Do GOP problems presage an end to the two-party system?
Ron Fournier, a well-respected editor and political writer at The National Journal, reports that Republican insiders are deeply worried about a potential split in their party, likely led by a third-party presidential bid come 2016.
“Between bites of an $18.95 SteakBurger at the Palm, one of Washington’s premier expense-account restaurants, Republican consultant Scott Reed summed up the state of politics and his beloved GOP. “The party,” he told me, “is irrelevant.”
He cited the familiar litany of problems: demographic change, poor candidates, ideological rigidity, deplorable approval ratings, and a rift between social and economic conservatives.
“It’s leading to some type of crash and reassessment and change,” said Reed, who ran Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign and remains an influential lobbyist and operative. “It can’t continue on this path.”
Sen. Rand Paul (AP)
As the piece suggests, technological change has lowered or in some cases removed many of the obstacles to the rise of multiple parties. With the Internet and social media, as well as independent fund-raising committees, you no longer need the structure of a traditional political party to raise money, spread your message or even organize your followers.
A third-party candidate — say, Rand Paul, who delivered the Tea Party rebuttal Tuesday night — could draw from disaffected Democrats as well. The Republicans are in disarray, but polls show that voters are not exactly thrilled with the opposition either.
Personally, I think the rise of a third-party presidential candidate in 2016 is entirely plausible. The conditions for such a run haven’t been more promising in a long time. However, the Fournier piece goes on to suggest that “social change and a disillusioned electorate threaten the entire two-party system,” and I’m much more dubious about that proposition.
I am fully aware of the paradigm-busting power of modern technology. Nobody who has survived in the newspaper business in the last 20 years would question that. However, I still believe that the institutional biases in the system — some of them embedded in the Constitution, others in federal and state laws, such as Georgia’s difficult ballot-access laws — dictate the existence of a two-party system.
History tells us that third parties come and they usually go; on rare occasions, they stick around and eventually replace one of its predecessors. The time may indeed be ripe for one of those periodic upheavals.
However, once the smoke clears and the system stabilizes, it will revert to its traditional bipolar, two-party nature.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
302 comments Add your comment
Stevie Ray the freshly minted bleeding heart liberal!
February 14th, 2013
10:24 am
BRO,
This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients.
Discouraging eh? I have no idea how anyone can project changes in birthrates 20-30 years down the road.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/apr/12/mark-warner/va-senator-says-fewer-workers-supporting-more-soci/
the dog
February 14th, 2013
10:24 am
RB-I also didn’t say he had just graduated from Parkview did I? When he did, Parkview had the highest SATs in the state.
Doggone/GA
February 14th, 2013
10:27 am
“Whatever you had for breakfast, I need to incorporate into my diet. Words of wisdom @ 10:17 if I’ve ever read any before”
Thanks!
Nobama
February 14th, 2013
10:27 am
Not a chance Jayboy – we will still be able to effectively block the Dems attempts to turn the US into Europe – Bite me
комиссар (Occupation)
February 14th, 2013
10:28 am
breckenridge: “The end result is we fiscal conservatives are left without a home ”
Not true at all.
You want fiscal conservatism? Then the DEMOCRATIC party is your party!
southpaw
February 14th, 2013
10:29 am
“There are many, many Christians who believe our system of law is based on Christian beliefs, and that we should legislate as such.”
———————————————-
I won’t try to argue against that. But I have yet to meet any Christians in favor of Sharia law, and no news report I’ve ever read has talked about a Christian beheading somebody. On the other hand, articles about some Muslims advocating Sharia law or beheading someone are not that difficult to find. My point was to disprove the notion that “one could not tell the difference in their ramblings.”
But-but-but–the Crusades!
The Crusaders are long dead, and no one is suggesting a Christian invasion of Muslim countries.
But-but-but–the Serbian invasion of Bosnia! Didn’t the Serbs say they’re Christian?
I’m not going to “pass judgment” on the Serbs, except to say that their attempts at “ethnic cleansing” were atrocities. But they finally quit fighting and haven’t started again. A couple of friends of mine have moved from Georgia to a town in Bosnia. The locals know that my friends are Christian, among a mostly Muslim population, but they realize that many, many Christians are not like the Serbian soldiers. They don’t hold my friends responsible for the death and destruction from the war. Now if we could have some of that wisdom over here, and not try to hold people responsible for what they didn’t do….
UNCLE SAMANTHA
February 14th, 2013
10:30 am
and when a forest fire rages across a land destroying everything……….. it lays the foundation for incredible growth…..
time to take down the 2 parties and rebuild the system
St Simons - he-ne-ha
February 14th, 2013
10:31 am
UK – “seriously, if anyone ever needed evidence that we desperately NEED more sex education in our schools, not less, they can find all the proof they need in some of the postings here.”
seriously, when mrsstsimons walks by the computer and shakes her
head at me on this blog, her favorite under her breath comment is –
“there’s $200k worth of therapy in some of those posts”
did i just violate HIPAA?
Doggone/GA
February 14th, 2013
10:31 am
“we will still be able to effectively block the Dems attempts to turn the US into Europe”
Yep, it will be VERY easy to do that…since it’s not happening in the first place. It’s easy to “stop” something that doesn’t exist.
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
10:32 am
St S – 10:31 – hahahaha … tell Mrs. St. Simons that she just won the internets with that comment!
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
10:33 am
Doggone – “since it’s not happening in the first place. It’s easy to “stop” something that doesn’t exist.”
but, of course, that won’t stop them from unfurling their little mental “mission accomplished” signs and declaring Victory
Lance in Carrollton
February 14th, 2013
10:34 am
Both political parties have been in this place before. The fact of the matter there has been a conservative and liberal party in the United States since the Treaty of Paris was signed. Demmocratic-Republicans and the Federalists had this argument; conservative and liberal Democrats had this argument during the “Era of Good Feelings.” In 1976, the Republicans seemed down for the count. In 1988, the Democrats were experiencing what the Republicans are going through now. They held focus groups and came to the conclusion that by coming to the middle and nominating a conservative Democrat to run in 1992 was their best option. That decision was not easy; I bet if I could find editorials from the time, I would see many liberals hating the fact that the party was becoming more like Republicans.
Republicans are doing this now during an era of 24 hour news; Fox News does not help this argument because the editorial side of the network wants ideological purity. This would be like the Daily Kos driving the inner workings of the Democrat Party. That would drive people away from them. This leads people inside the beltway, like Ron Fournier, to state wild claims like a coming split within the party. However, this could create a more big-tent party like what existed from the 1990s. Where people like Paul Coverdell,Rudy Guiliani can be pro-choice, pro-gun control, and still have a place with the Republicans. Once the exorcism of political purity happens, the Republican Party will be strongee, like the Democrats in 1992.
SBinF
February 14th, 2013
10:34 am
“I won’t try to argue against that. But I have yet to meet any Christians in favor of Sharia law, and no news report I’ve ever read has talked about a Christian beheading somebody. On the other hand, articles about some Muslims advocating Sharia law or beheading someone are not that difficult to find. My point was to disprove the notion that “one could not tell the difference in their ramblings.””
What difference does it make? There are millions of “Christians” in this country that think we should legislate based on their view of the Bible. Saying it’s not the same simply because they don’t advocate beheading nonbelievers is completely missing the point.
stands for decibels
February 14th, 2013
10:35 am
it both terrifies me and saddens me that some people pay so little attention to reproductive rights that they didn’t even know about the waiting perior laws – which, frankly, are only the tip of the iceberg for the ways that they are trying to hobble women’s rights to control their own fertility.
What’s really horrifying is that these have been mostly empty-net goals scored by the Grand Old Misogynists. That is why you continue to see polling that has more Americans self-identifying as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice”; it’s nothing to do with how they feel on the legal issues (a solid majority continues to support Roe, wants first trimester abortion legal, etc.), it’s because the goddamned “liberal” “democrats” (yes, the bunny ear quotes are intended, here) have been mostly complete wusses about proclaiming themselves pro-choice and proud.
It’s more like “pro-choice but only if we’re in private,” for most of the horrible, horrible people who lead us.
/soapbox
комиссар (Occupation)
February 14th, 2013
10:36 am
curious: “Don’t expand, remove the salary cap to fund it or raise the salary cap enough to do the same.”
I think you’re missing my point. Any step that strengthens Social Security is by definition off the table in Washington today. The big scare over deficits and spending, which has been created by BOTH parties, not just one, is by its very nature an attempt to make sure that any suggestion that social programs be bolstered or strengthened, let alone expanded, be absolutely off the table and that instead to make sure that the public debate remains focused squarely on HOW he will cut them, not WHETHER.
The whole point being that those who run the show in Washington, the ruling elite, want the 20th C social programs cut. And in particular they have their eyes on the crown jewel of that social edifice, SS and Medicare. And they have both parties working on it, as we speak. Nothing the ruling elite in the US despises more than the so-called “third rail”, and they think they’ve finally found a way to neutralize it, and of course they’re almost certainly right.
Doggone/GA
February 14th, 2013
10:37 am
“but, of course, that won’t stop them from unfurling their little mental “mission accomplished” signs and declaring Victory”
Yeah, true…but it gives them something to do and keeps them out of trouble!
the dog
February 14th, 2013
10:37 am
I am not usually confrontational in person but have a question. Is it permissible to ask parents of kids in private school uniforms who is paying the tuition at their school, taxpayers or them?
In the middle
February 14th, 2013
10:37 am
My question again, which laws require “jollies”, which laws require “doctors lying”. Also, are the laws in those states “secret” so nobody can know about them until after they show up for the first appointment.
Notice, I haven’t come down one way or the other on birth control or abortion. But the lunatics still can’t help calling names. Pity.
the dog
February 14th, 2013
10:39 am
Stands-I am pro choice and proud!! Safe, legal, rare.
breckenridge
February 14th, 2013
10:41 am
“There are many, many Christians who believe our system of law is based on Christian beliefs, and that we should legislate as such.”
There are many, many Christians who are 100% wrong.
US Law is based on English Common Law. And here is where they get off track, they think English Common Law is based on the Bible. But that is absolutely false, English Common Law originated in that country 178 years prior to the arrival of Christianity. English Common Law is based on common morality and not religion. And those two terms are in no way synonymous.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
10:41 am
“My question again, which laws require “jollies”, which laws require “doctors lying”. Also, are the laws in those states “secret” so nobody can know about them until after they show up for the first appointment. ”
no, that’s not your question “again” – that’s the first time you’ve asked that … and I can’t help but notice how you artfully dodge the fact that I’ve struck down your “if you can’t prove it, then it’s BS” comment.
in other words, you can apologize for that anytime you like.
so, yes, here’s another one of your questions amply answered:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-05-15/women-contraception-abortion-reproductive-rights-doctors/54979766/1
Five states require doctors to tell women that a link might exist between abortion and breast cancer, despite the fact that careful studies have not found any such link.
Similarly, eight states require doctors to tell women that abortion could cause psychological problems, despite evidence to the contrary.
and, they’re not secret to those of us who actually PAY ATTENTION.
комиссар (Occupation)
February 14th, 2013
10:41 am
“we will still be able to effectively block the Dems attempts to turn the US into Europe”
So when our resident rubes spout these little gems, I’m always curious to know: just WHICH “Europe” is it that Obama and his pals are trying to turn us into? Is it the unfolding catastrophe of southern Europe, with its emergent neo-fascist parties. Those places come about as close as possible to approaching what would result were the policy proposals of the Republicans to ever actually come to fruition.
Or is it countries like Germany that they have in mind with its natural proclivity towards strict fiscal policy and debt/deficit skepticism. Or is it France, which lies somewhere in between. Something tells me our rube friends haven’t bothered to think it through this much, and instead simply think “Europe” as a cipher for “foreign, scary, socialist bogeyman”.
St Simons - he-ne-ha
February 14th, 2013
10:42 am
“It’s leading to some type of crash and reassessment and change…
It can’t continue on this path.”
–Thelma, to Louise in the last scene at about 600 ft
In the middle
February 14th, 2013
10:42 am
I am too. I just hate being told what I think. So there.
guy
February 14th, 2013
10:42 am
All crats listen: It is not over yet. Savor the moment but wait for obamacare to kick in and then we will see. People don’t really know what is lurking ahead but they will find out soon. Then lets see what occurs. When you start taxing and taxing and then more taxing,look out.
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
10:44 am
oh, and as far as your “jollies” question – go back and look up the comments that were made when the bill was for trans-vaginal ultrasound tests – “she’s already spread her legs once, this shouldn’t be a big deal”.
I stand by my jollies comment.
In the middle
February 14th, 2013
10:44 am
So, since when is a state law a mandate for how all republicans should think, and what all republicans believe. You should be a journalist. Same ability to actually think through an statement.
barking frog
February 14th, 2013
10:45 am
Just remove the cap on earnings for SS tax. We currently
have three parties, but two go by the same name. I believe
the same thing is beginning to happen in the Democratic
party and seems to be along an age line just like the
Republicans.
St Simons - he-ne-ha
February 14th, 2013
10:46 am
the dog – it is permissible, but not necessary.
It is either their customers if they have a bidness,
or the taxpayers – never Them.
(disclosure – all mine are by-god public)
barking frog
February 14th, 2013
10:47 am
I like the term presstitute, shockingly realistic.
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
10:47 am
“So, since when is a state law a mandate for how all republicans should think, and what all republicans believe. You should be a journalist. Same ability to actually think through an statement.”
since the republicans in those states are the ones who wrote and passed the bills.
and I’m three for three – I’ll happily accept your apology now.
In the middle
February 14th, 2013
10:50 am
I am looking for facts, not rhetoric. I can get any number of loons to say any number of things on any number of issues. It is about understanding “beyond emotion” what people actually believe. Questioning you stance and asking for details is just that. Prove your point without becoming an emotional wreck. If you belive all republicans think a certain way, PROVE IT.. Because there are laws on the books that you disagree with does not by extension mean that every republican walking on the planet believes a certain way..
barking frog
February 14th, 2013
10:50 am
Democrats want Social Security to become SSI and
Republicans want it to become 401k. It will become
both, SSI for low earners, 401k for high earners.
In the middle
February 14th, 2013
10:51 am
You are 0 for 3. You still cannot prove 100% of all republicans think a certain way.
stands for decibels
February 14th, 2013
10:51 am
Requiring docs to lie through legislative fiat. Yet another conservative “family value.”
stands for decibels
February 14th, 2013
10:52 am
SSI for low earners, 401k for high earners.
Those high earners would be begging for SSI after the banksters have made them into low earners, of course.
Perhaps we can issue them wooden bowls, at least. We can call them “Simpson Bowls.”
southpaw
February 14th, 2013
10:52 am
SB in F @10:34
Sounds like you have a different point, not the one I was disproving.
barking frog
February 14th, 2013
10:54 am
Both the GOP and Democrats truly believe that they
are doing what is best for the USA and that is a good
thing and is what keeps the world trusting us.
Jefferson
February 14th, 2013
10:55 am
Political unions are 200 time worse than labor unions. “Stand on your on 2 feet, John”
комиссар (Occupation)
February 14th, 2013
10:55 am
barking frog: “Democrats want Social Security to become SSI and
Republicans want it to become 401k. It will become
both, SSI for low earners, 401k for high earners”
Which will pave the way for its ultimate dismantling, root and branch. That’s the plan.
By the way, no takers on my claim that it is the US ruling elite that stands behind BOTH parties that wants to see SS and Medicare dismantled and that pesky “third rail” of American politics neutralized once and for all?
Surprised no one wants to challenge that.
Maybe you guys are just a very trusting bunch and trust that appearances as they’re made to seem in the Beltway debates are as they appear. .
JamVet
February 14th, 2013
10:55 am
The GOP has simply gone WAY beyond the limits of what mainstream Americans are willing to tolerate.
Like a certain political movement in the 1930s/40s Germany and Italy they want to:
Outlaw labor unions. Outlaw homosexuality. Outlaw abortions. Use the word “communist” to attack anyone who disagrees with them. All they need is a Ministry of Corporations and a man named Mussolini to oversee there new Corporations Uber Alles ideology. Since wall Street is their friend and Uncle Sam, their enemy. (Right Mitt, my friend?)
And the ONE thing that used to be their biggest selling point – national security – has been co-opted by the liberals and the skinny black guy!
Truly amazing.
They need a new champion and alas, Joseph McCarthy is dead…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 14th, 2013
10:56 am
As the piece suggests, technological change has lowered or in some cases removed many of the obstacles to the rise of multiple parties. With the Internet and social media, as well as independent fund-raising committees, you no longer need the structure of a traditional political party to raise money, spread your message or even organize your followers.
20 years ago, H. Ross. Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote but didn’t receive a single solitary EC vote.
Get rid of the EC, and then we’ll see a rise in a third party — not before.
Lance in Carrollton
February 14th, 2013
10:56 am
The biggest thing that depresses me reading all comments is that both sides participate in hyperbole in regards to abortion. Conservatives should not believe that pro-choice people like abortions. Abortions are tough decisions that women make; it is not like a mulligan if golf. Young women who do make that choice do not take it so lightly. And liberals should believe that people who are pro-life want control of women’s bodies. They truly believe that fetus’s life is worth protecting. They are not trying to bring Sharia law, or trying to enact a theocracy in America. It is easy being rude to someone over the internet because you have the luxury of not dealing with repercussions.
Aquagirl
February 14th, 2013
10:58 am
since the republicans in those states are the ones who wrote and passed the bills.
Republicans, the party of personal responsibility—unless they’re feeling trapped, then they display complete confusion as to why you’d connect them with their own legislation.
Their new party symbol is the weasel.
Doggone/GA
February 14th, 2013
10:58 am
“You are 0 for 3. You still cannot prove 100% of all republicans think a certain way.”
Congratulations on your acceptance into the “percentage Troll club”
alex
February 14th, 2013
10:59 am
“paradigm”–please loose the “80’s word Jay, please…Currently “I feel as strong as a Bull Moose….”Bring TR back !
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
10:59 am
“You are 0 for 3. You still cannot prove 100% of all republicans think a certain way.”
laugh effing riot.
you can’t argue the facts that the Republican Party (by the way – have you checked out their platform, lately???) have argued for and enacted all the bills I’ve listed and provided evidence for –
WHICH YOU DIDN’T EVEN BELIEVE EXISTED
yet, you say that I have to prove that EVERY republican believes that way???
not only is that incredibly lame, it’s downright spineless of you not to even acknowledge that you were completely unaware that this was going on.
but, I guess you do get points for moving the goal posts.
stands for decibels
February 14th, 2013
11:00 am
Just remove the cap on earnings for SS tax
yeah, that’s gonna happen. If you think our aristocracy cried like stuck pigs over having their marginal rates on the amount of 400K going up a few points, can you imagine what would happen if they had to cope with regular withholding percentages that like… those of… I can scarcely type the word…commoners?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 14th, 2013
11:00 am
Get rid of the EC, and then we’ll see a rise in a third party — not before.
May be one of the reasons that the 2 top parties keep it, but if the GOP tries to tamper with the EC system as they started to until others pulled them back in most states, we may see the move to get rid of the EC system completely.
In the middle
February 14th, 2013
11:00 am
And the other shoe drops. I am fairly conservative. I do belive that my wife and daughter should be able to get birth control if they want (and do). I dont think I should be able to dictate my stance to another person (people that disagree with you have rights too). If my daughter were to ever want an abortion I would support her and help her any way I could. The object here is, I beleive in freedoms, which extends beyond me getting what I want, but extends to protecting those that disagree.
the dog
February 14th, 2013
11:00 am
Lance-the ones being rude are the ones calling people fruits, loons, etc. The pro choice postings I have seen on here are factual with clear sources.
USinUK - former Girl Scout
February 14th, 2013
11:02 am
Aqua – “Republicans, the party of personal responsibility—unless they’re feeling trapped, then they display complete confusion as to why you’d connect them with their own legislation. ”
but … but … but … I’m sure that someone somewhere didn’t agree with it, therefore, NO ONE did … or something like that …
TR
February 14th, 2013
11:03 am
@Jam:the repubs have simply gone WAY beyond what this blog allows and the increasingly polarized portion of the dems, In my day we had “yellow journalism”, now you have ” whinining blogs”.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 14th, 2013
11:05 am
But-but-but–the Crusades!
The Crusaders are long dead, and no one is suggesting a Christian invasion of Muslim countries.
George Bush says, “What?”
Lance in Carrollton
February 14th, 2013
11:06 am
the dog
February 14th, 2013
11:00 am
There have been many comments stating that Republicans are essentially the Taliban of the the United States. This is factually wrong. Republicans have not become a major party by taking the reins of failed nations by implementing rules that women should be stoned to death for being educated, or if they engage in premarital sex. A section of the party, a larger percent that 10 years ago but still a section, is only focused on social issues.
JamVet
February 14th, 2013
11:07 am
“The party,” he told me, “is irrelevant.”
He cited the familiar litany of problems: demographic change, poor candidates, ideological rigidity, deplorable approval ratings, and a rift between social and economic conservatives.
And the joke is on them – there are no economic conservatives in the GOP. Just extreme fiscal liberals.
They are so insanely out of touch with that c word that they will not accept real words and their real meanings:
Economic liberalism, also known as fiscal liberalism, is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions.
It includes a spectrum of different economic policies, but it is always based on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production.
Although economic liberalism can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.
However, economic liberalism may accept government intervention in order to remove private monopoly. Economic liberalism emphasizes that individuals should make their own choices with their money, so long as it does not infringe on the liberty of others.
Even so Republispeak is not the disease, it is just an obvious symptom of their mass confusion via their willful ignorance…
Tom Middleton
February 14th, 2013
11:07 am
Jay, you realize, of course, that we’re traditionally a three-party system, not just two, for the Democrats are a fully capable two-party system all unto themselves.
I mean, the Republicans could suddenly disappear and we’d be just fine, for the Dems actually like one another and know how to put people to work.
And without Republican obstruction, well, you get the picture, I’m sure: We could have America to full employment in virtually no time at all.
So tell them not to worry, in fact to go ahead and go. And in ’14 when Mitch McConnell leaves, please welcome Senator Judd!
Jefferson
February 14th, 2013
11:07 am
Laws don’t stop women from doing what they are going to do.
alittlecommonsense
February 14th, 2013
11:07 am
“I am not usually confrontational in person but have a question. Is it permissible to ask parents of kids in private school uniforms who is paying the tuition at their school, taxpayers or them?”
I suppose you could, but 99% of them will be paying out of their own pocket. When they give you that answer, will you thank them for subsidizing your child’s public school? That would only be fair wouldn’t it?
stands for decibels
February 14th, 2013
11:09 am
Gun-tard SHEETZ.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 14th, 2013
11:10 am
Laws don’t stop women from doing what they are going to do.
“Women and cats do as they like, so men and dogs better get used to the idea.”
– Thomas “Lazarus Long” Jefferson
Shar
February 14th, 2013
11:10 am
Even more than the Republicans’ short-sighted rush to embrace and emotionally motivate the very same religious and fiscal extremists who now have a choke-hold on their policy, what is preventing the party from adjusting to the voice of the American people is their dependence upon gerrymandering and the loud, ugly rantings of “conservative entertainers” in the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity mold.
Democrats have used these types of tactics, too, but not to the degree that Republicans have, and have staked their futures on. Without diversity of opinion in either self-selected media or voting groups, differences must be worked out on a larger stage. Democrats, by the nature of their coalition, have a more diverse group of interests within their “tent” and the candidates they run tend to have already been pushed through the compromise mill and been found acceptable by a wider range of voters. Republicans, however, have cynically manipulated the most extreme issues that motivate the farthest right social and fiscal conservatives, making full use of the dramatic talents of the Limbaughs without fettering them with inconvenient facts or dissenting voices, in order to get them to the polls with absolutely no intention of giving them access to power. They now find themselves trapped by that strategy, trying to sideline or co-opt the extremist representatives that have managed to get elected while deafened by the rhetoric they’ve presented as “fact” and that the majority of voters reject as spin, pandering or outright lies.
Something’s gotta give, and I would not be surprised to see the Republicans split between the classic Eisenhower/Rockefeller moderates and the personality-driven fringes. However, should that happen a significant number of Democratic voters who have been pushed by GOP extremism into uneasy support for candidates who are only somewhat less obnoxious, may well find a more comfortable match in those moderates who concentrate on legislating finances rather than morality, and inevitably big changes will happen within the Democratic Party as well.
The GOP, as the Party Of Business, should understand the foundational principle that the customer is always right. If certain customers – minorities, the young, and women – feel that the GOP offerings target them for oppression, the solution is NOT to tell those customers (over and over, louder and louder) they are wrong. Geographically marginalizing customers who don’t like the GOP’s product or, worse, trying to keep those customers from being able to make another choice is antithetical to efforts to adapt and attract their custom.
JamVet
February 14th, 2013
11:10 am
TR, I have read it three times and still cannot decipher the meaning of your post.
Would you rephrase to accommodate my predilection for standard written English?
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
February 14th, 2013
11:15 am
Can you spot the difference between the Christian social conservatives and the Islamic fundamentalists? I got 7 of 9 right but was just guessing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/richard_mourdock_rape_scandal_spot_the_difference_between_the_christian.html?wpisrc=newsletter_slatest_morning_newsletter
alex
February 14th, 2013
11:18 am
@in the middle; a fragrant breath of fresh air….thank you.
Tundra Dude
February 14th, 2013
11:20 am
Bro:
Whatever you had for breakfast, I need to incorporate into my diet. Words of wisdom @ 10:17 if I’ve ever read any before”
Ditto!
Our Lady of Dogs is on a roll today……
Joe Hussein Mama
February 14th, 2013
11:21 am
Breckenridge — “English Common Law is based on common morality and not religion.”
Please elaborate on this point.
Quite frankly, I don’t agree with you and I think you’re quite incorrect, but I’m willing to forbear for the moment while you clarify your point.
Uh Huh....... The name means nothing, only what they are
February 14th, 2013
11:25 am
@stands for decibels
February 14th, 2013
10:15 am
Bottom line is that liberalism is unable to save itself, and thus will perish without a radical movement to come to its aid.
I think it’s time to go to the Phil Ochs well once again:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“liberalism is unable to save itself?”
From the EVIL cons?
“will perish?”
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
“One of the shadiest of these is the liberals?”
CONS are so FAKE they make BARBIE look real.
GT
February 14th, 2013
11:25 am
Doggone/GA, I am totally with you, those old people seemed to make plenty of decisions that did pretty well for us before and during our lifetime so far.
I am tire of the right and their negative description of the country or their idea we are dependent on the wealthy to provide this nation an economy. Seems to me the upper class bails out now days as soon as they can. One thing my parent’s generation had was a bench. If some fat cat crazy eccentric decided to take his act to Paris chasing young French woman, there were plenty of bright benchwarmers ready to take his place. These guys had a realistic picture of the country from their own vantage point. It is funny how you find the same Mr. Potters in every small town. The need evolves the person, the need is the same, and it is the person that is interchangeable or was. I think this generation is soft, less educated and easily distracted from the goal. Guns should have never been the topic; it should have been jobs and economic development. But guns are the only topic many middle class white Americans know about now days. There subject matter is shallow. We are losing our second string to vegetation and the rich cement their position because of lack of competition.
Dekalb comments
February 14th, 2013
11:28 am
I would welcome a vibrant multi-party system. I think new parties have a better chance of succeeding at the local and perhaps state level than nationally. For example a party whose platform includes addressing climate change and preparing for rising sea levels, etc. might do well in local elections along the Jersey shore and maybe even other areas of Jersey. But it would be difficult to make a decent showing nationally because of the sheer amount of money and existing infrastructure of the entrenched parties.
Parliamentary systems are better suited to multi-party participation. Governments are more often than not created by coalitions that come and go over time. Parties tend to have more clearly defined policies and members are closely bound by party policies and not individual opinion.
I don’t think the U.S. is quite ready for a multi-party system yet. We have had 3rd parties dabble here and there but their performance has been lackluster. I think until we find a way to get money out of our elections, small 3rd parties will struggle unless they are backed by very wealthy supporters such as the Koch Brothers, etc.
Uh Huh....... The name means nothing, only what they are
February 14th, 2013
11:29 am
Whatever the PARTY……
They got to come THROUGH the LIBERALS to win the
white house.
Uh Huh
TR
February 14th, 2013
11:31 am
@Jam,..deelighted to help, my writing was in response to your 10;55 opinion, I simply referred to the wide difference between the “mainstream american” opinion you believe and the opinion of the partisans of this commentary blog. In other words, dear fellow you and Woodrow can’s see beyond your GOverment-issued spectacles. I, on the other hand can’t see at all out of one my eyes, but the other…
jconservative
February 14th, 2013
11:33 am
In the US House we are very close to a European model parliament with the current majority being a coalition of two minority parties, the Republican and the Teas Party. Recall that the Tea Party came close to fielding their own candidate for Speaker to oppose Boehner. Only the threat of Pelosi as Speaker brought them to their senses.
Tundra Dude
February 14th, 2013
11:34 am
Indigo:
Jay, I suggested here, some time ago, that we were headed for a third party.
If I remember correctly, you dismissed me, with a hint of ridicule.
Nothing personal, he always does that.
He was hired by the status quo.
He gets paid by the status quo to wave pom-poms in support of the status quo.
He’s like a dedicated band member on the Titanic.
(if one believes the 2010 IMF audit of the US, which suggests we’re already bankrupt, we just don’t know it, yet)
Politically Speaking
February 14th, 2013
11:40 am
Unfortunately, the huge shift to the right by both parties has caused this problem. Think of it as a table with a Republican on the right side and a Democrat on the left. If the Democrat moves to the center and the Republican moves farther to the right, the Republican will run out of space and fall off the table.
JamVet
February 14th, 2013
11:41 am
TR, government issued spectacles?
Reminds me of the black plastic ones they issued to me in boot camp, which were nicknamed CGLs. (For Can’t Get Laid!)
Of course, Uncle Sam/gubmint haters would know nothing about military service and CGLs…
Dekalb comments
February 14th, 2013
11:43 am
jconservative @ 11:33
Functionally I agree the House is split among the Democrats, “traditional” Republicans and the Tea Party. But they are not organized that way structurally or procedurally.
We lack the concept of “no confidence” as a way to oust the governing party or coalition.
One thing that parties in European-style parliamentary systems have learned to do is to compromise. You might have a 3-party coalition with one party of fiscal conservatives, another that is a green party and another that is a Christian Democratic party.
The 3 parties, in order to retain the government, learn to trade off and negotiate. They know they can’t get everything they want. They don’t threaten to shut down the government when they don’t get their way. They know politics is an art of give and take. Therein lies the difference with the U.S. The Tea Party especially is not open to compromise. They see it as an evil whereas pragmatic politicians understand it is one of the messy, but necessary, characteristics of democratic government.
southpaw
February 14th, 2013
11:45 am
George Bush says, “What?”
Southpaw repeats,
The Crusaders are long dead, and no one is suggesting a Christian invasion of Muslim countries.
GT
February 14th, 2013
11:45 am
If Democrats defect it will be with the Republican Party of the new just forming kind that is much more realistic and moderate. I can see and would be happy to welcome a crowd of adults as our opposition. The Tea Party is the Dixiecrat confusion of the old Democrat Party that caused them to loose a few elections too. These populous high on emotion, low on rationality and morality groups always make the opponent look sophisticated like a Volkswagen making your house look larger.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
February 14th, 2013
11:51 am
Southpaw repeats,
The Crusaders are long dead, and no one is suggesting a Christian invasion of Muslim countries.
All you have to do is google the words “George”, Bush”, “crusades.”
Doesn’t get any simpler than that.
GT
February 14th, 2013
11:51 am
What kills the Tea Party is their facts are all wrong. They introduce these backwater intellects that are backwater intellects for a reason. They remind me of a great high school star that looks like a world-beater in the small stadium but in the bright lights can’t carry water. What makes this country great, cruel but great, is these impostures get drowned out by more talented and on point players.
Uh Huh....... The name means nothing, only what they are
February 14th, 2013
11:55 am
@Politically Speaking
February 14th, 2013
11:40 am
the Republican moves farther to the right, the Republican will run out of space and fall off the table.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fall off the table?
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee
Even though we can’t have ALL we want, we ought to be thankful
we don’t get what we DESERVE.
Itchy Finger
February 14th, 2013
12:08 pm
Talk about grasping for straws… The GOP still easily controls the house and it seems they will for the foreseeable future… By the way they have a great shot at taking the Senate in 14′….
appleseed
February 14th, 2013
12:15 pm
Repubs do not mistreat women.If you think you may get pg,you can get prenatal care,and sign up for food stamps,all this by inviitation.Single or married low income,nothing to discourage just do your thing and let the taxpayer foot the bill.Women have the control,give them the responsibility that goes with the liberty,then and only then will abortions come down.
appleseed
February 14th, 2013
12:18 pm
Great chance taking the senate,from same guy that said mitten would win…
JamVet
February 14th, 2013
12:23 pm
By the way they have a great shot at taking the Senate in 14′….
The new version of Romney in a landslide…
Itchy Finger
February 14th, 2013
12:32 pm
JamVet:
What happened in 2010? A landslide Republican victory. Actually if you look at races all across the country state and federal Repubs won easily this last time. More Governorship and more state led Congress’s…. Perhaps you and Jay should do a little research before spewing about non-sense…..
Logical Dude
February 14th, 2013
12:35 pm
Quoting the quote in Jay’s article: “He cited the familiar litany of problems: demographic change, poor candidates, ideological rigidity, deplorable approval ratings, and a rift between social and economic conservatives.”
This is how I see it: Social Conservatives have become the object holding the middle back.
Most people think that government should be out of the bedroom – meaning those social conservatives that dislike gay marriage will be on the losing side. (same as those who didn’t want women to vote, same as those who were against interracial marriage, etc)
Most people think that individual rights should not be interfered by a religion – meaning as much as anyone dislikes abortion, it should be safe, legal, and rare. Contraceptives should be safe and easy to obtain – to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (and “when the fetus feels pain” should be left to science, not politicians)
Most people know that abolition does not work, and only gives more power to those who are most violent. The fiscal conservative knows that throwing huge amounts of money at this to jail (those who want the equivalent to a few drinks every once in a while) is the wrong way to go. Punish the stuff that is actually illegal (theft, driving intoxicated, etc), not the use of drugs.
Most people know that any religion should be free to worship. I’ve seen too many Social Conservatives berate Islam and those who worship Allah as “terrorists” or other derogatory terms. That has got to stop.
Unfortunately, there are still a few minority groups that wield the power to keep the Republican from moving forward on these issues.
Itchy Finger
February 14th, 2013
12:39 pm
Logical Dude:
Until you think the majority approves homo marriage then ask those 30+ states that have put a ban on it….
Logical Dude
February 14th, 2013
12:39 pm
my “abolition” should be “prohibition” – LD regrets the error
Logical Dude
February 14th, 2013
12:41 pm
Itchy,
It’s a losing proposition to ban gay marriage. The young OVERWHELMINGLY support it. The old prejudices will die off, and it will be legal. It’s a matter of when.
Why would anyone be against any couple that just wants to share their love for each other?
Itchy Finger
February 14th, 2013
12:55 pm
Logical Dude:
The young don’t know any better. They also support obama. Of course the older and wiser you become you inform yourself more. Older people realize how dangerous it is to be homo and that we as a nation shouldn’t be supporting this type of activities…. Aids suddenly appeared and his almost totally a gay disease. Unfortunately the media won’t report that because it would go against what they want….
Steve
February 14th, 2013
1:29 pm
It’s hard to listen to conservatives anymore, since they are just repeatedly proven wrong over and over and over and again. Same distorted thinking, same lost in the past mentality, same fear of change or anyone who’s not a white/anglo straight male.
Steve
February 14th, 2013
1:30 pm
Dangerous to be homo???? What about dangerous to deal with gun toting raving honey boo boo rednecks?
Steve
February 14th, 2013
1:31 pm
Oh itchy you troll….” South Africa is reported to have the largest population living with the disease, at well over 5 million people infected, followed by Nigeria in 2nd place and India being the 3rd largest population of HIV infected with more than 2 million people reported due to its large overall population”
Itchy Finger
February 14th, 2013
2:02 pm
Steve:
I honestly don’t care what happens in South Africa. Its a fact that HIV and other STD’s are prevalent in the homo community. I simply don’t agree with that repulsive lifestyle and don’t think it should be rewarded with marriage as if it was normal. I would say the same of a drug addict, alcoholic, or common criminal. Should these people be given special rights simply because of their impulses???
Elections Have Consequences
February 14th, 2013
2:48 pm
“but polls show that voters are not exactly thrilled with the opposition either.”
Really? They’ve finally figured out the last 4 years have been a total failure? Gee…
appleseed
February 14th, 2013
2:52 pm
I do not think they (homos) are asking for special rights only equal.The three compairsons you make have equal rights.I do not agree with it,but think they should be equal.
Uh Huh....... The name means nothing, only what they are
February 14th, 2013
3:20 pm
@Elections Have Consequences
February 14th, 2013
2:48 pm
“but polls show that voters are not exactly thrilled with the opposition either.”
Really? They’ve finally figured out the last 4 years have been a total failure? Gee…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“a total failure?”
Total = A whole quantity; an entirety
Obama’s Accomplishments:
Avoided Scandal: As of November 2011, served longer than any president in decades without a scandal, as measured by the appearance of the word “scandal” (or lack thereof) on the front page of the Washington Post.
Passed Health Care Reform
Passed the Stimulus
Passed Wall Street Reform
Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country.
Last troops left on December 18, 2011.
Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan
Eliminated Osama bin laden
Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry
Recapitalized Banks
Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”:
Toppled Moammar Gaddaf
Told Mubarak to Go
Reversed Bush Torture Policies
Improved America’s Image Abroad
Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program
Expanded Pell Grant Spending
Created Race to the Top
Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards
Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis
Passed Mini Stimuli
Began Asia “Pivot
Increased Support for Veterans
Tightened Sanctions on Iran:
Created Conditions to Begin Closing Dirtiest Power Plants
Passed Credit Card Reforms
Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws
Protected Two Liberal Seats on the U.S. Supreme Court
Improved Food Safety System
Achieved New START Treaty
Expanded National Service
Expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco
Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders
Passed Fair Sentencing Act
Trimmed and Reoriented Missile Defense
Began Post-Post-9/11 Military Builddown
Let Space Shuttle Die and Killed Planned Moon Mission
Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology
Crafting Next-Generation School Tests
Cracked Down on Bad For-Profit Colleges
Improved School Nutrition
Expanded Hate Crimes Protections
Brokered Agreement for Speedy Compensation to Victims of Gulf Oil Spill
Created Recovery.gov
Pushed Broadband Coverage
Expanded Health Coverage for Children
Recognized the Dangers of Carbon Dioxide
Expanded Stem Cell Research
Provided Payment to Wronged Minority Farmers
Helped South Sudan Declare Independence
Killed the F-22
TOTAL FAILURE?
Are you stupid or just IGNORANT?
Itchy Finger
February 14th, 2013
7:26 pm
appleseed
I do not think they (homos) are asking for special rights only equal.The three compairsons you make have equal rights.I do not agree with it,but think they should be equal.
They already have the ability to marry. Just not to the same sex. Redefining marriage solely for their benefit would give them a special right… Its logic really that I simply don’t agree with….