have come home to roost.  Candidates/incumbents who knew they were just pushing emotional buttons for votes are now confronted with challengers who really believe the b.s. used to manipulate 'conservatives' and GOTV.

    Its worth noting the last time fundies had so much voice in US politics, the Scopes Monkey Trial happened.  Fundies won the battle in court but lost the war for public opinion.  Fundies were so ridiculed after the trial they, as a block, pretty much withdrew from national politics (though individual congregations/ministers did keep their hat/hats in the ring) until Pres. Carter pissed 'em off by denying tax breaks for private 'christian' schools.  That anger was channeled into the 'moral' 'majority' by the GOP funded Falwell.

    i grew up in and was part of that hooey so i might be a smidge biased.

    elipsii: helping the masses express aposiopesis for...

    by bnasley on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 04:24:43 PM PDT

  •  My short answer to your title question: (0+ / 0-)

    The Dixiecrats left our party, and went over to theirs.

    Just an opinion, but I watched the tables turn, and that very much appears to me to have been the start.

  •  My uncle is pretty dignified (0+ / 0-)

    ... of course he voted for Obama in the last two elections. He is still a Republican -- he doesn't, in general, approve of Democratic economic policies. However, he also realizes the current crop of Republicans are mostly a pack of rabid lunatics.

    It's something of a quandry for him. He's not going to reward his party for their poor behavior, and he doesn't have a good alternative--there's no party that really represents him economically (not really--Republicans will still give lip service to it but the Bush years made it plain that they're just as irresponsible as any Democrat they've ever tried to paint as irresponsible.) He even said, the first time around, that no Republican from the Bush era deserved to be rewarded for what they'd done to this country.

    So... he voted Democrat, and he doesn't like it. He's not likely to be won over to Democratic policies, but he can't in good conscience support anyone else.

    I feel kinda bad for him. He's a decent guy.

    Now my father on the other hand is a self-described "Yellow Dog" Democrat, and he is ALSO holding his nose as he votes, because he is ALSO unhappy about the policies the Democrats are supporting--only for him it's drone strikes, assassinating US citizens abroad without due process, mass surveillance of US Citizens. He's said he's genuinely afraid of where the country is going, and that it bothers him that his party doesn't care to stop it. (Not the part that's actually making the decisions at any rate).

    My father and my uncle are pretty close and get along and all that, but they were never eye-to-eye politically as far as I know. But lately both of them have been unhappy voting for Democrats. :-D

    The Baptist Death Ray (wrightc [at] eviscerati [dot] org) "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
    - Edward Young

    by The Baptist Death Ray on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:12:56 PM PDT

  •  What happened to all the dignified republicans? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Once the black man was elected, they all went crazy.

    I realize that it's a gross simplification, but there is a lot of truth to this.

    Long ago the GOP saw the handwriting on the wall-the demographic time-bomb clicking. Way back in the '80's they were stating that they did not want everybody to vote, and that they wanted to scale back the rights of people of color. And they decided to grow their party not be trying to appeal to people different from them, but by concentrating their increasingly homogeneous base. Ever since then their party has gotten whiter and older. They didn't try to expand outward to the growing demographic; Instead, they made mass appeals to the lizard-brained types: the libertarians, the hate-filled jesus freaks that call themselves Christian even though they don't practice true Christianity, the gun freaks, survivalists, anti-abortionists, libertarians; You know-the Tea Party. And the Tea party all but eliminated the "dignified Republicans"; "dignified republicans" didn't shout loud enough. "Dignified republicans" were prone to reason and talk things out. To the lizard-brained types, "Dignified republicans" didn't show enough emotion. Of course, a lot of the blame goes to those dignified republicans who lacked the balls to stand up to the TP'ers.

    All of this was orchestrated by the big money up top, the 1%. They pulled the strings by convincing these poor, ignorant saps that everything that is happening is the fault of the blacks, latinos, "uppity"women, "libruls". The ultimate irony is that these ignorant, uninformed racist saps (the "illiterati"), who serve as shock troops for the 1%, continue to get ripped off by the very same people they serve. And they are too stupid to realize it. Meanwhile, the 1% use their clout to buy their own government and Supreme Court.

    It is what it is-an oligarchy, propped up by ignorant, gun-toting, bible-thumping pot-bellied fat- fucks who who feed off of racism, fear and guns. Welcome to the Third World, America.

    •  It started before Obama however.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They impeached Clinton over an affair after all. The "dignified" republicans would have never have done that.

      Even Nixon wasn't very dignified - his main problem was that he got caught.  But remember that his VP also resigned due to a run-of-the-mill bribery scandal.

      The last dignified Republican that I can think of is Eisenhower, and he was kind of a special case - he could have been elected President under either party.

  •  Old Lawyer Joke that applies here (0+ / 0-)

    A friend heard this one while in law school:  "There is no such thing as a funny lawyer.  There are only humorous people in the wrong line of work."

    Well, there are no dignified Republicans...

    To be on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is to be on the right side of history.

    by mbayrob on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 12:28:29 AM PDT

  •  They became top elected (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whimsical Rapscallion


  •  dick cheney especially played the part (0+ / 0-)

    of the dignified republican with his button-downed appearance and his soothing, midwestern-esque, carefully modulated voice.  He seemed to be the republican's republican which should have been the tip off.  

    Then he unmasked himself.  

  •  What happened? (0+ / 0-)

    The republican party was taken over not by some invented tea party but by their own John Birch Society wing.

    I ask him if he was warm enough? "Warm," he growled, "I haven't been warm since Bastogne."

    by Unrepentant Liberal on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:43:38 AM PDT

  •  i think they are called (0+ / 0-)

    blue dog democrats now

    May you always find water and shade.

    by Whimsical Rapscallion on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:07:46 PM PDT

  •  Window Dressing (0+ / 0-)

    It always was.  Watch the PBS documentaries "Freedom Riders" and listen to 'respectable' white Mississippians say things like "we'll do anything to preserve our way of life (white supremacy)"  Including murder, arson and denial of civil rights.  Of course many of these people were Democrats then.  Now, they are very likely to be Republicans. - echoes of the tea party.  The thin veneer of gentility.  

  •  Republicans have always been a mean (0+ / 0-)

    bunch.  It's just more obvious these days.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site