There’s a great editorial in the New York Times by John Danforth, which I hope every Republican politician takes to heart:
John Danforth is the perfect person to deliver this message, which I agree with heartily. Not only was he a senator and recent ambassador to the U.N. under Bush II, but he is an Episcopal minister, and presided over Ronald Reagan’s funeral.
Anyone else read this? Think it will have any effect on Republicans?
Ever heard of words falling on deaf ears?
The pubbie leadership wants the party to be where it is.
A used to be senator ain’t going to change a thing.
I’m also pleased to read such a strident editorial from a prominent Republican. I agreed with every word. Alone, I doubt whether Danforth’s stand will have any tangible effect on future Republican policy decisions but if, as I fervently hope, this article represents the first shot in a counter-offensive against the Republican’s evangelical wing then it could conceivably lead to a reluctance of subsequent Republican administrations to play to the extremists.
While the cynic in me believes we’ll all be picking bacon out of the trees before that happens, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed just in case 
You know, what with the Republicans selling out to the Christian right, and the Democrats moving towards the MoveOn crowd, coupled with the fact that for the first time in a long time there is no obvious successor to the President from his own party, I’m thinking the time may be ripe for a third party. Conditions are perhaps better today for a third party to have major influence than at any time since John Anderson ran.
I read through it and said, “Well duh.”
As a conservative and a GOP member, I’ve either been left behind or gotten ahead of the curve. Sometimes I can’t tell the practical difference between the two.
Well yeah, of course it was obvious. The point is that a major figure in the Republican party has published a pretty tough op-ed against his own party in the New York Times. That’s not common.
Funny how Danforth waited until he was OUT of politics to denounce the religious right, just as Barry Goldwater waited until after he’d won what he knew would be his last term. It’s easy to denounce people whose votes you aren’t seeking.
I never had much respect for Danforth, and I have even less now.
Regardless, his opinion never carried much weight with conservatives, and it carries less now. He’s simply confirmed what most of us on the right already suspected: that he looked down on us.
[sub]Psst! Zell Miller[/sub]
I’ve heard this sentiment echoed a few times since Bush flew back to DC in the middle of the night to sign the Schiavo bill–people are shocked, SHOCKED to find that the religious right has a firm grip on the testicles of the Republican Party.
I can only assume that such people have been asleep for a few years. The President you’ve just elected is revered by many primarily for his inability to go for more than a few sentences without giving props to God, and he started his last term with faith-based initiatives and won a second term primarily by sticking it to the homos. For the most part, once you get to the state and even local level it gets even worse. The religious right doesn’t just have inordinate power in the GOP–they are in charge, at every level, and they have been for a while now.
I think you overestimate the power of the “MoveOn crowd”, but you’re probably right. I have no idea why someone with Libertarian leanings would want to vote for the Republicans; the idea that they might make government smaller or be more economically responsible just doesn’t hold up to the evidence, and at least the Democrats don’t care as much who you pray to or sleep with.
Exactly.
Or, as Billmon said yesterday:
Actually, the big opening for a third party was in the early to mid 1990s. There was this guy named Perot, you remember.
Most of your reading is based on your belief in your own propaganda. There’s little evidence that the “MoveOn crowd” represents some far-out left, and a lot of evidence that they simply want the Dems to take strong stands for the things that Dems supposedly already believe in, but are willing to compromise on at the drop of a hat. I assert that MoveOn wouldn’t need to exist, and would attract little notice, if we lived in a world where one could reliably assume that at least 41 Senate Democrats would have voted against cloture on a measure such as the bankruptcy bill.
So there’s no real conservative Democratic minority to be peeled off into a third party; the Democratic party is already there. The challenge for the Dems is that of reliably differentiating themselves from an increasingly conservative GOP. If the party was in danger of being pulled way off to the left, that wouldn’t be a problem, now would it?
And on the GOP side, there’s the evangelicals, the pro-business wing, and the economic libertarians. The latter two groups need the evangelicals, and they know it. End of story.
So right now, there isn’t any underserved center out there that could serve as the basis for a third party. What the Dems stand for now - when they’re actually willing to stand for it - and what Perot stood for in 1992, aren’t really very different at all.
[Beavis and/or Butthead] Huh-huh. He stuck it to homos.[/Beavis and/or Butthead]
The only way things will change for the republicans, or for that matter any political party, is when the amount of votes recieved changes. To make matters worse, the amount of votes would have to change dramatically. Things will never change if we get more 51%-49% elections.
Somebody has to win big and somebody has to lose big.
Not surprising, since the media was so quick to dismiss the Schiavo case as a religious right issue (which it wasn’t, even though many on the religious right sided with the parents).
Danforth is right. The Repulican party that once championed such things as less intrusive government, individual freedom (and responsibility), and inclusion rather than exclusion, has become the property of wannabe theocrats and borderline fascists.
This is a joke, right? :dubious:
The idea of the GOP moving towards the far right has been blindingly obvious for years now. The idea that the DNC has been moving in the opposite direction, however, is grounded only in the distorted reporting of the conservative media.
If I had a nickel for every pissed-off leftie who wished the DNC would grow a spine and move back to the left of the political spectrum – instead of playing wanna-be Republican-lites – I’d buy a tropical island and retire early.
The GOP actively courted and embraced the God, Guns, and Gays contingent as part of the Southern Strategy. A complaint that they expect their agenda to be advanced as part of the deal rings pretty hollow.
Here’s a clue, John - and a hint as to why you’re out of the Senate and your state elected John Ashcroft: THEY’RE in charge of the party now. They’re not leaving. They’re not going to let you moderate RINO’s control a damn thing beyond the level necessary to keep your votes and the threadbare majority it gives them. It isn’t your party anymore - it’s theirs. You can accommodate yourself to it or leave. But stop whining about it - *you * sowed the whirlwind. You want to balance the budget, protect the environment, be part of the world community, you say? Not as a 21st Century Republican, you’re not. That’s over. You can advance those goals, but not without a little paperwork change first, knowhatimean?
Back to the left of the spectrum? Like who, specifically?
Because when I look back at those Democrats who’ve actually gotten to eat the big chicken dinner on Inauguration Day, I see folks who’re for the most part well to the right of the MoveOn crowd. LBJ, it should be noted, was a firm believer in national defense, and a committed anti-Communist. Opposition to his candidacy in 1968 came primarily from the left wing of his own party.
Bill Clinton, for all of his faults, was similarly a moderate, as was Kennedy. Truman was certainly a liberal, but again, that was in the context of the day when liberals weren’t afraid to advocate a strong national defense and vigorous opposition to totalitarianism. I’ve noted before this difference between Truman and MoveOn members, and I can only imagine the stream of profanity he’d direct at them for being not only wrong, but political losers to boot.
The genuine liberals that’ve run since the Democratic implosion in 1968, when the party really was taken over for a long time by its loony left wing, are noteworthy for their losing records. Where are the stirring books that will be written about the McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry presidencies? The noteworthy exception here, Carter, is instructive because he was in many ways the most moderate one of the bunch, he was elected by a very close margin and then promptly unelected when the Republican Party unscrewed itself after Watergate.
Folks like you keep saying the Democrats will naturally win if they run as unalloyed liberals. I really think this is wishful thinking, given this sorry track record. If you want to give it yet another shot, though, be my guest.
I think that he issue is deeply related to rational ignorance.
Since it takes so much money to run a campaign, office seekers and their parties are heavily beholden to those who can supply the cash. Those who can suppkly the ash are artificial persons whose interests are rather narrow and do not necessarily reflect the interests of any buit a small segment of the electorate. However, the small segment group of people are given influence that’s greatly disproportionate to their numbers.
The only way for the electorate to take back the system is for the scope of activities of artifical persons re legislatures to be curtailed dramatically. When aps are forced to deal with the electorate in the open rather than with congresscritters in the proverbial smoke-filled-backrooms, then not only will the USG will become more responsive to the needs of the electorate, but the electorate will be better informed as to where their interests actually lie.
We don’t allow artificial persons to vote, why should we allow them to write legislation?
Didn’t Ashcroft lose? To a dead man?
I don’t think anti-Communist is much of a factor anymore. Nor do I think many Dems are actually anti-defense. We must be careful not to brand everyone that doesn’t feel the need to give the Pentagon every toy they want as anti-defense. As time goes on, needs change. Bush41 and his Congress cut a lot of fat from the defense budget as a “peace dividend.” Was he anti-defense? If he was, so was Dick Cheney who pushed for these cuts. The game is in perception. Every congressman has to vote on a myriad of issues over his term, and unless one votes aye for each and every thing that has a defense budget in it, it’s going to be construed as being soft on defense. For whatever reason, only Democrats are vulnerable to being torpedoed every time any no vote is cast.
Back to Sen. Danforth. If only there were more like him. Give me the Republicans like Bob Dole and Bill Milliken, like Gerald Ford and even Dan Quayle. That’s an opposition party I can respect. The modern Repulican party has sold its soul to the fundamentalist gun-toting gay-haters. They’ve abandoned principle in favor of cold formulas for getting special interest votes. May their days be numbered.