Watching Rachel Maddow discussing the GOP with Ed Rendell, I can't help but think

[NorthCarolina]

that Ed is correct when he says "sadly the Republican Party has become a Fringe Group". I am actually beginning to think that today's GOP, being almost entirely devoid of social moderates and progressives, is basically at the end-of-the-road as a viable political party. Will we be witness to the birth of new party of fiscally conservative but socially moderate/progressive members? If so, I wonder what they'll call it.......

[NewJeffCT]

1. They'd call it the DLC

just a guess.

[WCGreen]

2. Or back to the original republican democrats....

[Dragonfli]

4. LOL! Finally they will be able to stop pretending to be democrats

And join the new corporate party.

[NorthCarolina]

14. If the DLC/Blue Dogs join their moderate GOP counterparts and defect to a new "Corporate Party"

Will the Democratic Party risk becoming a fringe element at the opposite end of the spectrum from today's GOP? Not that I wouldn't like to see a totally progressive Democratic Party, but is there some risk if it did happen?

[Dragonfli]

22. Short answer - Yes

I do believe if that happens we will simply realign to a new two party system.
The "corporatists" would be more to the left than the crazy repugs but still far right and the Dems will be more like Dems used to be.

[leftofthedial]

3. ...unless they can somehow create an overtly fascist regime in the USA.

Then, they would become the ruling elite.

30 years of repuke rule (yes, I include Clinton in that) has created a USA that is frightfully similar to the Weimar Republic in Germany between the World Wars.

I don't trust the American public (who "elected" Nixon twice, raygun twice and l'il bush twice) enough to exclude the possibility of an abrupt 180 at any time.

-ring- ...drool...

[stillcool]

12. I like the way Ferdinand Lundberg described..

the institution that is our government in his 1968 book "The Rich and The Super Rich". Interesting that the words were written 41 years ago and absolutely nothing has changed.

Lest such an observation be thought by provincials to give this exposition an unholy Marxist aura, let us in reverential solemnity quote such an austere Establishmentarian as Woodrow Wilson, who said (Franklin D. Roosevelt later concurring) in words as valid today as when first uttered:

"The masters of the government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States. It is written over every intimate page of the record of Congress, it is written all through the history of conferences at the White House, that the suggestions of economic policy in this country have come from one source, not from many sources. The benevolent guardians, the kind hearted trustees who have taken the troubles of government off our hands have become so conspicuous that almost anybody can write out a list of them. . . .

------------------------------

Government power, wielded by officials, individual human beings, is evidently great power over others, not necessarily for others, and anyone who wields it, smiling or not, or has ready access to the wielders obviously has great power far beyond that of any man in the street. Moreover, this power with modern techniques is far greater than it ever was. By means of modern methods of communication, government can put its agents into action anywhere in a matter of minutes. It has been credibly reported that President Johnson, with far more power at his fingertips than all presidents combined up to Harry Truman, and more than either Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy, personally designated overnight targets in North Vietnam for powerful air squadrons waiting to take off from remote, dawn-shrouded airfields. We possess today, in brief, pinpoint government. It can even listen in on conversations anywhere, and freely does so despite denials. It freely uses internal spies, especially in the matter of taxes on obscure citizens.

For these and other reasons it is now said by some students of the situation that we live under an elective despotism. Freely celebrating our condition in strictly American style, if we accept this dictum we could say we live under the greatest and most glorious elective despotism in history. Most people--well over 95 per cent of them--have no more power in this system, either immediately or ultimately, than has a rank-and-file Russian in the Soviet system, and this despite all the blandishing talk about government with the consent of the governed and the sovereignty of the people. As to consent, which of my readers can step forward and say he was ever asked for his consent to the Constitution or any of its varied interpretations? The electorate of 1789 was asked for and gave such consent and we may readily agree that the majority of people in states asking for admission, at the time of admission, have so consented. But who else? When the people of the Confederacy, disliking the arrangement, pointedly withdrew the consent given by their forebears they were confronted by military force and after a sanguinary struggle were eventually subdued. As Lincoln said, the Union must be preserved, a proposition drawn from out of the air that flatly contradicts the doctrine of consent. Yet Lincoln was right; it is inherently of the nature of government that, like a tiger, it never voluntarily assents to its own dismemberment. The idea of consent vis-à-vis an established government is the purest of nonsense, written though it is into the American myth.

[leftofthedial]

23. "elective despotism"

they know they must remain in the shadows, else face revolution

it is the illusion of freedom that makes workers productive (well, that and fear)

[rurallib]

5. The difference between them and a fringe group is the amount of

free advertising they get on FUX. Should they ever piss off Murdoch they are sunk big time.

The DLC is the real reincarnation of the loyal opposition.

[DireStrike]

7. Loyal? To what?

[rurallib]

8. I used it as a phrase for those opposing the current head

but with some sense of responsibility. GoOPers care only about going over the cliff.

[eleny]

6. It feels so odd

I was just replying to another thread and realized that the party of Ike, who was president when I was little, is slowly dissolving. It feels like it just can't be - not that it makes me terribly unhappy. They brought it on themselves. But I fear what else will emerge and the process of things sorting out. There are so many crazies out there.

[BlooInBloo]

9. "Regional party" is the term that seems most appropriate to me.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. I agree...

[TahitiNut]

11. Since the neocon (fascist) hijacking of the GOP, the public has been 'brainwashed' into believing ..

... the political spectrum in the U.S. is actually (genuinely) further right than it is, when individuals are actually quizzed on their values and principles. This has been accomplished with 'programming' certain knee-jerk one-liners and constant disinformation. "Welfare cadillac" and "Christian nation" and "tax and spend" and a plethora of thought viruses have been spread for years. On top of this (or underlying it?) has been the noxious partisanship that so many effectively see as a 'shortcut' to actually THINKING about the realities and issues faced by so many in this nation.

When politicians depend upon "information management" and propaganda they develop a vested interest in a public that's both ill-informed and ill-educated. It's no accident that the sectors of our society most critical to information (media) and education (public schools) have been knee-capped and privatized.

It's gotten to the point that "democrats" even surrender on issues BEFORE negotiating or proposing approaches, and terms like "unelectable" and "too extreme" are applied to sensible people and proposals.

I think the Political Compass is a very useful tool to both identify one's own relative political stances and view how far to the right (and up) we've migrated as the GOP has gotten more extreme and the Democratic Party has adopted right-wing positions in order to 'capture' territory from the GOP. What's happened is that we have a Democratic Party that's to the right of Eisenhower Republicans and NO liberal party of any stature at all. In my opinion, the public has been left behind (to the left) by throwing liberalism itself under the bus in an attempt to 'corner' the GOP.

If a party 'wins' by adopting more and more policy 'territory' of the other party, then the electorate loses - assisting in its own loss.

IMHO. YMMV. :shrug:

[NorthCarolina]

13. I wholheartedly agree with you

that the media has pushed the false *perception* that America is a center-right nation, when in reality we are clearly a center-left nation.

[Laelth]

15. Agreed.

Cenk Uygur makes that argument here:

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

And here's another:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/politics/30message.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">Psychologist Says U.S. Is a center-left Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TahitiNut]

17. Yeow. I could save a lot of time thinking about this shit if I just read more.

Hell ... it's taken me years of mulling it over, talking to people, and scratching my head.

:dunce:

I just GOTTA read more. :rofl:

On edit: On second thought, I already read a whole lot. Maybe I just gotta read BETTER? :rofl:

[Laelth]

18. They probably both got the idea from reading your posts here. n/t

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[TahitiNut]

19. (blush)

:rofl: Even MY ego isn't big (healthy?) enough to think of that -- even as a joke.

:rofl: That's funny. :fistbump:

[ikojo]

32. I think American culture is socially liberal

Most people know a gay or lesbian person and they like the ones they know (just as most Germans liked the Jews THEY knew). It's THOSE flamboyant gays and butch lesbians out THERE that they don't like, just as some Jews don't care for the Jewy Jews or those that don't "fit in." The dominant message of the American experience is that as long as one assimilates into the dominant culture all is fine. Don't be too "out there."

Fiscally however, since the American myth is that if only you work hard enough you too can become rich, Americans tend to hate taxes, regardless of how poor one is. That is how Republicans and their Democratic allies are able to push through tax legislation that benefits them and their friends in the top 10% of the income bracket.

[Blackhatjack]

16. I understand the "Bull Moose Party" name is now available again...n/t

[NorthCarolina]

28. Perhaps they could drop the "Moose" part and just call it the "Bull Party"

to be more reflective of their politics.....or maybe just "The Party of Bull". :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Well, there are two points to make

1.- It might be premature as to the death of the GOP

2.- If we indeed are seeing it, that's exactly what happened to the WHIGS, they became way too extreme... so Lincoln and a few others formed a national party, well regional at the time, and in eight years achieved the Presidency.. it was called the GOP and it was way moderate compared to the whigs... who were dominated by Southern interets

Somethign about history... repeating itself.

[alfredo]

25. Weren't they saying the same thing about us not too long ago?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Yes, why I said read point one

[alfredo]

30. Are they down, or are they down and out?

[Hanse]

21. Would have been a good interview if not for that gun control nonsense.

"Assault weapons aren't designed for deer hunting or target shooting, they're designed to kill people."

Yeah, genius, and the 2nd amendment isn't about protecting hunting or target shooting, it's about citizens owning guns designed to kill people.

[depakid]

26. Wasn't non-sense at all- he was exactly right

As more law enforcement officers are shot in the next wave of senseless violence, Americans will get responsible gun control- even over the hollering of a highly vocal, obsessed minority.

The issue's just not quite ripe yet, so the cowards get a bit of a reprieve.

[Hanse]

31. That's Bush logic.

Tragic crimes justifying pissing on the constitution.

[spin]

27. True, he made good sense until he just had to spout some BS...

1) Assault weapons aren't designed for deer hunting. (NOTE: most states limit magazine capacity to five rounds while hunting.)





Technically speaking, it makes all the sense in the world that proven military rifle designs should be inherently appropriate for hunting use. All successful military rifles are specifically designed for rugged, reliable function and durability under extreme conditions, which translates automatically into use under even the most extreme field-hunting use. They're also designed for reasonable weight, portability and ease of fast handling by people who may be carrying other heavy gear and wearing bulky clothing. They have an inherent capability for follow-up shots, and they must be deadly accurate against targets of the same basic dimensions and at the same distances typically encountered by hunters.

The AR in particular is a superb hunting design, due primarily to its lightweight synthetic and corrosion-resistant alloy construction. And, it's surprisingly accurate, due primarily to the fact it's an "assembled" gun rather than a "fitted" gun. Its major components essentially snap together. Unlike a traditional bolt-action rifle, which generally requires close-tolerance, hand-work receiver/barrel mating and precise bedding into the stock for maximum accuracy and consistency, a hunting-grade (or even competition-grade) AR can readily be assembled from modular components literally on a kitchen table, by anybody with a modicum of ability to use relatively simple hand tools. Likewise, a service-grade "standard" AR15 can readily be brought up to minute-of-angle performance by selective replacement of key modular elements with match-grade parts. And, once tuned, an AR stays that way, due to the fact that its entirely nonorganic components (nonwood) are not susceptible to environmental distortion (warpage or swelling). All an AR really needs is a quality barrel to shoot as well as the best hunting rifle you can buy.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/ar15zum_030207/



2) Assault weapons are not used in Olympic competition.

Well, that is true. However the rifles used in Olympic events are far different from your typical hunting rifle.


Anschutz 2013/2313
22LR, single shot target rifle, with adjustable aluminium stock

I couldn't find a price for this model but a similar but the older model the Anschutz 2013 costs somewhere between $2400 and $3000.

Now I seriously believe that Gov. Ed Rendell is a very intelligent man. He can present a strong case for a new AWB without making statements that are so false and misleading. For once, lets have a honest debate on gun control issues like a new AWB. Or are the gun control advocates truly fearful that they would lose hands down?

[mmonk]

24. The Democratic Party?