« ACORN 2 | Main | Cap & Trade is Dead »

Wednesday, September 16, 2009



Indeed, Democrats are in disarray, at least compared to their lemming-like counterparts. Democrats include conservatives, moderates and liberals so there is a lot of wrangling before consensus forms within the party--if it ever does. But at least Democrats attempt to deal with real problems like health care inadequacies and climate change.

There was a time when the Republican party included leaders from across the political spectrum. Many supported and voted for Social Security and Medicare. Bipartisanship was possible.

Now, Republican's idea of a "big tent" is to include conservatives and ultra-conservatives. There is no wrangling, just lockstep marches into a neocon fairy land that has virtually no connection to reality. The "invisible hand" will fix all economic woes, so government should just stand down and use its resources more appropriately--like regulating what goes on in peoples bedrooms.


A.I.: I can understand your frustration at this moment, but you are too intelligent to believe this saints vs. sinners view of the two parties. Republicans include conservatives and libertarians. Pro-choice Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchinson may not be viable as presidential candidates, but apart from that they have full respect within the party. How are pro-life Democrats treated? Like lepers.

All this talk about an invisible hand is utter nonsense. Show me someone in the party who talks in that language or argues in those terms. It is true that Conservatives and libertarians frequently believe that government will do a worse job for a higher cost than a viable private counterpart. There is no reasonable doubt that this usually true. Whether it is true in the case of health care is a good question. I think it is reasonable to blame the Republicans for not having a viable alternative plan, but what they have in fact been doing is opposing things in the Democratic offerings that they thought were simply bad ideas. Apparently a lot of Democrats have no confidence either, or they wouldn't need Republicans.

And what about those Democrats who threaten to kill any deal that doesn't have a public option? Talk about marching lock-step into fairy land!


Actually, the party welcomed Bob Casey's run for the Senate and so far as I know, he is well respected. And I doubt he is the only "pro-life" Democrat that is.

There are a lot of Adam Smith admirers in the Republican party, even if that admiration is sometimes based only a limited understanding of his philosophy. I run across the "invisible hand" reference on occasion and it certainly is a generalization for letting markets self correct as many, including Greenspan, believed would happen during the Bush years--and to a great extent, Clinton's terms. Too bad about that little meltdown though. Those corrections can be a bitch.

You do seem to miss my point about the two parties. Saints and sinners isn't a consideration. My point is, virtually all elected Republicans are now conservative of the social/fiscal or limited government/fiscal stripe, or a combination of both. Their opposition to Democratic proposals is nearly 100% because there are no moderates or liberals left. That was not the case before 1980 when people like Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were not only accepted but were leaders in the party.

Like Democrats of today, the Republican of yore had dissention within their ranks. There was disarray which allowed for both parties to reach across the isle with hope of gain support for a proposal that might be conservative or liberal or moderate with hope of gaining some support. No longer. Republicans can reach across the isle for some relatively conservative support because there are some conservative Democrats. But name one Republican that will support a liberal proposal.

Yes, I am a bit frustrated. It is sad to see a Republican party that has moved so far right, there is no room for any intra party debate over policy other than the best method of defeating a Democratic proposal. It is sad Democrats seem prone to believing the Republican bipartisanship of years back is still possible. I wish that party still existed, but since it doesn't, it's time for Democrats to realize whatever policies they favor will have to be passed on a party-line vote.


Yes, wasn’t that the plan to begin with…it was to distribute all the wealth of the rich..and you know, Hollywood people have all their lawyers so they don’t get hitched (pay high taxes) so who is left, we, the middle class…so then we barely make it…Well, we can think who??? You guess!!! Tax increase by our lovely government. Thanks a lot.

Constant Gina

This is an emotional issue for many Americans. Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation, and we WILL see costs rise.

George Mason

The Democrats backed a large number of moderate-conservative Dem.s in the
last two elections as a deal with the devil(their devil anyways) as a method
to help them gain the majority in congress. That is how you went from these
people (pro-life, pro-gun, pro-school choice) as pariahs in their on party
(being scratched as speakers at the Dem convention) to suddenly being
supported by the DNC. The Dem.s elected quite a number of people who sounded
like Republicans on the stump to gain power for the senior liberals in congress.
This was Schumers strategy. It worked well.


First, Joe Wilson will wear that reprimand as a badge of honor. I am guessing he wins re-election by double digits. His comment was not appropriate and he has apologized to the President. The House actions is over the top.
I would beg to differ with your analysis of the Republicans not having a viable alternative. I believe John Thune has expressed some ideas they have offered. Also, there is H.R. 3400. From what I have read/heard of this bill, it sounds like it might be interesting. I read where some "moderate" democrats have come to talk to some Republicans about it. However, it cannot seem to get moved out of a committee that is controlled by Democrats.
A.I., I am a former Republican. I am assuming your are a Democrat, right? I am a former Republican because it has moved too far to the left. Your assessment of moving to the extreme right makes no sense to me. Until the leadership becomes more conservative, I will remain a former Republican. I believe it is very sad to see the Democrat party move so far to the left they have become radically liberal. They at least used to be a reasonable party.


I agree with duggersd. The Republicans have moved to the left, rather than to the right. As evidence, I offer you the presidential nomination of John McCain. McCain is known as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) in conservative circles. He has taken pride in working alongside Democrats and is a moderate if ever there was one. Yet it was he we nominated rather than Huckabee, Romney or Hunter. Each of these men was more conservative than he. Your party, meanwhile, had the chance to run Joe Lieberman. But instead of picking moderates like Lieberman, the Democrats have chosen lefty liberals like Kerry and Obama.


I agree with much of what you say George M. But it isn't just Democrats accepting/wooing moderates, its Republican giving them the boot as in comments from duggersd and Miranda above.

Wow duggersd and Miranda, you folks and Pat Powers just keep on keep'n on. You'll destroy the Republican Party--if you haven't already. Gallup has SD leaning blue: http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/08/05/gallup-sd-turning-blue/. And it isn't because Republicans are too liberal.


Just as I would not suggest to the Democrat party they are leaning too far to the left and offer them advise, I will not suggest to the Republican party they are leaning too far to the left and offer them advise. There are many people like me who have dropped from the Republican party because they have lost their credibility of conservative credentials. What I do find interesting is people such as you who are Democrats offering advise to the Republican party. This would be like Grant offering Lee advise on how to place his troops.


Or duggersd, like Miranda advising Democrats that Joe Lieberman would have been a good choice?

Look, the only reason I give one hoot in hell what the R's do at this point is because I think reasonable balance in our politics is good. As of now, the Republican party is so conservative, it's virtually irrelevant. All debate and compromise is happening within the Democratic party. You may think that is a good thing. I miss the days when there actually was intra-party debate on both sides of the aisle. Sigh!


So do I, A.I. It is unfortunate that the party you are so up with is far to the left. You must be joking about the Republican party being so far to the right. I am guessing when you wrote that you were laughing your xxx off. Which party is it that blocked conservative nominees? Which party is in favor of allowing abortion up until the time of birth? Which party is favoring raising taxes on the rich and the more they talk about it the lower the bar is for being rich? Scoop Jackson would not recognize his party. JFK, if he stayed with what he believed would be a Republican.
As for your guessing about the irrelevance of the Republican party, let's talk about it next October and make our predictions about how the Republicans fare in Congress. I am betting they gain seats in both houses. Maybe you would like to bet on this years governors races in NJ and Virginia? As for SD, do you want to bet on the legislature? How about the US Senate? Governor's race? I think Stephanie wins, but not by the large margin she enjoyed last year. I would not take that Gallup poll too seriously.

The comments to this entry are closed.