Arlen Specter changes party

[Harlowe]

As long as the Rep's bend over and wet themselves everytime a talkshow radio host gets mad at them for daring to say he's not their leader, that party is going nowhere fast. To behave in the manner they have for people like Rush Limbaugh is absolutely embarrassing. No can respect or trust leadership that is that weak, not to mention crazy.

Until you have moderate, sensible, truly fiscally-conservative spokespeople and more imporantly leadership, it's a party of irrelevence and desperation. No one can respect it, so no one wants to be a part of it.

Face it, there is no Goldwater faction of the party that has the numbers or power to actually take over this party right now or even in the near furture. If there is, they must be hidden in some underground bunker remaining silent. Saying there are local people really isn't going to help the party nationally unless they start to band together en masse and speak out. Start some sort of productive non-teaparty bullshit grass roots effort. If it's more unproductive, ridiculous drama...it's not happening.

[Trollbait]

Apparently Partha operates with party loyalist blinders on.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21204

President Obama, who pledged to bring bipartisanship to Washington, appears to have found one new ally on the Right: neoconservatives. On Tuesday, at the Mayflower Hotel, William Kristol and Robert Kagan held a maiden conference on Afghanistan to announce the formation of a new organization called the Foreign Policy Initiative. Speakers included John McCain and Jane Harman. Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl moderated one session. The thrust of the conference was to support Obama’s pledge to ramp up the fight in Afghanistan—according to Fred Kagan, he, Obama, is sure to come under fire in the future for doing so—and to suppress any latent isolationist impulses that might manifest themselves in coming months and years.

Kristol’s latest foray into foreign policy has excited much comment. It was first reported by Laura Rozen of Foreign Policy. Since then, Matthew Yglesias has cogently observed that it points to the sway neoconservatives continue to hold in Washington—the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, has added Elliot Abrams to its roster—and that it’s mistaken to regard them as either a spent or a trivial force. Stephen Walt, in his blog on Foreign Policy, has bemoaned a lack of accountability among foreign-policy elites, likening the neocons to doctors who are never held responsible for the outcome of their bungled surgical interventions.

But the latest neocon move really shouldn’t come as a surprise. Neoconservatism began as a movement within the Democratic Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.[citation needed] A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA

You really should know what you are talking about before you show yourself an idiot, Partha.

Neocons joining the Democratic Party would be them just going home.

Not really that far fetched. They seem to like those with power. Kind of like moths to flames.

Face it, there is no Goldwater faction of the party that has the numbers or power to actually take over this party right now or even in the near furture.

What are you basing that on, Harlowe? What Republican discussion forums do you belong to? What Republican organizations are you a member of? What conservative periodicals or newsletters do you receive? I was just wondering what source you are basing your insight into the inner workings of the Republican party on? The party has been hijacked by a minority. That is clear. The majority of conservatives are either Reagan Conservatives or Goldwater Conservatives. The two are not mutually exclusive, however.

You are right about the fawning tribute paid to talk show hosts. Sickening.

[Lurker]

Until you have moderate, sensible, truly fiscally-conservative spokespeople and more imporantly leadership, it's a party of irrelevence and desperation.

Agreed. I'd just add that there's nothing sensible or fiscally-conservative about calling for a spending freeze during a demand recession. It's pure insanity. I point that out in case some are confused about what the 'moderate, sensible, fiscal conservative' course should be during our current crisis.

====

Jecks,
Are you saying there is a grassroots uprising going on in the Republican Party that nobody knows about; that posters on message boards are poised to rescue the party and restore sanity to policy and message? I'd love to see that happen because having one national party (fast becoming a regional one) that is batshit insane isn't good for the country. The problem is, I don't see it.

[Trollbait]

Are you saying there is a grassroots uprising going on in the Republican Party that nobody knows about

I am saying that there are a lot of angry Republicans in the party, local, state, and nationally as well as donors who are fed up. I am saying that there is a lot of talk at the RNC level of platform adjustment and party reform. And I am saying that this kind of groundswell has not been seen since just before Reagan was elected.

[Lurker]

Any idea when this movement within the party will make it's presence publicly know? I can't wait for the RNC to re-launch with sane and serious policies to confront our problems. It would be nice to have some serious policy debate instead of the foolishness of the Tea Parties or the insane proposals from the Republican leadership in Congress or the lunatic rantings from the talking heads on TV and radio.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I've not been a part of the RNC recalibration as Jecks has, so let me pose this question to Jecks...

Are the angry Republicans gravitating towards more Libertarian principles? Fiscal conservatism, low government involvement, maximum personal rights (almost to the point of social liberalism)?

The break-up of the old RNC is long overdue. The old RNC stopped with Reagan, eroded with Bush I, and collapsed with Bush 2. I would love to see the return of the fiscal conservative/socially liberal (or at least socially indifferent) party. This is what I'd like to see the restructured party stand for, whatever they call themselves.

1. Reduce the size of government;
2. Personal responsibility (and we could start with tort reform)
3. Get god out of politics;
4. Don't regulate what people can put in their bodies;
5. Decrease governmental intrusions (eliminate or severely prune back the Patriot Act for starters)
6. Simplify the tax code;
7. Forget about being the world's policeman, and when we get into a military engagement, win it. (If we eliminate many of the political reasons for military enagement, it makes those military engagements we pursue more palatable, even if the destruction and death is horrendous)
8. Stop worrying about Communism. We know it doesn't work, the Chinese know it doesn't work, and lets drop the pretense and just get on with building trade partners.
9. Forget about Cuba. We're over it.
10.Stop viewing Mexico immigration as a problem, stop blaming Mexicans for social ills, and start using them for the fucking great source of cheap labor that they offer themselves for.

[Partha]

Pretty funny. Jecks accuses ME of operating with 'partisan blinders on' quoting a rag published by the Nixon Center.

And, no, despite your fond wishes, Jecks, the neocons (which you used to assert didn't exist) won't find a home in the Democratic Party now, considering they never did in the 70's and 80's BEFORE they managed to wreck the country. They're political yellowcake, and no sane person would touch them or their conceptions.

Which, of course, is why the likes of Daniel 'Crack' Pipes advise The National Interest.

[Partha]

Any idea when this movement within the party will make it's presence publicly know? I can't wait for the RNC to re-launch with sane and serious policies to confront our problems. It would be nice to have some serious policy debate instead of the foolishness of the Tea Parties or the insane proposals from the Republican leadership in Congress or the lunatic rantings from the talking heads on TV and radio.

In the main, this organization does not exist, as most key state power slots are quite convincingly filled with wingnuts. They replaced the Arlen Specters of the party with the Alan Keyes wing. You can see this quite easily in Illinois, where 'moderate' Republicans like Judy Barr Topinka had to walk an exceedingly immoderate party line to lose to one of the more corrupt governors we had, and where carpetbagging in Alan Keyes to run a historically bad campaign was the best idea the Republican brain trust could think of to oppose Obama.

[Trollbait]

Are the angry Republicans gravitating towards more Libertarian principles? Fiscal conservatism, low government involvement, maximum personal rights (almost to the point of social liberalism)?

That is right, Embar. Not as radical as the Ron Paul Republicans, however. The movement I am talking about is gaining membership from the Ron Paul followers who were not quite as fanatical and want to actually win and also gaining membership from the Reagan Republicans who don't have a religious agenda. Those of us who are Goldwater Republicans are getting involved and participating in email campaigns, town hall meetings, and other "get the message out" events directed at Republicans to re frame the party message.

won't find a home in the Democratic Party now

I would contend that there is one in charge of the State Department right this very moment. And if she is not a neocon in Democrats clothing then she is an awfully friendly liberal hawk to them.

P.S. Nearly ALL Illinois politicians are bat shit crazy and corrupt with no regard for political affiliations. Illinois is a bad example. It is a political cesspool

[Harlowe]

What are you basing that on, Harlowe? What Republican discussion forums do you belong to? What Republican organizations are you a member of? What conservative periodicals or newsletters do you receive? I was just wondering what source you are basing your insight into the inner workings of the Republican party on? The party has been hijacked by a minority. That is clear. The majority of conservatives are either Reagan Conservatives or Goldwater Conservatives. The two are not mutually exclusive, however.

Okay first, the party can't be hijacked by a miniority. If you have the majority of the people within a party, you rule it. There is no possible way that the majority of the conservatives are Reagan or Goldwater conservatives, if that was true that's the message we would be seeing. They would be in control. They certainly wouldn't be some silent majority in need of quietly building up their majority ranks further and only the insiders at the planning level know about them. That makes no sense. That's wishful thinking.

Also the religous zealots aren't going anywhere near the Democratic party. Not as long as Dems are primarily against the DOMA and for pro-choice. The Republicans will never shake them, not unless they suddenly become pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, even then they are going to have to do something more socially liberal than the Dems to scare them away. It's more wishful thinking.

I admittedly have no inside information on any party or their plans via newsletters I am not subscribed to any, I use to get some Libertarian crap, but it's never informative. They never have anything honest to say. Just a bunch of partyline bs and snarking on the other parties. I go by what I see happening. What politicians are doing. I'm a news junkie, I read probably more than 20 news sources and political blogs on a weekly (some daily) basis. The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan) is my favorite stop and he's a conservative. I'm pretty sure he would be euphoric if what you said is true and I'm just not seeing that type of information out there.

If the Republicans had some huge swelling collective, we'd hear about it, we'd read about it. It would be pretty exciting news for all the pissed of conservatives, but they are the minority. I hope it happens. I don't like any one party with too much control. It makes them arrogant, cocky and stupid - like during most of Bush's tenure.

[Trollbait]

Okay first, the party can't be hijacked by a miniority.

Of course it can. If that minority has an agenda that is not immediately clear and they espouse the traditional values of the party and claim to follow the platform then the majority believes them to be the same as the rest.

Neocons are NOT the majority of the Republican party. They never have been and nobody is claiming that they are except maybe you. Did many members go along with the agenda? Yes. Does that make everyone who did a neocon? No.

There is no possible way that the majority of the conservatives are Reagan or Goldwater conservatives, if that was true that's the message we would be seeing.

That IS the message you typically see. Small government, fiscal responsibility, low taxes. That is not what the elected politicians are DOING, however.

Also the religous zealots aren't going anywhere near the Democratic party.

Umm....wtf? Nobody is claiming they are. Neocon and religious zealots are two different groups of the Republican party although some people are both.

The truth is that the voting base of the conservative movement (true conservative) are Reagan and Goldwater conservatives. These include a TON of Democrats (known sometimes as Reagan Democrats but that is a misnomer)

The simple fact is that the party is shifting is message and the biggest thing they have to do is marginalize the Limbaughs and Hannitys. Then it will begin to move forward. or the party will split. Either way works for me.

[Trollbait]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/ ... publicans/

Barry Goldwater's 1964 blowout loss was followed by major Republican gains in the 1966 midterms and Nixon's triumphant return in 1968. The party's 1974 Watergate debacle laid the groundwork for Reagan. And Bill Clinton's 1992 win paved the way for the GOP's first House majority in forty years.

But what may make the fallout from 2008 different is the clear regional nature of the GOP's setback. The wipeout in the old Republican heartland has been a long time coming.
advertisement

At the same time, the Republicans have lost some ground in the South and the West because the Democrats have been willing to nominate candidates who differ with national party leaders on hot button social issues like gun control and abortion. They also haven't been afraid to throw a few fiscal conservatives into the mix. Winning national coalitions are rarely unified on all of the big issues.

The GOP now has to decide whether it wants to copy the Democrats' strategy in the Northeast or whether it would rather circle the ideological wagons. The decision may dictate the shape of American politics for years to come.

The talk is out there. There is a difference however between the internal debates and power struggles and the publicly debated direction.

[Lurker]

Neocons are NOT the majority of the Republican party. They never have been and nobody is claiming that they are except maybe you. Did many members go along with the agenda? Yes. Does that make everyone who did a neocon? No.

We aren't talking about neocons. We're talking about the know-nothings that control the Republican party, that hold elected office, and that rant in the media. We're talking about people who aren't grounded in reality, who are hostile towards science and information, and who want to apply the same few failed ideological policies to every situation.

Small government, fiscal responsibility, low taxes. That is not what the elected politicians are DOING, however.

Platitudes.

What does "small government" mean? What programs do you think can be eliminated? You might not want to admit it, but the majority of Americans like government programs. They want smarter government, not smaller government. They want government investing in the future strength of our country. How are you going to get elected running against popular programs?

How fiscally responsible would it be to gut federal revenue by lowering taxes across the board during an economic recession that requires government spending?

Maybe it would help move the discussion if you could point to one national Republican that is offering actual solutions to the problems we face. People are sick of the platitudes.

[Harlowe]

That's nonsense though Jecks, a majority doesn't have to go along with jack squat from a minority faction within their party. If they didn't like the agenda, as the majority, they didn't need to cater to it and empower it. They made it their problem by going along with it...they don't get slack for that just because they weren't the instigators of the religious agenda. They are culpable. There was no "hijacking" that they didn't facilitate through their acquiescence. They aren't neo-cons, but they are neo-con sympathizers and enablers so they might as well be considered as much. They don't get to cry about being hijacked when they went along with it.

That IS the message you typically see. Small government, fiscal responsibility, low taxes. That is not what the elected politicians are DOING, however.

I think you know that I'm not talking about what words come out of the politicians mouths, what their little campaign promises say - but their actions. Words are meaningless if not followed by action. There are no actions that have shown that is their actual agenda.

The simple fact is that the party is shifting is message and the biggest thing they have to do is marginalize the Limbaughs and Hannitys. Then it will begin to move forward. or the party will split. Either way works for me.

They aren't shifting their message, it's the same message that they never follow through with. They are far from marginalizing the Limbaughs and Hannitys, in fact they continue to (as you put it as well) pay fawning tribute to them.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Just as a side note, it was Reagan that actually started this mess. Like I said, the old RNC stopped with Reagan. He made the joining of social conservatism and fiscal conservatism one of his goals.

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/The_New_R ... _Party.asp

You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call "social" conservatism and "economic" conservatism. The so-called social issues -- law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems -- are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues -- inflation, deficit spending and big government -- are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism -- or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called "social" issues and those interested in "economic" issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?

I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.

[Ddrak]

In politics, as in any social dynamic, it's trivial for a vocal and well-organized minority to take control of a group and steer it down the path they want it to go. People are generally sheep and if you present a relatively polished argument with tight delineation between "good" and "bad" they'll swing towards you. People tend not to want uncertainty or shades of grey but prefer to be on the side of "right" over "wrong".

The neocons played it very well and achieved a lot before it all came crashing down around them. It's true they started on the left side of politics, but realistically the distinction between "left" and "right" is a stupid one anyway as there's at least two independent axes in politics (social and fiscal) with plenty more minor issues to make it a whole ocean of swirling currents and whirlpools. With only two major parties they naturally form to divide the population in two and present a very close margin, as each makes inroads in some form of politics and loses in others.

The problem with Limbaugh, Hannity and the other nutjobs is they do have a significant following that can't be ignored in politics. It's much like the Dems can't ignore the lunatic environmental lobby or the more batshit insane of the trade unions as much as they'd want to either. Nothing's going to change until the two party system disappears and to get rid of the two party system you have to get rid of winner-takes-all voting, which is pretty unlikely from what I understand about the mechanics you'd need to change it.

And @Embar:

I think you'll find that the "mess" started around Nixon, and possibly even as far back as McCarthy. Look at some of the arguments he was making in trying to control the anti-Vietnam lobby and you'll see lots of neocon style playing behind the scenes.

Dd

[Trollbait]

Well said, Ddrak.

I think also 9/11 had a lot to do with what people were willing to accept from their politicians.

[Ddrak]

I think also 9/11 had a lot to do with what people were willing to accept from their politicians.

Oh, absolutely. Add in the fact that it fell in line very well with the PNAC stuff (go go conspiracy theorists) and with Cheney already a huge proponent of establishing a US military force in the Middle East, the whole thing just took off. America had never seriously been attacked before at home, so the scaremongering combined with a media system charged to exaggerate every last detail left the whole thing ripe for the "if you're not with us, you're against us" division that the neocons loved so much to play. The Democrats could be played as facilitators for terrorism and the GOP was shocked enough that the neocon pre-made PNAC plan could be mildly adjusted and presented as a solution. All that needed to be found was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and, well, actually, that didn't need to be found at all - just asserted.

The only thing that fell apart was the original problem with the whole PNAC thing - it was thinly veiled empire building and no matter how good your intentions are no one like foreign troops patrolling their city and getting involved in a low-intensity civil war.

So yeah, the situation was perfect for the neocons to come in, take over despite being in minority and completely fuck up the GOP.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Sure because they were already on that path decades ago, as you stated previously. If they weren't on that path to begin with, it wouldn't have been so easy.

[Lurker]

The neocons are the least of the Republicans problems. The Republicans govern from a position of ignorance and denial and misinformation. That was clear under Bush and it's even more clear listening to the party leaders now. The Party isn't going to be fixed because it contains a faction spouting platitudes about smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and lower taxes - policy positions that when you look at the details are also based on ignorance, denial, and misinformation.