The last throes of the Republican Party

[Count Iblis]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html"

As the party has shrunk to its base, it has catered even more to its base's biases, insisting that the New Deal made the Depression worse, carbon emissions are fine for the environment and tax cuts actually boost revenues — even though the vast majority of historians, scientists and economists disagree. The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party. This plays well with hard-core culture warriors and tea-party activists convinced that a dictator-President is plotting to seize their guns, choose their doctors and put ACORN in charge of the Census, but it ultimately produces even more shrinkage, which gives the base even more influence — and the death spiral continues.

 

[lisab]

Great article, CI. I wouldn't have believed this, if your link had not come from such a reputable source:

The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party.

Wow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wouldn't that be libel? Or do they mean a vote in Congress?

What a bunch of nuts!

...Could this really be true? I have a hard time believing that report is accurate.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again I cite the latest already posted in another thread.

People who identify themselves as
Independent - 38%
Democrat - 35%
Republican - 21%

The Republicans are now the swing vote - the third party. If conservatives want to regain power sometime before 2040 [see James Carvel's latest book], they should dump the Republican Party and take over "the big tent" of Independents.

Honestly, I don't want to see the Democrats in power for the next 30 or 40 years, but I will never again support the Republican Party unless they dump the extremists and zealots, and I don't see that happening. The credible and sane conservatives need to make a clean break; NOW!

 

[russ_watters]

Great article, CI. I wouldn't have believed this, if your link had not come from such a reputable source...

Reputable source? Really? Time is a pretty heavily liberal-biased magazine. This type of hit-and-run, sourceless, explanationless cheap shot is not really surprising to me coming from them. It is more a liberal blog post than an a news article - and their webite does not differentiate between what is intended to be news and what is intended to be editorial. A newspaper (a good one anyway) would never fail to properly categorize their articles.

A google finds what the article is referring to:

Proposed RNC Resolution Recognizing the Democrats' March Towards Socialism

RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.

http://www.repconcaucus.com/content/proposed_rnc_resolution_recognizing_democrats_march_towards_socialism

The way it was worded in the article didn't make a whole lot of sense to me - what is actually intended is to essentially make it a marketing point to pressure democrats to be honest about where their party is going. I'd never heard of a party passing "resolutions" before, but basically, it appears to be a way of adopting platforms and campaign strategy. For that purpose, there doesn't seem to me to be anything wrong with the idea. These resolutions are written by political organizations connected to the party.

There apparently was a similar resolution accusing Bush of socialism for his role in the bailouts: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

It is interesting googling for "rnc resolution" or "dnc resolution" and seeing what type of things come up...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The way it was worded in the article didn't make a whole lot of sense to me - what is actually intended is to essentially make it a marketing point to pressure democrats to be honest about where their party is going.

Interesting; what you call a marketing point, I call a lie. The problem is that a marketing point is supposed to be based in truth. This is nothing but used-car salesmenship - Weiner logic; an intentional deception or a delusional claim. It is the RNC that needs to evaluate just where it has been taking this country, and the statistics prove it.

The most obvious case in point. If Obama really wanted socialism, the FIRST thing he would want to do is to nationalize the banks. That is the heart of power. But he specifically has avoided that option which, at one point, was actually thought by many economists to be required in order to save the economy. He already had the prime opportunity but insisted on doing otherwise.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting; what you call a marketing point, I call a lie.

Ok...

The problem is that a marketing point is supposed to be based in truth. This is nothing but used-car salesmenship - Weiner logic; an intentional deception or a delusional claim.

Didn't you just contradict your first sentence? Used-car salesmanship is marketing, whether it is deceptive or not (*gasp* - a political campaign could be deceptive? *gasp*). In either case, I don't see this as being deceptive because:

The most obvious case in point. If Obama really wanted socialism, the FIRST thing he would want to do is to nationalize the banks.

So when the government took over failing banks, you wouldn't call that "nationalizing" them? Here's what happens when a bank fails:

When these banks fail, the FDIC takes over. They may sell the bank to another (stronger) bank, or they may operate the bank for some time as a federally owned bank.

http://banking.about.com/od/securityandsafety/a/bankfailures.htm

This is, of course, only one example of a socialistic policy democrats advocate. There are many, many others. What we are getting with the newfound power of the democrats is a major shift toward the socialist end of the economic spectrum - the biggest this country has seen since the New Deal.

It is not a stretch to call someone who advocates socialistic policies a socialist.

 

[sylas]

It is not a stretch to call someone who advocates socialistic policies a socialist.

Speaking as a bemused outside onlooker... it seems that one of the problems with political discourse in the USA is that terms like "socialist" are often applied so widely that pretty much anyone would be a socialist, unless way over in what the rest of us think as rather extreme right wing. The way some republicans in the USA use the term, it has lost all useful meaning.

I'm not meaning to comment on you personally here. I don't know your intended meaning. I'm just saying. The USA can be a little ... odd ... in this respect.

But hey. I can talk. I'm an Aussie and we have a "liberal" party which is not what a USAmerican might think at first hearing either.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[LowlyPion]

At the very least it seems that as the Republican iceberg melts that the largest activist block - Christian Fundamentalist - is attempting to throw the rest of the party into the water.

The intolerance they would show in their policies as regards gays or against women's rights to choose or against regulation or government in general, or school prayer, or evolution, they are apparently only too willing to apply to their own ranks, willing to cut their noses off to spite their face even. Purging Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter and Colin Powell, and now even apparently Tom Ridge, may feel good to the radicalizers and rabble rousers like Limbaugh and Beck, that at times seem more interested in controversy than actual solutions - controversy apparently pays better - but at the end of the day all they are left with is their "Party of No" slogans, with the rest of the country feeling that they may no longer be a relevant alternative.

Maybe the Republicans could excerpt the clip from the Wizard of Oz with the Witch crying "I'm melting, I'm melting. Oh, what a world."?

 

[turbo]

It is not a stretch to call someone who advocates socialistic policies a socialist.

Is Bush a socialist? Did he allow the managers of banks and investment firms to reap fortunes in salaries and bonuses while lavishing taxpayer money on them to protect them from failure based on their greed? Is that not socialism? In my mind, it is the very worst perversion of socialism, in which profits are privatized and risks are socialized - an oligarchy, just like post USSR Russia. In real terms, the US government under Bush veered even more strongly into oligarchy than it had been, and the GOP has been abetting this trend all along, trying to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few instead of trying to make decisions that benefit average citizens.

Right-wingers throw the term "socialist" around derisively to describe anybody that is willing to fund any cause they dislike. Fund family planning, nutritional programs for poor children, try to extend health insurance coverage to all citizens? ALL socialist programs according to the GOP and their handlers, though the citizens in most industrialized countries all over the world have access to such programs. The US could comfortably fund universal health care coverage - ask the citizens of any European nation. How can they afford it, and the US cannot? It's not a matter of whether or not the US can afford UHC - it's a matter of how many politicians the health insurance companies can buy off, and how many mindless idiots will buy into the mantra that UHC is "socialism" and will ruin the US.

 

[turbo]

At the very least it seems that as the Republican iceberg melts that the largest activist block - Christian Fundamentalist - is attempting to throw the rest of the party into the water.

The intolerance they would show in their policies as regards gays or against women's rights to choose or against regulation or government in general, or school prayer, or evolution, they are apparently only too willing to apply to their own ranks, willing to cut their noses off to spite their face even.

Just yesterday, the day after the governor signed Maine's same-sex marriage law, two separate right-wing religious groups filed petition requests in an attempt to overturn the law by popular ballot. Michael Heath, former president of the Christian Civic League had made it clear that he intended to bring the issue to voters next spring in June, but some of his compatriots didn't get the memo, or the affront to their religious sensibilities was too much to bear for an additional 7 months, so they are shooting for a November vote instead of waiting. They will have until sometime in August to gather 55,087 valid signatures for a citizen's initiative.

 

[LowlyPion]

Just yesterday, the day after the governor signed Maine's same-sex marriage law, two separate right-wing religious groups filed petition requests in an attempt to overturn the law by popular ballot. Michael Heath, former president of the Christian Civic League had made it clear that he intended to bring the issue to voters next spring in June, but some of his compatriots didn't get the memo, or the affront to their religious sensibilities was too much to bear for an additional 7 months, so they are shooting for a November vote instead of waiting. They will have until sometime in August to gather 55,087 valid signatures for a citizen's initiative.

I'd suspect they will manage to get the signatures in that time. They have the summer. What else do they have to do besides sitting around and wringing their hands and worrying about what gays are up to? It will give them purpose.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Didn't you just contradict your first sentence? Used-car salesmanship is marketing, whether it is deceptive or not (*gasp* - a political campaign could be deceptive? *gasp*).

Selling by a lie is not the same as selling by the truth. Do you mean to say that you really don't know the difference?

In either case, I don't see this as being deceptive because: So when the government took over failing banks, you wouldn't call that "nationalizing" them? Here's what happens when a bank fails:

Again you are misdirecting the discussion. Obama had the chance to nationalize the banks but he didn't.

This is, of course, only one example of a socialistic policy democrats advocate. There are many, many others. What we are getting with the newfound power of the democrats is a major shift toward the socialist end of the economic spectrum - the biggest this country has seen since the New Deal.

How many Republicans want to eliminate the FDIC? If the democrats are socialists, then so are the Republicans. The fact is that we implement both capitalist and socialist strategies to manage society. But, the key is whether we want private ownership of banks and businesses, or government ownership. Obama has specifically avoided the latter in favor of private ownership. This is a clear and definitive signal that he is not a socialist.

Because of the failed republican ideology that no regulation is good regulation - that markets are best left to regulate themselves - we now have no choice but for the government to intervene for the sake of the public good and even national security. There is a difference between doing what has to be done because the sky is falling, and chosing to do something based on some ideology. And recognizing that the free market failed doesn't make us socialists either. It means that as we always do, we will find a balance between pure socialism, and pure capitalism, neither or which actually exist.

Your position is no different than the Republican claim that allowing any tax increases are socialism. The fact is that we accepted the need for taxes - a redistribution of wealth, which is what all taxes are - long ago. It is one thing to support more taxes or less taxes, but we all recognize the need for taxes. If that makes us socialists, then we are all socialists and have been since 1861. In that event, the Republicans should just admit that they too are socialists and quit trying to deceive the public with McCarthy-style tactics.

 

[Al68]

But, the key is whether we want private ownership of banks and businesses, or government ownership. Obama has specifically avoided the latter in favor of private ownership. This is a clear signal that he is not a socialist.

If we use the word "ownership" to mean decision making power instead of whose name is on a piece of paper, then it is definitely not true that Obama favors "private" ownership of banks. Clearly he believes government should have significant decision making power (ownership) of banks to say the least.

The fact is that we accepted the need for taxes - a redistribution of wealth, which is what all taxes are - long ago.

That's funny, since libertarians like myself have always opposed wealth redistribution (theft), yet have never opposed taxes in general.

As far as the word socialist, is there a different word or phrase that could be used that would clearly and concisely describe the types of policies that Democrats generally favor, that are opposed by economic libertarians?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If we use the word "ownership" to mean decision making power instead of whose name is on a piece of paper, then it is definitely not true that Obama favors "private" ownership of banks. Clearly he believes government should have significant decision making power (ownership) of banks to say the least. That's funny, since libertarians like myself have always opposed wealth redistribution (theft), yet have never opposed taxes in general.

Really, why is that? If you mean that we are stipulating the terms of a loan provided by the US treasury, then that is called Capitalism - the man with the gold makes the rules. You can't get much more capitalist than that!

Or is it your position that if one entity, like a bank, loans money to another entity, like you, that they shouldn't be able to state the terms of the loan? Now YOU are promoting socialism [or something like it]. You are arguing that someone should tell the banks and other entities that loan money how they can do business.

As far as the word socialist, is there a different word or phrase that could be used that would clearly and concisely describe the types of policies that Democrats generally favor, that are opposed by economic libertarians?

That may be true, but you lost the argument over a century ago.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When the banks and other finanacial institutions became so large and so entangled in a web of worthless derivatives that, if they began to fail, national security was in jeopardy, the free market ceased to exist. The first job of the Federal Government is to provide for the security of the nation. Therefore, the Feds had a Constitutional responsibility to act to prevent a disaster.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution defines us. What the Republicans are arguing is that it would be better betray the Constitution than to violate their ideology. Therefore, they [the ones promoting this socialist nonsense] are definitively un-American. They would prefer to lie and allow the economy to collapse rather than admit they are wrong.

 

[ExactlySolved]

If you mean that we are stipulating the terms of a loan provided by the US treasury, then that is called Capitalism - the man with the gold makes the rules. You can't get much more capitalist than that!

You are ignoring the fact that "the man with the gold" is the government, and an economy in which the government taxes it citizens and redistributes their wealth is, for better or worse, not a free market.

Furthermore, when the government takes in active role in redistributing wealth (capital), then the economy cannot be called capitalist, since by definition capitalism requires completely private ownership of capital.

 

[turbo]

The government has been actively involved in re-distributing wealth for many years, and not just through taxation and subidies. I watch my savings earning practically nothing because the present and previous Fed chairmen have aggressively pushed low interest rates for banks, and the banks' rates for savings accounts will never exceed that. Want to discourage savings? Give banks money at VERY low interest rates so they never have to give private depositors a fair shake.

I would have invested in real estate, but I have been aware of the over-valuation of most real estate (even undeveloped land) for years. I'm now riding out the market hoping that my mutual funds eventually regain at least some of the value that they once had. My wife and I are very conservative financially, and we're going to find ways to ride this out, but it sucks seeing discipline and fiscal conservatism being punished while the oligarchs get all the perks.

 

[LowlyPion]

Huckabee seems confused. On the one hand he wants to be inclusive, but on the other, he doesn't seem to recognize that the problem is not throwing the Socially Conservative out of the party, but driving away any moderates that are Economic Conservatives, with the zeal of the Socially Conservative to see all moderates replaced and the Nation adopting their hard right social values. I think it is this ideological schism that has basically brought the Republicans to their current situation. And unfortunately their dilemma seems to be a monkey trap they can't let go of.

TD: Are you contemplating another run for the presidency?

MH: Not right now. I know everybody thinks that's all I'm sitting around doing, but I'm busier than a one-armed paper hanger with a seven-year itch, as the saying goes. If that opportunity affords itself, I may or may not pursue it.

Right now, I think the key for the Republicans is not "who" but "what"? What do we stand for and who's going to stand for it?

I'm frustrated with all these people who are jockeying for the position to be the "leader." It's almost like we're worried about who's going to be the drum major and we don't have a piece of music yet.

TD: Where do you stand on which direction the Republican party should take a more ideologically pure, perhaps smaller party, or a broader, and possibly larger coalition of interests?

MH: To me that's not the choice. The choice is, "Are we going to be a party that stands for what the Republicans have historically stood for, which is limited government, lower taxes, authority of mothers and fathers not government to raise kids, respect for human life and the dignity of each human life, national security."

Those are fundamental Republican principles. I don't think we ought to start dividing within that.

Here's what I find: People that are social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a lot of the economic conservatives are not social conservatives. Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs [the short-lived 19th century political party].

They'll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party.

Because the energy that is supplied for knocking on doors and working neighborhoods and getting out the vote, it comes from people who are passionate about human life and about traditional marriage. Those are the same people that believe in national security, less government and lower taxes.

I see people saying, "Well, we don't really want to get into these issues like 'life'." You do that and you lose the evangelicals, you lose the Catholics, you lose basically a whole lot of people who aren't even religious but through common sense know that that's a ridiculous position to take and call yourself conservative.

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20090508/NEWS01/905080327

 

[Al68]

Really, why is that? If you mean that we are stipulating the terms of a loan provided by the US treasury, then that is called Capitalism - the man with the gold makes the rules. You can't get much more capitalist than that!

Or is it your position that if one entity, like a bank, loans money to another entity, like you, that they shouldn't be able to state the terms of the loan? Now YOU are promoting socialism [or something like it]. You are arguing that someone should tell the banks and other entities that loan money how they can do business.

Obviously, this is not what I was referring to. But you knew that.

As far as the word socialist, is there a different word or phrase that could be used that would clearly and concisely describe the types of policies that Democrats generally favor, that are opposed by economic libertarians?

That may be true, but you lost the argument over a century ago.

What argument? That people should be free? Libertarians didn't lose the argument, just the battle. I know all too well we have consistently lost battles to those that disagree. But the battles were lost to force, not reason. And Ben Franklin was right that "force ----s upon reason's back."

Saying we lost the argument is like saying a murder victim "lost the argument" that he shouldn't be murdered.

But my question was, what word or phrase could be used instead of "socialist"?

 

[Count Iblis]

Cheney has something to say:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMy6C2AiBsrQQ-jwPliaZANmi7kQD983HB282"

Dick Cheney made clear Sunday he'd rather follow firebrand broadcaster Rush Limbaugh than former Joint Chiefs chairman Colin Powell into political battle over the future of the Republican Party.

 

[WhoWee]

Huckabee seems confused. On the one hand he wants to be inclusive, but on the other, he doesn't seem to recognize that the problem is not throwing the Socially Conservative out of the party, but driving away any moderates that are Economic Conservatives, with the zeal of the Socially Conservative to see all moderates replaced and the Nation adopting their hard right social values. I think it is this ideological schism that has basically brought the Republicans to their current situation. And unfortunately their dilemma seems to be a monkey trap they can't let go of.

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20090508/NEWS01/905080327

Think of it as the "Tea PArty effect", Huckabee might just be one of the rallying points to the middle that will attract all of those independents and not so left Dems...and not necessarily as the candidate...just as an organizing leader. Huckabee is comfort food for young politicians that want to chart their own course and think for themselves...not follow a hard party line.

 

[LowlyPion]

Think of it as the "Tea PArty effect", Huckabee might just be one of the rallying points to the middle that will attract all of those independents and not so left Dems...and not necessarily as the candidate...just as an organizing leader. Huckabee is comfort food for young politicians that want to chart their own course and think for themselves...not follow a hard party line.

I think Huckabee's problem is that he is an affable Ron Paul.
(Though I will admit I think he is at least a brain transplant more than Sarah Palin.) As to the Tea Party effect, I see none. A couple of impotent web sites? Glen Beck's infantile posturings?

As long as the Socially Conservative goonies think that they can run the Circus inside the Republican Tent, they are going to be offering very little to the fiscally conservative elements of the electorate. The country has already seen where their ideological principals have led, and I doubt they will readily want to go there again. As long as they are determined to run "ideologically" pure candidates, at the expense of more centrist fiscal moderates, it seems their Social ideologies will keep them as a clear minority.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney has something to say:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMy6C2AiBsrQQ-jwPliaZANmi7kQD983HB282"

That is a perfect example of the problem with the Republican Party. Why did Cheney say that? I think it is because he doesn't agree with Powell, so in Cheney's mind, that makes Powell a Democrat. In other words, if you don't agree with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, you are the enemy. There is no room left for anything but extremist views.

Not that long ago, Powell was one of THE most respected Republicans in the country; in fact he probably still holds the title.
The disparity between Powell's popularity and Cheney's statements shows that the Republican party philosophy has become exclusive to all but a few. The official R party is becoming a political cult.

 

[Al68]

That is a perfect example of the problem with the Republican Party. Why did Cheney say that? I think it is because he doesn't agree with Powell, so in Cheney's mind, that makes Powell a Democrat. In other words, if you don't agree with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, you are the enemy. There is no room left for anything but extremist views.

The Republican Party long ago left those of us so extremist as to still believe in federalism and individual liberty, by moving to the so-called left.

Of course it's impossible for any politician to represent libertarians without Democrats pretending to not understand the difference between a libertarian and "being on the side of the rich" and screaming bloody murder. And being successful in their fraud.

I guess libertarians just need to accept our disenfranchisement and give up.

 

[WhoWee]

That is a perfect example of the problem with the Republican Party. Why did Cheney say that? I think it is because he doesn't agree with Powell, so in Cheney's mind, that makes Powell a Democrat. In other words, if you don't agree with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, you are the enemy. There is no room left for anything but extremist views.

Not that long ago, Powell was one of THE most respected Republicans in the country; in fact he probably still holds the title.
The disparity between Powell's popularity and Cheney's statements shows that the Republican party philosophy has become exclusive to all but a few. The official R party is becoming a political cult.

I think Cheney meant to say something more along the lines of...Republicans (chose him and) allowed Powell to rise...then he turned and bit the hand of the party that nurtured him but not until it (was safe and) looked like Obama would win.

Powell is not a Democrat and was never a conservative Republican...do you ever remember him declaring where he stood on issues...other than defense?

Powell gravitates to power.

 

[LowlyPion]

I guess libertarians just need to accept our disenfranchisement and give up.

That's a good suggestion.

Tell Glen Beck he can pack it in too.

 

[LowlyPion]

In other words, if you don't agree with Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, you are the enemy. There is no room left for anything but extremist views.

Certainly the major kowtowing has been to Limbaugh. Any discouraging comment about their addict ideologue entertainer and they have to then prostrate themselves with abject apologies. That's where the needle of the Republican compass points.

Cheney on the other hand no longer looks to be a leader. He has no apparent real constituency. He looks to be a toothless ex-VP making the talk show rounds in an attempt to likely fend off prosecution for his part in the torturing, more than he is advancing any Republican agenda. He's trying to carve out some corner in history that he can hide out in. But as to Cheney, I doubt there are that many Republicans that care about what happens to him, or will rise to defend him if he is prosecuted. No one will likely ever apologize to him for being derogatory or have any need to.

 

[Phrak]

The article reflects the hopeful dreaming of the Democrat leaning CNN. This isn't the first time one party pundant has gone googly over the pending demise of the other. Like http://plentyandpoverty.blogspot.com/2008/03/demise-of-democratic-party.html" . Just google "demise of the X party". Where are the other articles supporting this theory?

I surely hope we don't obtain a one party govenment anytime soon. Some states are already there.

 

[turbo]

He's trying to carve out some corner in history that he can hide out in. But as to Cheney, I doubt there are that many Republicans that care about what happens to him, or will rise to defend him if he is prosecuted. No one will likely ever apologize to him for being derogatory or have any need to.

Since the security of the US would have been in jeopardy had they traveled together while in office, Cheney and Bush should go on a triumphal international jaunt together. I hear the Hague is nice this time of year.

 

[Al68]

I guess libertarians just need to accept our disenfranchisement and give up.

That's a good suggestion.

LOL. I was joking. Liberty is too important to just give up on.

 

[LowlyPion]

Since the security of the US would have been in jeopardy had they traveled together while in office, Cheney and Bush should go on a triumphal international jaunt together. I hear the Hague is nice this time of year.

Maybe we can get some school kids to collect lunch monies and work a deal with Travelocity? Den Haag is a lovely city this time of year. The beach is a little chilly, but the tulips are nice. Maybe find a Spanish guide to give them a tour of the Courts there?

 

[Phrak]

Maybe we can get some school kids to collect lunch monies and work a deal with Travelocity? Den Haag is a lovely city this time of year. The beach is a little chilly, but the tulips are nice. Maybe find a Spanish guide to give them a tour of the Courts there?

When did the Dutch decide that they would clad some of their own in superior robs and judge the rest of us, created so much lower? I mean really. Why don't you draw up a scenerio where they are thrown in the pen and get gang raped or something. Wouldn't that be fun? Youall are practically foaming at the mouth to have others do what you would find immoral.

This is surely the thread of gleeful expectations.

 

[Count Iblis]

The article reflects the hopeful dreaming of the Democrat leaning CNN. This isn't the first time one party pundant has gone googly over the pending demise of the other. Like http://plentyandpoverty.blogspot.com/2008/03/demise-of-democratic-party.html" . Just google "demise of the X party". Where are the other articles supporting this theory?

I surely hope we don't obtain a one party govenment anytime soon. Some states are already there.

You could also end up with three parties if the Republican Party splits into a Conservative Party and a what we would call in Europe a "Liberal" Party, where "Liberal" means being in favor of deregulation, less government, lower taxes, people having to take more responsiblity for their social security, etc. etc.

But this "Liberal" Party will not be in favor of banning gay marriage, be in avor of stem cell research, abortion remaining legal, etc. etc. These social issues would not be controversial within this party.

 

[LowlyPion]

When did the Dutch decide that they would clad some of their own in superior robs and judge the rest of us, created so much lower? I mean really. Why don't you draw up a scenerio where they are thrown in the pen and get gang raped or something. Wouldn't that be fun? Youall are practically foaming at the mouth to have others do what you would find immoral.

This is surely the thread of gleeful expectations.

Since they don't think water-boarding is torture, why do imagine that your suggested scenario is so extreme?

As to the Court at the Hague that is an International Tribunal established by Chapter XIV of the UN Charter. The US as a member and signatory is bound by its decisions. Surely conservatives who preach personal responsibility for ones actions wouldn't want Bush and Cheney not to own up and take personal responsibility for their own. What kind of example does that set for the children?

As to expectations, I rather take a more cynical view of any potential outcome that would be adverse to their freedoms, though I am certainly prepared to be hopeful that their rightful legacy in history will be more fully developed and exposed and the world can learn maybe a little more about the ability of power to corrupt.