Interesting piece here.
As they say in the subhead: “Transforming modern Republicanism into something less partisan might be like teaching a boa constrictor which fork to use at dinner.”
The article was extremely left leaning and while I don’t disagree with any of it, it hardly covered the subject of the Republican Party changing. We need to wait and see what happens with Obama as President and the Dems controlling both houses. There is a small chance that the Senate will get to 60 Democrats. Ted Stevens is now losing by 800+ votes in the Alaskan count and Minnesota will have a recount that probably favors Al Franken. That and if one Republican Senator accepts a post in the Cabinet, the Dems will have the magic 60+ numbers.
This is the kind of change that can cause the Republican party to fragment and reform. Maybe the Fiscal Conservatives and Moderates will surge back to power and bring the party back to rational thought that is once had. If Steven’s loses in Alaska, Palin’s best chance of going to DC evaporates and she will probably fade away into a footnote.
I did like the credit given “The Daily Show” but I think the article gave him too much credit. I am a diehard TDS fan and I know that shows viewership is not really that large.
Jim
Georgia is still up for grabs too. IIRC they will have another election soon (per their laws). Hard to say who will win. Chambliss (R) polls better but Buckley (a third party candidate) will not be on the ballot and they suspect more of those to go to Martin (D). Also, Obama left quite a GOTV machine on the ground in Georgia. Better than the Republicans had. That might be enough to tilt things in Martin’s favor.
Here is an article someone else linked to in another thread with the three races too close to call.
Here is the CNN 2008 Senate coverage page: Senate, Governor, Local Congressional District Results - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
Then we still have the potential nomination of a Republican Senator for a Cabinet post from a State where a Democratic Governor appoints the replacement.
I don’t see the specifics of these races as being at all relevant to the author’s main point, which is that the Republicans have a history of blowing off opportunities for bipartisanship, regardless of how the house or senate is actually balanced.
Sorry lost in my ramble was my point that once the Republicans experience being a complete minority party they may well change to a more moderate and bipartisan party again. They use to be this way and they could return to it, especially if the Dems can hold power for 8 years and not just 2 or 4.
After 30 years of success with slash and burn? I’m not holding my breath.
Probably a very good idea. 
Haven’t the Republicans been changing pretty much continuously since their inception? Democrats too? Haven’t Republicans changed pretty significantly just since the Reagan era?
It doesn’t sound like this guy is asking if Republicans will change, he’s asking if there is any hope of them all becoming Democrats. The answer is an obvious no. :rolleyes:
On the other hand, they might change and become more extreme, as moderates in moderate states get defeated because of the unpopularity of the Republican brand.
The extreme right, whose moralism is build on religion, is never going to become moderates. They are never going to compromise and accept a Lieberman instead of a Palin. The party could become moderate if these people get marginalized by the pragmatists, who would rather win elections than have the religiously correct view on everything. They can get marginalized if there is an influx of independents thanks to a charismatic moderate candidate. They might get marginalized if new and young voters reject them. Or, they might be a big enough block to stop moderate candidates from either getting nominated or running as moderates, though I think that if a moderate of the McCain stripe gets nominated in 2012, he’d probably tell the extremists to take their VP choice and shove him or her.
That’s pretty thin. Most Republicans left really want their seats, and don’t want to give them up just to be a backbencher in the Obama cabinet.
Remember, people in the cabinet have to want to be there.
We’ll see what happens, epecially if it is a good post like Defense. But I see your point.
How do they consider it 30 years of success? You had Reagan in 80 and 84, Bush Sr in 88 (back before Republican = Right Wing Religeous Fanantics and Ignorant NASCAR Hillbillies) but then you had 8 years of Bill Clinton. Then 8 of Bush W, now Obama. I would say 30 years of about a 50% success rate.
I hate having to vote for Democrats (even dreamy smooth talkin’ ones like Obama, the blackest President since Bill Clinton). I wish the religeous fundamentalists and redneck morons would go form their own party so the Republicans can go back to being the party of old wealthy white dudes like it was in the 80s.
Wealthy old white dudes like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?
1980 WAS the Year of the ascent of the Christian Right. To treat it as a 1990’s phenomena is a major misreading of history.
Candidate in 1992- Dad Bush, '96- Dole, '00 & '04- W Bush, '08- McCain: All of them wealthy white dudes, not a fund’ist or redneck in the bunch.
And those Fund’ists & Rednecks are a LOT of voters- Good luck beating the Democrats by alienating those voters.
The Democrats managed to marginalize their extremists - the over the top Feminists, the actual Socialists, the Very Greens. They are still around - though in some cases, they’ve left to be part of their own marginalized efforts (Vote Nadar!) - but the party pays more lips service - or takes baby steps - to some of their platforms than showing a dedication to it (as the liberals who claim Bill Clinton was a Republican show).
Which included the Newt Gingrich years. Besides, Clinton was a centrist, not a liberal – there wasn’t exactly a lot of '60s-style activist legislation going on during that period. The Pubbies were setting the tone and setting the limits.
The parties don’t really have to change. What most people don’t realize is the two party systems makes both party very centered. I did a paper for college in the early 80s on McGovern and Nixon. I was SHOCKED to see how close they were on the issues. This really blows people away till they do the research. They weren’t that far apart.
The press and the media make it seem as such.
In reality Obama makes left leaning liberal promises, people say “Oh I like him,” and he knows darn well they’ll never happen because he can’t do much on his own and he can say “It’s the fault of Congress.” And it’s not just Obama every president does this.
Most Americans are in near total ignorance of how the government really works. In reality because of the equal representation in the Senate and the committee system you have to give a lot to get back a little. This is pork, or I should say what’s pork to one is not pork to another.
That was a long time ago, and proves nothing either way about modern America.
And our present system isn’t “centered”; it’s well to the Right, with effectively no real options for non-right wingers.