Is This the End for Republicans? by Matt Taibbi

[applegrove]

Is This the End for Republicans?

https://politicalwire.com/2016/05/19/is-this-the-end-for-republicans/

"SNIP..............



Matt Taibbi: “If this isn’t the end for the Republican Party, it’ll be a shame. They dominated American political life for 50 years and were never anything but monsters. They bred in their voters the incredible attitude that Republicans were the only people within our borders who raised children, loved their country, died in battle or paid taxes. They even sullied the word ‘American’ by insisting they were the only real ones. They preferred Lubbock to Paris, and their idea of an intellectual was Newt Gingrich. Their leaders, from Ralph Reed to Bill Frist to Tom DeLay to Rick Santorum to Romney and Ryan, were an interminable assembly line of shrieking, witch-hunting celibates, all with the same haircut – the kind of people who thought Iran-Contra was nothing, but would grind the affairs of state to a halt over a blow job or Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube.”

“A century ago, the small-town American was Gary Cooper: tough, silent, upright and confident. The modern Republican Party changed that person into a haranguing neurotic who couldn’t make it through a dinner without quizzing you about your politics. They destroyed the American character. No hell is hot enough for them. And when Trump came along, they rolled over like the weaklings they’ve always been, bowing more or less instantly to his parodic show of strength.”




................SNIP"

[Exilednight]

1. thanks to Gerry wandering: no

[AuntPatsy]

2. Wow, excellent summary of events

[Shankapotomus]

3. Fucking A

[Arugula Latte]

4. And the Democratic Party filled its place.

Both parties took giant steps to the right. It's sad. Now formerly mainstream liberal positions are labeled "leftist" and "Socialist." And the Clintons were front and center on this bullshit.

[JCMach1]

6. Then, why are you on DU, exactly?

[Arugula Latte]

7. I've been here since 2001.

I used to be under the impression that this was a board for liberal, traditionally Democratic, populist leaning people, but in the dawning poisonous Hillary Clinton era I can see that that will no longer fly. Don't worry, I probably won't be here much longer. I will leave the board to the corporatist DLC Third Way war hawk DINO types. You guys can have at it.

[JCMach1]

8. Then you should have decent enough memory to know there IS a huge difference between

either of our candidates and Mr. Trump...

Just like there was a VERY REAL difference between Al Gore and W.

That profound difference was why this place came into existence.

And another little thing... the candidate I have voted for/supported in the primaries has almost NEVER been the nominee. But you know what, I settled because I shite that was coming down the track if I didn't.

I don't just dislike Donald Trump, he's fucking dangerous!!!

[Arugula Latte]

10. Yeah, he's terrible. No doubt.

But so was Bush. So was McCain. So was Romney. I'm questioning if there's ever a point where you have to just stop enabling an ever more corrupt party just because the other party is horrific. I am in a very blue state so I probably won't have to vote for Hillary. If I lived in a swing state I guess I'd vote for her. If we just perpetually go along with the DWS-Clinton playbook, though, things will never change. I don't know what the path forward is. But Bernie's success in the face of a powerful, wealthy candidate with Wall St., the media, the DNC and super pacs behind her is a strong message that millions of us are on to this DINO bs that the Clintons have been pushing for years. Hopefully the Millenialls will be able to change the party's direction or at least make a third party like the Greens viable. Vamos a ver...

On edit: just for the record I've voted for every D presidential ticket since 1984. I was there in the DC cold watching Bill C get inaugurated for his first term and was excited about it. Sigh.

[JCMach1]

14. Then, why were you pushing for Sanders if you weren't willing to fight of the changes you want to

see?

Fight doesn't always mean win... Do I need to throw the historic example of Reagan in 1976. Did those assholes give up?

No, they took over their party in 1980.

I am a progressive, I want a more left, more progressive party and future for country. If I get that incrementally, that's also okay as long as I know it's coming. No doubt, you have also been frustrated with Obama as well. I feel you, he has failed the left on many fronts. At the same time, he has also managed to shift the country further to the left. Do you think Sanders could come within a few hundred delegates of Clinton in 2008? Ask Kucinich what happened in 2008?

Don't put your faith in Millenials and parties... Millenials don't believe in parties. However, they are accelerating this country's left shift.

[Arugula Latte]

17. I have no expectation Hillary will bring any incremental change.

She is hostile to anything that smacks of making everyday peoples' lives better. Affordable college, single payer? Stop asking for things, you brats! Fund every military action that comes along and continue to subsidize corporations without making a peep about cutting back on military expenditures or making corporations actually pay taxes! Sure! That's what grown ups do!

Well, anyway, to me pushing for Sanders was fighting for the changes I want. The Democratic PTB will have no part of this dissent. So ... what's next? Who knows. I don't think enabling the Clintonian M.O. is the way forward, though.

I was originally for Edwards in 2008 because he was the only one making a priority of progressive issues like getting people out of poverty. Well, obviously he turned out to be a giant schmuck. Then I was for Obama. I like him personally and I was hoping his constitutional scholar/community activist side would occasionally overpower his corporatist leanings he'd shown as a Senator. For the most part that didn't happen.

So now we have Hillary, who has a long record of being on the wrong side of things because she perceives it as politically expedient at the time. Not optimistic.

Anyway, good luck in the next four to eight years. We will all surely need it.

[JCMach1]

20. I was for Edwards in '08 too, but I moved on when his weaseltude became clear...

I will just have to agree to disagree about Clinton.

[Arugula Latte]

22. Just one more thing: This is the kind of crap I think we can expect more of.

A supposedly Democratic Senator talking about how oligarchs need to build more gated communities because the peasants are getting restless. Oh, and he's looking to crack down on the peasants more and take more of their money to give to his 1 percent buddies. This guy is a poster child for a Clintonian new "Democrat," and has been said to be on the short list for VP. You can perhaps see my lack of optimism that things will improve:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027844312

[JCMach1]

24. Not a Warner fan at all... Why we need people to push for a Progressive in the second slot...

The candidate I 100% wanted this year didn't run. I would still love to see Elizabeth Warren on the ticket whoever wins.

[sendero]

21. I agree with...

... everything you say. It is astounding to me that people cannot connect the dots between the Bill/Hillary administration and the toxic cesspool in Wall Street and DC we have today. Clinton signed more laws enabling the crippling of our economy by the banksters than any other president INCLUDING Reagan. People are too lazy to understand how we got here so they keep voting for the assholes that repealed Glass-Stegall and signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

HRC is a neocon plain and simple. How anyone can not see that is beyond me.

Obama seems like a good man but then he was ineffective, not all his fault but results are results and there aren't many. The ACA, a byzantine crazy-quilt of legislation is falling apart now and who is surprised? The more complicated something is the more likely it will fail.

I'd vote for Sanders and eventually a populist like him will get the nomination because Americans are about up to here with fake promises, double dealing and getting taken to the cleaners over and over. Critical mass has not been reached but we are getting close.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Yes, it's very disheartening.

Did you see Mark Warner's statement of warning to his oligarch buddies? This is what we have to look forward to. Crackdowns on peasant rebellions, basically. But, hey, he's a Democrat, right?! He's got a D by his name! That should be good enough!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027844312

[cliffordu]

18. +1

[GaYellowDawg]

5. Right now it's a hell of a lot closer to an end for the Democratic Party.

Republicans are lining up behind Trump. They always line up behind the Republican nominee. Always. By September, every single major Republican/conservative figure will be supporting Trump as hard as they can. So will talk radio, and so will Fox News. There will be no Republican split. There wouldn't be for Sanders, and there won't be for Clinton.

In 2008, we absolutely mauled the Republican Party. Got the White House, had a majority in the House, had a majority in the Senate, controlled the legislatures of 27 states, and had 29 governors. Right now, Republicans completely control the U.S. legislative branch, have governors in 31 states, control the state legislatures in 31 states, and have split governance in 7 others. Meanwhile, Democrats have the White House, 18 governors, and 11 state legislatures. In other words, since then, the Democratic Party has completely shit the bed. And this fucking moron is talking about "if" it might be the end for the Republican Party. People should be asking if the Democratic Party is about to die.

If Trump gets the election and appoints 3 more Scalias (which our Tea Party Congress would gladly do), we're in for about a quarter-century of fascism. So any of you who end up unhappy with the Democratic nominee better swallow hard, get your ass to the booth, and vote Democratic.

[Egnever]

9. Well that was an awesome piece of fantasy.

Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham join Republicans vowing to never back Trump

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278141-republicans-who-vow-to-never-back-trump

[Major Nikon]

12. Meanwhile the number of "not trump" active members of congress is 9 out of 535

[Egnever]

16. Meanwhile the list of people who have actually endorsed him

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#U.S._Senators

U.S. Senators

Senator Jeff Sessions
Current
Jeff Sessions of Alabama[3][4]

U.S. Representatives
Current

Chairman Jeff Miller
Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania[8] (previously endorsed Rick Santorum)[9]
Chris Collins of New York[10] (previously endorsed Jeb Bush)[11]
Kevin Cramer of North Dakota[12]
Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee[13]
John Duncan of Tennessee[14]
Renee Ellmers of North Carolina[15]
Duncan D. Hunter of California[16]
Tom Marino of Pennsylvania[17]
Jeff Miller of Florida, also Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee[18]
Tom Reed of New York[19] (previously endorsed Jeb Bush)[11]
Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, also Chairman of the House Transportation Committee[18]


13 out of 535...

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Edit for bad math.

[GaYellowDawg]

19. And you replied with such an awesome list!

Chock full of household names. Oh wait, it was actually full of bunches of obnoxious fuckers who no one's heard of! I was just waiting for them to add the intern to the assistant to George Pataki's associate campaign manager for West Bumfuck County, MS. But thanks for the useless resource.

[JCMach1]

15. Millenials hate parties... The partyies will continue, but only as a shell of themselves...

Trumps run shows just how impotent the Republicans are...

The Democratic party in only a slightly better position...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/millennials-economics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/

[zeemike]

11. I don't know about the end of the Republicans.

But it sure looks like the end of the Republic.
Oligarch rule.

[hibbing]

13. Not hardly

I have seen plenty of articles about the upcoming demise of the Republican party, I only wish it was true. Look at all the governors and statehouses they have. Hell, Brownback screwed up all of Kansas and got re-elected.


Peace

[KamaAina]

25. I, too, prefer Lubbock to Paris.

Lubbock is a college town (Texas Tech). It has a mall and even an airport. Paris, Texas has none of those things.

[lindysalsagal]

26. Their time has passed but the leaders are too decreped to catch on.

If frump doesn't wake them up, nothing will.

[Angleae]

27. Just because they put of morons for president doesn't mean that their end is near.

They currently have 234 representatives, 54 senators, 31 governors, total control of 31 state legislatures and partial control of 8 others. That seems a far cry from "done."