The "Implosion" of the Republican Party

[zipman]

Re: Absolutely!

Democratic politicians take blacks for granted. They expect them to vote for them, but they don't do a damn thing for them. Clinton made a point of attacking Sister Souljah in order to pander to racists. The Democratic Party's attitude toward blacks is: "Where you gonna go, suckers? The Republicans are even worse than us!"

I agree with this post 100%.

REDWAVE made it.



I should have never logged on today.

 

[TWB]

Lavy, there are several other examples of what you are raising here. The major one that comes to mind is the mantle of fiscal responsibility that the Republicans have always attempted to carry. They have totally abandoned it.

Additionally, this particular administration is so politically motivated and lacks any interest in serious policy debate, that the country is going to be severely hurt.

Paul O'Neils story is good reading in this regard.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Absolutely!

I agree with this post 100%.

REDWAVE made it.



I should have never logged on today.

Yup, and it gets even worse.

The black community, by voting Democratic by a factor of 98%, has marginalized any political influence they may have. The are taken for granted by the Democrats and virtually written off, with damn good reason, by the Republicans.

Currently the black community represents about 10% of the population. That community is also approaching zero population growth. With the influx of both legal and illegal immigrants, and the traditionally large families of the Latins, the black population will shrink to approx. 5% of the population by the year 2050 or sooner. If the black community doesn't start cozying up to the Republicans to make their vote competitive and of some value soon they will find themselve in the backwaters politically speaking and have all of the political clout of the New Zealander-American voting coalition.

In very terms of real politik, the black american will cease to exist as a political entity in the not to distant future.

Ishmael

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely!

Third party? That worked real well in 2000.

I'm more interested in supporting the candidate whose views more closely represent mine, than bowing down before the biggest alpha male in the crowd.

Sticking to your guns has the unfortunate consequence that your candidate might lose. But at the end of the day, win or lose, you get to keep your soul.

 

[ruminator]

There's still some cases of groups holding on to the importance of their vote.

HEMPSTEAD -- At least 2,000 Prairie View A&M University students, led by minority elected officials and community members, marched six miles from their campus to the Waller County Courthouse Thursday to lay claim to their right to vote in local elections.

The 2 1/2-hour procession, which commemorated the 75th birthday of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., came off without incident under gray skies and intermittent drizzle that organizers had feared would discourage participation.

"If it's about doing the right thing, then I'm all for it," said Prairie View freshman James Moore of Houston as he walked along Business 290 east of Hempstead. "This is a great thing, a great way for (the university) to show that every student's vote counts."

The march culminated at the courthouse in a voter registration rally featuring speakers urging students to turn out to vote this spring and to continue their opposition to District Attorney Oliver Kitzman.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/page1/2356401

 

[someplace]

Rum, I don't live too far from Hempstead and that protest did make the Houston newscasts here. The pictures were compelling but (I may be wrong) it didn't seem that anything was going to be changed by it. More's the pity.

Lavy, the Republican party took a hard turn to the right before Ronald Reagan was elected. He needed an "issue" to make his own (to set him apart from the pack) and somehow or another (I'd really love to hear the real behind-the-scenes story on that one) decided on bringing back the question of abortion. The Catholic church was just starting to come out against it and I think the Reagan strategists thought it could allign (what was to that point) a traditional Democrat voting block their way. The Republican women said "You do NOT want to go there!" -- meaning rehashing the devisive issue of the late 60's; knowing it was too emotional an issue and would drive a wedge between the party members.

The women were basically patted on their heads and told to go back to baking their cookies. (Forgive my bitterness -- I spent 20 yrs as an active Republican woman).

About the mid-80s, when the Christian Coalition formed, we started seeing the church people sprinkling in to conventions and caucuses. We'd come back from lunch breaks to find 8x10 color pictures of aborted foetuses on our delegate chairs. The tactics became bolder and more intrusive. The church people wanted to be part of the democratic process, they said. Teach us how the process works, they said. They watched, they learned, they moved up the ranks. When they didn't move up fast enough they became bolder and targeted seasoned workers, often employing tactics such as public character smearing and libel to accomplish their goals. There was no integrity in their methodolgy. Those who questioned the movement, found their names on targeted lists. Those who spoke out *raises hand* were told they didn't belong in the Republican party anymore.

One by one, the very people who were once the "right wing" of the party (the very people who insisted the religious right were just regular people wanting to get involved and who convinced the moderates to make room for them) found themselves targeted by the ever stronger religious right because they weren't deemed "right enough" anymore.

You see, when you guys on this board talk about the Republican Party, you talk about the elected officials as if THEY run the show. When I talk about the Republican Party, it is as a separate entity than the elected officials. I've heard the politicians say that the platform is just a guideline and then watched the religious right apply litmus test after litmus test to bind the elected officials to the multi-page dogma-filled platform that bears no resemblance to the single paragraph of only a few years previous.

The Religious Right has already ruined the Republican Party. I've watched it happened. Many of us felt like the little kid with a finger in the dyke, unable to stop the sea from coming in. I've been publically spat on and called a baby-killer while trying to deliver a speech before several hundred people (only an hour after being presented with a state award of excellence by my party) -- go figure.

The Republican Party is so far from the party of Lincoln now, it isn't funny. You are wrong to blame President Bush for it though. He inherited it but he's not the cause. The politicans thought they could give lip service to the religious right (to get their votes) while winking at the moderates to get their support (dollars and workers and votes) and keep it all going.

The religious right is about power to push their agenda and nothing short of total dominance of the process to do it. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's about power, but it's come at a heavy price. Virtually none of the women I worked with on the local level are still actively involved in the Party. And I'm talking about hundreds who were heavily involved. Women who have elected scores of local, state and national officials through their efforts. They took their skills and experience to other venues; hospital boards, children's foundations, etc. We had a good run. A lot more women were elected because of our work and many of them are still there.

The moderates of this country have been disinfranchised by both parties. I firmly believe we'll see a viable third party emerge in my lifetime. I do not believe I'll live to see the pendulum swing back to the center in the Republican Party. The religious right has it's claws too firmly imbedded.

But that's the PARTY and not all the politicians. There are still some shining examples of elected moderates who need to be supported. Christine Todd Whitman has always been openly supportive of a woman's right to choose. Kay Bailey Hutchinson has ALWAYS been under the gun from the religious right (for not being one of THEM and "right enough"). She is one of the handful of politicians I will still campaign for. Olympia Snow from Maine is considered moderate. I know there's others, but this cold medicine is making me fuzzy. These people are out there fighting the fight and using their influence to keep some of the middle ground from being gobbled up by the sea.

If they start talking about the big tent crap this election, though, I'll throw up. The Big Tent's main pole was cut down by the religous right years ago.

And after reading all this you'll probably ask why I still vote Republican. Well, because I'm still more closely aligned with them than the Dems. I can say one thing though, I pay special attention to the smaller more local elections and try to not vote for those who are part of the organized religious right movement. This is especially important in school board and elections for judges. If I don't know enough about an election, then no one gets my vote. It's too dangerous to chance picking the wrong one.

Sorry for the length, but obviously this is one of my buttons.

 

[teddybear4play]

I'd like to know how Bush is so incredibly right-wing while signing bill after bill that the right turns their noses up at.

Haven't quite figured that dichotomy yet.

TB4p

 

[someplace]

I'd like to know how Bush is so incredibly right-wing while signing bill after bill that the right turns their noses up at.

Haven't quite figured that dichotomy yet.

TB4p

Haven't you? Because he's not really "right enough" for them. Until they put one of their "own" in office (say Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson) they'll never be satisfied with just a piece of the pie. They want the WHOLE pie.

 

[lavender]

After I posted this thread today I realized Raw Humor posted a thread that kinda supplements this thread OR this thread supplements Raw's thread - whatever way you want to think about it.

 

[Wrong Element]

Many of us felt like the little kid with a finger in the dyke, unable to stop the sea from coming in.

I just have to be a total immature goofball and quote this very tiny but hilarious misspelling.

Trying to look at it from a dispassionate historical perspective, which isn't easy for someone opposed to most of the Republicans want to do, I find it interesting how they're trying to do what majority parties have to do, which is to paper over differences in their coalition in order to keep the whole shebang from coming apart. They're also using two tools which Democrats used effectively when they ran the show: funneling appropriations to Republican-held congressional districts and "red states" in general; and aggressive gerrymandering.

But American history teaches two things: no political majority lasts forever; and third parties don't have a chance because any ideological niche one can exploit is quickly filled by an existing party (most recent example: the 1968 Wallace campaign was in retrospect a way station for white Southern Democrats on their way to the Republican side).

 

[TWB]

The last time the religious right took large control of the political process we got prohibition.

That worked out well.

 

[GeorgeWBush]

Although it cracks me up to see anyone refer to the Republican party as the party of Lincoln. I don't believe he'd much recognize it anymore.

I agree on the lincoln part.

 

[lustforlife74]

I've always been a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.

I will never vote for another Republican after Bush.

Even Wesley Clark who used to be a Republican can see the idoitcy of Bush's policies.

The Army War College published a scathing critique of the so called war on terror. This is the major military think tank.

Not to mention the Patriot Act, the economy, corporate cronyism, the deficit, etc.

Yes, he has alienated thinking, non-christian, fiscal conservatives.

Lick Bush 2004

 

[GeorgeWBush]

Haven't you? Because he's not really "right enough" for them. Until they put one of their "own" in office (say Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson) they'll never be satisfied with just a piece of the pie. They want the WHOLE pie.

You said it.

And your right they want full control of the government.

They want to make this country one religion country.

Pat Robertson preached be affraid of the government all the while he was running to be president.

Yea he dosn't like the government but he wants to run it.

I don't trust big religion leaders i have been to big fancy churchs and small ones the small were fn to go to they made you feel good.

The big fancy ones made me feel hateful and little because the leader wanted all my money and be affraid of god and i always thaught i must love god.

So now i don't go to church much anymore and belive in god in my own way.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Although it cracks me up to see anyone refer to the Republican party as the party of Lincoln.

Me too. Especially with Lincoln's big government policies. Bush fits in nicely in that respect.

 

[Sandia]

Good post, someplace.

The only quibble I'd make is in your definition of the right wing of the Republican Party. I don't think it's just - or even mainly - the Religious Right.

I take Ishmael as a pretty typical example of the right wing, for example.

But you do say "Religion has nothing to do with it," so maybe we agree.

 

[Sandia]

Lav, I think you're right about Dean - he's really not that liberal.

But Ish is also right - for conservatives, it's not what is that's important, it's how you manipulate, and spin public opinion that counts.

 

[someplace]

Sandia,

You know me well enough to know that I take people at face value until they give me a reason to dislike them. The issue of religion in politics in the past 15 yrs or so is NOT about religion. That is not to say there aren't a lot of very religious or spiritual people involved in the process for reasons of conscious and well-meaning.

I watched a group of egocentric men look for a maleable support base from which to rise to power and control within the Republican Party. They turned to churches and a portion of America that were feeling disenfranchised at the time, molded a message that those people wanted to hear and convinced them it was their religious duty to become involved in the political process. They made a mujadeen of ridding the process of anyone who didn't walk lock-step with them. As they gained more and more power, their bandwagon drew other egocentrics to them like bees to honey.

Having worked with these so-called leaders, sat on committees and planning meetings, etc. my opinion of them stands. There is nothing Christ-like in their power grab; they will use any and all means to achieve their goals, including the nastiest, slanderous, and most underhanded strategies. Their ends justify their means in every case.

One of the megachurches in Houston, Second Baptist, is led by a man who loves being on television and comes across (in my opinion) as very sanctimonious. Friends of mine who were staunchly and vocally questionning the disporportionate influence being given to the religious right at the time, attended the sermon where this man preached to his 5,000+ congregation that women should not be allowed to vote and if they did, it should only be upon the express direction of their husbands or fathers.

The outrage was palpable when these friends reported back.

You distinguish between religious right and conservatives. What I didn't do a very good job of getting across was that it was the most conservative side of the Party that welcomed the influx of "new blood" from the religious right, who took them by the hand and said here's how the process works, come and join us in this journey. The conservatives also convinced the moderates that this was a good thing. More votes, more influence...and discounted those among us who dared questioned methods and motives. And how were these conservatives rewarded for their assistance to the religious right? One by one they were targeted in some form or fashion as not "right" enough by the very people they'd nurtured. The conservatives were ousted and replaced in their positions of state party leadership, national party leadership, and elected positions by those willing to pledge allegiance to the religious right.

My experience is nearly all within Texas. There are other states that had this happen to them as well, but not all.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

There's still some cases of groups holding on to the importance of their vote.

Heh.
HEMPstead.

 

[someplace]

Heh.
HEMPstead.

Don't laugh. This is for real. They're actually famous for their watermelons.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Don't laugh. This is for real. They're actually famous for their watermelons.

Heh. Melons.

BTW has anyone read the news about Bush's 9/11 policies being dissed by a US miitary think tank? I was on someone else's PC when I saw it. It was funny.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

But Ish is also right - for conservatives, it's not what is that's important, it's how you manipulate, and spin public opinion that counts.

Are you refering to Republican's trying to understand what Terry McAuliffe (Mr. Spin) is saying?