Is the Republican party done for?
 

Another Democratic special election win

This makes it 3-for-3 for special elections this year. Prospects are not looking for for the Republicans in the fall. Is this just the pendulum swinging back towards the party that's been out of power for awhile, or does it signal a sea-change in the U.S. political system?

Could the Republican party split? Maybe we could end up with a three party system, with the old Democratic party going further left, a centrist party, and a far-right party? So much of our political infrastructure is designed for the two-party system that this seems hard to imagine, but stranger things have happened.

The neocons will lose most of their power for the time being once Obama wins. The GOP will become more libertarian again and things will go back to normal. Right now the Dems are the centrist party.

I can see a day where the more moderate from both parties split off and come together in the middle as a new party.

That isn't going to happen yet, though. And not likely from the Republicans.

I can still see something weird happening at the Democratic convention involving Hillary, her getting the nomination, the hardcore Obama supporters jumping to McCain to spite her, McCain winning, and the Democrats splitting.

Of course, that is still about as likely as one of those "Hillary runs with Bill, wins, resigns, then is appointed VP" theories, so we're stuck with what we've got.

The MS win was a shocker....in the reddest of red districts. Bush won this district by 25 points in 04. The Repub candidate ran ads attempting to tie Childers to Obama, along with ads with the Rev Wright videos...didnt work.

The extent to which the Repubs are in denial can be found in the words of the House Minority Leader:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) tonight responded to the MS-01 special election results with this cautionary statement:

“The results in MS-01 should serve as a wake-up call to Republican candidates nationwide. As I’ve said before, this is a change election, and if we want Americans to vote for us we have to convince them that we can fix Washington. Our presidential nominee, Senator McCain, is an agent of change; candidates who hope to succeed must show that they’re willing and able to join McCain in a leading movement for reform. We need to stop wasteful Washington spending, fight and win the war on terror, and stop the largest tax increase in history. That is truly the change the American people deserve -- and that is a message on which we can succeed.”

So what is McCain running on....permanent tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners, no definable end to the occupation in Iraq, no health care reform plan and a stated lack of interest/expertise in an economic plan....that's change?

I've been seeing counts that the Dems could pick up 12-15 seats in the House this year (after 30+ in 06) and up to 6 seats in the Senate....giving them much more workable majorities.

Will has it right...the Dems have been running centrist candidates to attract Independents and its working, while the Repubs cling to their social conservative base.

I think its the start of another relatively long term trend (10+ year) trend.

More threatening to McCain (and the Repub party) was the announcement yesterday by former Repub Congressmen Bob Barr that he is running for the libertarian nomination for president....and he is running on the Ron Paul platform....cut the size of government, stop the infringement of personal liberties and bring the troops home.

He has to win the Libertarian nomination at their convention later this month..but he is now the front runner and the first big name tht the Libertarian party has ever had as a potential candidate. One republican pollster fears that Barr could get up to 5-7% (no Libertarian has ever won more than 1%) of the vote in Nov if disaffected Repubs (including Ron Paul supporters) turn out for him. That could be the difference in several close states, even more so that Nader in 2000 (he won less than 3%).

Ron Paul supporters are also planning to try to upstage McCain at the Republican convention...another bad sign for McCain and Repub candidates on his coattails.

DJ, there's no way Obamists (myself included in that group, now) will vote for McCain. Even with maximum spite. If McCain wins, it will be because Hillary gave up running like a Democrat months ago and Obama was cheated.

Barr gives me pause. If Paul switched to Libertarian (WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN), he'd die off, but Paul maintaining he's a Republican means that Barr stands a chance of doing what Badnarik couldn't: attracting pissed off Republicans.

Could this be 1992, where a Clinton wins with a bare plurality because of a third-party candidate stealing Republican votes?

Paul has indicated he wont endorse McCain...particularly because of McCain's never-ending occupation of Iraq (and his belligerence towards Iran).

If Paul comes out and endorses Barr, then many of his troops are likely to follow....and that spells trouble for Republicans.

And many old core Repubs still praise Barr for his leadership role in the House on the Clinton impeachment.

Even if that is the case, what if they don't vote, or vote Green, or otherwise don't vote for Hillary?

If the Libertarians can get something rolling and goofy things start happening at the Dems' convention, this could be a very interesting election.

Might end up with McCain keeping enough of his base together to eek out a plurality, but with a lot of pissed-off people on both sides, and a potentially strong Democratic Congress with a weak Republican president.

Put a fork in Clinton....she's done, even with her big win in WV today. She has one more win in her - KY, next week, while Obama wins OR, SD and PR.

At this point, she is hoping to recoup some of her $20 million in outstanding debts....and it sounds more and more like she is pushing quietly for the VP slot, putting Obama in a tough position.

Of course.
Paul won't do that. He's too stuborn. He'll run until the very end. And you're right in thinking it doesn't make sense. But that's his game.
All I care about is splitting the GOP vote. The less people vote for McCain, the better.
What I was saying is that at this point, considering the delegates, Obama would have to be cheated to lose the Dem nomination. And yes, I suspect that if he were cheated, a lot of his supporters would not vote Dem, which could result in a GOP white house (as I said).

I might vote Green again.
A strong Dem congress is WAY more important than the presidency. I don't know why people can't grasp that. This is why I was so disappointed in 2006 and why I was especially disappointed that the Dem majority has crumbled on several key issues. The power is in the House and Senate. As soon as someone gets those car crashes under control, we can start undoing the damage Bush has done.

It will be interesting to follow the Ron Paul blogsophere to see if they will move towards Barr without Paul's endorsement or stick with their guy who wont be on the ballot in Nov.

That is, after they disrupt the Repub Convention.

Absolutely...particularly a fillibuster proof Senate (they are likely to fall a few short of the magic number of 60...they might hit 57-58)

Who are "the moderates" from both parties? What are their common interests, besides personal concerns about fuel prices and "the economy"? Do you think that people who want new laws passed that put doctors who perform abortions and/or women who choose to have abortions, in jail, to prevent the procedure from being available, and people who believe the abortion issue is "settled law", are going to come together under one political tent?

I don't see many republican "moderates", and neither does the senate voting record show many..... There will be no "jumping" to McCain. What would be the attraction of McCain's candidacy, for an Obama supporter, compared to sitting out the general election? Nobody who supports Obama wants to endure what American life will be like during four more years of McBush!

OUR EMERGING CONCERN IS THE "WINGERIZATION" RAMPANT IN THE OFFICER RANKS IN OUR MILITARY.

I don't know it seems to me that more and more of the officer ranks are seeing the GOP for what they are. Of course given the Bush and Co. stance on those that disagree or say what they don't want to hear many of these men and women are "lurking." But I almost feel that once his term is over you're going to see many higher rank people write "I tried to tell them" books.

Other then that I agree with most of what you wrote.

Why should Ron have always been Libertarian?

I don't get what you're saying. Paul is running for the Republican nomination. Barr will be running for President in the general election. This means they aren't even competing against each other. Unless you're implying Ron is going to run third party or independent, which doesn't seem like the case at this point.

I don't think a Barr endorsement would be totally out of the question from Paul.

This is a FUN thread!

Mind-boggling things said on this thread so far:

1) Hillary stands even the slightest chance to be the nominee, and Obama supporters will vote McCain because of it.

2) Ron Paul fits better in the Republican party than the Libertarian Party.

I don't know if you're referring to what I said, but Ron clearly said why he went Republican instead of Libertarian. Remember he already tried to run for the Libertarians as president.

It's not about fit, it's about ballot access and being marginalized out of debates and for simplying being 'libertarian' you're already a marked loser candidate out of the gates. He said when he ran as a libertarian for president he spent all his time just trying to get on ballots and didn't want to deal with that again.

Barr is a pretty big hitter from the GOP though and could really leave a mark this election considering how disgusting McCain is from a Republican perspective.

Neo-Cons are dead, but the Neo-Cons aren't real Republicans, so no, the GOP isn't dead. rattled, but not dead

Barr doesnt need Paul's endorsement as much as he needs Paul's money machine.

Sam...as a Paul guy, do you think the troops will pony up for Barr?

If they do, I can see Barr getting 5+% of the vote...if they dont, he will suffer the same fate as earlier Libertarians...less than 1%

The Repubs need to figure out who they are and if they are willing to be more flexible to attract moderates who are leaving the party in droves.

The Republican Party is not done for, however, the Bush arm of the party is under appreciated and the Party has lost focus. I believe we will have a Democratic Party controlled Congress and White House (I still think it will be Clinton) after the elections in November. I think she will continue our occupation in Iraq beyond what her base wants. I think she will raise taxes on all Americans, not just the "wealthy". I think she will fail to fix Medicare and social security. I think deficit spending and the debt will continue to increase. I think she will pass a compromised version of her national health care plan, projected costs will be about 10x more than planned. She will be one term and a Republican will win the next election and Republicans will reverse the trend of losing seats in Congress and eventually regain control. History will look back on the Bush administration more favorably over time.

You've heard it here first.

Most polls show that the Republican party is facing serious defections...with the lowest number of self-identified Repubs in years.

From a recent Pew poll:
While the Dems percentage hasnt increased, they are pulling away with the self-identified Independents.

Other polls show an even wider disparity in voter party preference.

Favorable/Unfavorable opinions of:

Democrats (56/35 or 52/41 or 56/38)

Republicans (38/53 or 33/58 or 41/52)

Short answer: No

Long answer: Election swings in the US seem to be based not on policy but perception of culpability. It was only a short time ago that democrats were switching parties like rats leaving a sinking ship, now I will expect to see some Republicans doing the same thing. After years of Democrats stinking up the house, and some wackiness of Bill Clintons early years, the swing voters thought the Republicans could fix it. The problem for the republicans seems to be they took tha as a true change in the countries thought processes to the right and instead of fixing what the people wanted them to fix, they just added their own shenanigans. So now you get voters, many who never saw democrat shenanigans in full force, who swing to the democrats to ‘fix’ it. Only they won’t fix it either, many will assume, wrongly, that the country is more left, and suddenly the republicans will look good again to those voters.

Its like the circle of life only with more graft and less dung beetles.

Even with the low rating of Congress, an ABC poll this week shows the Dems with the highest "trust" or "do a better job" rating of either party in 16 years:

Dems - 53%
Repubs - 32%

The highest percentage the Repub party ever reached was 51% (after 9/11)

The country is centrist but leaning left...or, put another way, leaning away from the social conservative dominated message of the right. As long as the religious right are the face of the Repub party, centrists will continue to turn away.

Don't you listen to host? There is no center any more. We're all rightists.

Seriously, in the not-too-distant past there was a phenomenon involving the "Reagan Democrats" that was supposed to kill the Democratic party. Obviously, that didn't happy. It's possible (not necessarily probably) that there will be "Obama Republicans" in this cycle. That said, I see no signs of either party imploding in the future.

I dunno he kinda treads on thin ice just like all libertarian party candidates. He's very pro drug war which is hard for libertarians to swallow, but at the same time has been a very vocal opponent of the Bush administration (patriot act and wiretaps).

If it was him vs. mccain and obama I'd be voting Barr most likely. I hate his stance on drug war though.

He's had the balls to abandon the radical Neo-con policies, that's very comendable in an age where Republicans have been Bush minions for 8 years.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/773-3.gif

That's gotta hurt. Especially that last one. There are going to be states in play this year that have NEVER been in play before.

Never's a long time. Kansas used to be a blue state. So did Mississippi.

And Illinois used to be a red state.

How about "there are going to be states in play this year that haven't been in play in recent memory"? Or "in our lifetimes"?

The Republicans have come up with a new campaign theme for Congressional candidates...details to be released later today:

"Change You Deserve"

Just one problem....its a trademark of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals for its anti-depressant, Effexor.

Maybe its fitting...there has been nothing more depressing than eight years of Bush.

I dont think the Republican party will inplode, but I do think it is in for a long stretch as the minority party unless they retool to attract the growing number of Independents. There are now more self-identified Independents than Republicans...a bad trend for the Rs.

Independents...

....dont want personal religious beliefs inserted into politics

...dont want a belligerent foreign policy that might put their kids (in the military) at risk in unending incursions in countries that poses no direct threat to the US

...dont want more their personal liberties infringed upon in the name of some undefined threat

...dont want tax breaks for the top 2% of wage earners

...do want a social safety net - particularly affordable health care and job (or income) security

...do want a more open and transparent government

...do want a government that holds the excesses and questionable practices of the private sector in check

...do want a strong and enforceable environmental policy (including global warming)

And these are why more and more Independents are leaning left.

Because he's a libertarian? All things being equal, Al Gore should have run Green, too. They're just reinforcing the idea that a third party is not viable, which is ultimately damaging to the country.
Paul should have stopped running months ago, but he's still going. Even though it's impossible to win (short of McCain being assassinated), he's still campaigning. If he's campaigning when it's impossible now, why would he stop when the convention names McCain as their candidate? He may not be making reasonable decisions, but he's consistent.

Pedant! ;)

The Repubs aren't done for but they will be a minority party for at least the next decade, and deservedly so. They had their chance to run the country and made a royal hash of it.

It took only 12 years for the GOP to become toxic due to its own misbehavior. That's after a 40 year period at the end of which the Dem behavior amounted to much the same thing. If you credit the Feiler Faster Thesis, it will take the Dems much less time as a majority party this time to become corrupt, extreme and out of touch. And then the next cycle after that will be even shorter.

How so? :confused:

Toxic behavior and corruption are mitigating factors, but IMO, the decline of the Repub party and its likelihood as a minority party for a relatively long time to come is due more to its ideological agenda and subsequent policy decisions and actions.

The Republicans had the executive, the house, the senate, the judciary, most of the governors and state legislations and couldn't bring conservative fiscal or foreign policy to head.

A TOTAL failure. If you can't the job done dominating all branches, you'll never get it done.

Hehehehe... I was kidding, of course. :thumbsup:

A third pary is not viable option and you know it. They stacked the deck against third parties by making it more difficult for them to get balloted.

Why should he of stopped? He still had money rolling in and a chance to shift the Republican party back to the right by humiliating mccain.

Plus he is continually informing more and more people about the fraudulent federal reserve system and failed foreign policy. His book hit #1 on amazon and now the NYTimes #1 best seller. It's about spreading the ideas Will, not about the nomination anymore.

So in order to battle this injustice, the brave candidates muster up all their courage and... well, cave in completely.
Outside of Digg, he's not getting any press anymore. Even press for his book is staggeringly small.
If it's not about the nomination, why not run Libertarian?

At this time a third party is not viable. I was a card carrying Libertarian for 9 years before I had to accept the fact that the only elections that Libertarians were going to carry were municipal and county. And even that usually came from the eeny meeny miny moe vote. The party now resembles a coffee klatch more than a political party. The leadership just is not there. They are simply to disorganized at just about everything except for fundraising.

The same could be said of Bush.

Thanks for that, _Jazz.... I always appreciate a good mocking....but why not save it until you're responding to someone who doesn't know WTF they are talking about.

I live, today in a country where the headlines blare, "OBAMA IS MOST LIBERAL SENATOR".....but _Jazz..... this is what I see:

<h3>Washington 1796</h3>

<h3>Eisenhower 1956</h3>
<h3>Obama 2007</h3>

<h3>Obama 2008</h3>
Can you FEEL, the LOVE?

The "most liberal" US senator, _Jazz, in the US in 2008, had been making noises for the past year, that position him on the right of the republican president of 1956..... could it possibly be that you don't have an accurate frame of reference to position your own political views?

You've been subjected to all of the government/media blather that I have, in our life experiences in the good ole USA. How do you think Obama got to be so far positioned to the right of Eisenhower.... Israel worship, commitment to use of force in the face of perceived imminent threat, and a pledge to increase US ground troop strenght by 92,000 ? Could the answer be that Obama is simply a mirror held up to reflect the increasingly rightist perspective of you and of many others who don't notice that they haven't questioned enough of the BS flung at them.... ala pentagon PSY-OPS 2008.... and "are we going to wait until there is a mushroom cloud on our horizon?"...circa 2002?

Is Obama, correct, _Jazz? Are ALL of Israel's perceived "enemies", out enemies? Would Wahington or Eisenhower have put this in writing:
...you think so???? Really ???

Is it wise foreign policy for Obama and other politicians to describe Israel as "the only democracy" in the ME, considering that the Iranians have attempted....they aren't they are'nt there yet, but they are miles ahead of any Arab country in that region, to hold democratic elections? What do you suppose the reaction "the average Iranian" is, to statements excluding their progress towards democracy?

Could we "right wing" US majority be our own worst enemy....how do you think Eisenhower would answer that question, today?
It is the democratic party that is "done for". The party that uses that as it's DBA, has drifted to the right of IKE.... in my lifetime! Look what the "move" has accomplished for the average US income earner, compared to his counterpart in France, in Denmark, in Germany, or in Canada or Britain. The results of exercising the power of the vote, if quality of life is a yardstick, comes down to one sentence. If you are the average income earner and holder of average asset levels in the US....better not get sick, or think about retirement. Sad.....that it is what it is....and that your don't see it.

The average household in the US, _Jazz, has income of about <a href="http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_dBy=040&geo_id=01000US&ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&tm_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_M00700&_MapEvent=displayBy">$48450</a>, little in the way of retirement assets, and slightly negative net worth. Add that household's share of the national debt obligation to the mix.....

Look it up if you doubt where the AVERAGE household is. What is the exercise of the vote for, if not to make a better result than that?

What if Ron Paul, who has garnered maddeningly religious support, had run Libertarian? He's gotten over 1m votes in the primary already. That doesn't include Democrats who would likely vote for him if Hillary ran. I may not agree with Dr. Paul, but I'm well aware that he's quite charismatic and is the very model of libertarian leadership.
Hallelujah and amen.

Who's to say that I didn't?

Nope. My political views are the product of years of study and consideration. Could it possibly be that you're so obsessed with the sins of the Bush administration and the vast right wing conspiracy that you can no longer read the data presented in this thread?

Believe it or not, host, but policies change over time. That's why we're no longer at war with the British, despite fighting 2 declared wars with them and being desperately afraid they would intervene during the Civil War.

Other than that, the two quotes have nothing to do with one another. Obama repeated a doctrine present during at Reagan years that we would attack where our interests were threatened. The Foreign Affairs piece is not about Israel, despite the way that you edited it to appear that way. There is one paragraph about Israel. The next one concerns Iran and Syria. Then he discusses the AMERICAN military. He does not say that he will attack those who attack Israel, which is what your editing implies. And, in the subsequent paragraphs, ISRAEL IS NOT MENTIONED!

Do you really want me to play cute editing games? If you do, I'd be happy to go find a random thread and edit a quote of yours to turn you into a Limbaugh Ditto-head. I won't because it would amount to a mildly interesting exercise in futility and something that's just mean-spirited, but I hope you see my point - you've tried to turn the statement into something it isn't.

The average Iranian would probably agree that Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts, neither of which is democratically elected hold much more power than the president or legislature. Oh, and the Supreme Leader is the commander in chief and responsible for all the general policies of the country. And he appoints the CoG and the AoE. As well as the judiciary. And the heads of the radio and TV networks. And the heads of the military. And the CoG approves all presidential candidates. Question, host: who's more powerful, Khamenei or Ahmedinejad? Think carefully....

So, on one hand, we have the parlimentary democracy that is Israel and on the other we have a theocracy with a few democratic elements.

The_Jazz, you can call it "editing games", or you can argue against each of my points. In 1964, our government still saw the need to fake the Gulf of Tonkin attack to justify escalation of the Vietnam war. In 2003, all that was required was a slide presentation of phony intelligence before the UN....

Do you deny that Obama's foreign policy is positioned to the right of Eisenhower's, and can you explain how it is that "the most liberal US senator" is "left thinking" if he declares that
...because "Reagan did it"?

or...after a huge era of increasing military spending, the "liberal" advocates for increasing ground forces by 92,000.....



You neglected to respond to my assessment of how the "centrist left" voting majority has used the power of the vote, compared to Europeans, these last 50 years.....

Each of your points? You didn't make any. That was MY point. The Washington Doctrine was thrown out before either of us was born - and I have a fairly good idea how old you are. We stopped being an isolationist state c. 1939. Roosevelt buried the Washington Doctrine. Truman heaped NATO on its grave. Eisenhower went door to door dressed as it for 8 Halloweens in a row.

In other words, the Washington Doctrine of avoiding entangling alliances has been roundly ignored for about 70 years. We stood beside Great Britain while they invaded the Fauklands. How many American troops were there? We stood by Israel last summer while they fought Hezbollah. How many American troops were there? The US historically intervenes when it is convenient to the US, not because they are beholden to Israel. I doubt you can find a single conflict where American and Israeli troops have fought shoulder-to-shoulder.

The Gulf of Tonkin and Enduring Freedom have little to do Obama's foreign policy unless you presuppose that he is going to commit illegal acts while in office. So I'll just go ahead and say it:

YOU THINK OBAMA IS A FUTURE WAR CRIMINAL.

The elephant's in the room now. It's over there. Let's talk about it.

Is it to the right of Eisenhower? Sure, why not? What you didn't understand is that I don't think that it's at all relevant. Hey, Obama's to the left of Millard Filmore! And to the right of Jackson! But he's left of Johnson - Andrew, that is - on .... who the hell cares.

Let's see... what's the name of the doctrine that Obama is following here? It's right on the tip of my tongue... Do you know? I really wonder.

If you need a hint go here.

I think that pretty much puts Obama to neither the right nor left of Eisenhower, but right smack dab on top, not that it matters. What matters is that the man is being consistent with 50+ years of foreign policy.

Sorry, I missed this part since I think we were cross-posting. It wasn't intentional.

The centrist left in the US has consistently voted against class interest for 50 years, if not longer. The reason? The vast majority of centrist left voters have cast their ballots based on single social issues rather than what's best for them. And "centrist left" in the US does not mean what it does in Europe since the two party system makes identifying which candidates represent what ideology much harder to identify. The lower middle class has been effectively marginalizing themselves for 20+ years because they back candidates that are socially AND economically conservative because the voters see the social issues as paramount to the economic ones. It's been a long bizarre road, but it looks like the journey might be winding down a bit.

And that, my friend, is the reason for my point way back in Post #23 that masses have been known to cross party lines and vote for the other side's candidate. Reagan was just the most recent example. It happened for FDR and Grant before him. Is it going to happen to Obama? I'm not saying that at all - just that it's a larger possibility than I've seen it before.

Yep, that's exactly the cycle we've been going through for awhile now. What I'm asking about is the sort of change where the political parties drastically change composition, or splitting into a three-party system. I'm not sure that that is what will happen this time, but it's interesting to contemplate. Would we be better off with more (viable) political parties?

This is certainly pandering. It doesn't fit with his policies in Illinois, nor most of the other things he's said regarding foreign policy. Every time he has mentioned an interest in diplomacy with Iran, even when all the other candidates stand shocked, he has made it clear that he will not be another Reagan or Bush. Obama is not a chickenhawk.

It's...

the...

Eisenhower...

Doctrine....

Any sitting president that ignores it is going to be seen as inconsistent and weak. What he's said is that if someone attacks us (or our vital interests) or is about to attack the same, he will use force.

Any more than that is your own creation and the above is entirely consistent with his previous statements on foreign policy.

Ron Paul's problem is that I'm going to guess 80% of his 'supporters' don't even know what libertarianism is. He seemed to attract a large contingent of lunatic fringe people, conspiracy nuts (why I'm not sure), and 'Dude they want to legalize pot man!' types.

This is the curse of libertarians in general as the public thinks in issues not philosophy.

That's well said. I'd say that's the curse of politics in general. That and, the public, with the help of the media, gets confused about what's an issue and what's (for want of a better term) a distraction.

will, couldn't the context have been about responding to some open aggression? The response would be part of his constitutional duties.

given that politics in the states is a consumer choice affair, given that the "strategists" have decided that the american volk is fundamentally centrist and ideology-free, given that on the basis of this "assessment" both parties scramble to be fundamentally ideology-free while maintaining the option of shifting to the center or right as tactical needs require it, and given that one of the results of this process of draining content, draining positions and substituting tactics has been the development of the single party state with two right wings that we currently endure, it seems unlikely that the republicans are cooked--even as by ANY rational standard, given (say) the war in iraq if nothing else, they should be thoroughly, absolutely and irretrievably cooked. but you'll see the party whose politics is centered on the phrase "personal responsibility" making distinctions between the bush administration and itself and assuming that somehow, against all reason, folk will believe them. and the sick thing is that maybe they will believe them.

there is something deeply deeply wrong with this short-attention span theater that american politics has become--i think it makes it almost impossible for large-scale system adjustments to be raised coherently as problems much less carried out--think maybe adjusting the way the educational system operates so that the class structure it generates mirrors more closely the class structure that is profiled through the labor pool---not likely. take the dependence of the american economy on massive, obscene military expenditures as the keynesian underpinning of the hallucinated world of neoliberalism--not likely.

we'll see what happens.
but no, i don't think the republicans are really cooked.
but they should be.

He was being intentionally overtly aggressive to pander to dumb people who think we're always in danger. Normally, he would explain that it's bad policy to shoot first and ask questions later, especially unilaterally (as unilateral action usually means that none of our allies agree with us, as with Iraq).

Unilateral action means that we're acting alone, not that our allies agree with us or not. In some cases we might discuss with our allies, but not necessarily. If we get intelligence that OBL is in a certain place at a certain time to discuss attacking a US warship (a la the Cole), we're not going to consult the French or British before acting. Nor should we.

You're the one turning Obama into a chickenhawk or war monger or whatever banner you're trying to pin on him. This is a statement perfectly consistent with his previous foreign policy statements as well as the long-standing foreign policy of the nation. He's saying that he, at this time, has no intentions of creating the Obama Doctrine, whatever that may be.

I'll start after WWII:
Vietnam: The US unilaterally moves to help the South Vietnamese. Everyone else disagrees
Bay of Pigs: US unilaterally invades part of Cuba against the advice of all our allies and we have our asses handed to us.
Iraq: The US unilaterally (the coalition doesn't count) invades Iraq to the chagrin of the international community.

The funny thing? Our allies were right about each of these. They were massive mistakes and could have been avoided had there been men in power with the common sense to say, "Wait, you think it's a bad idea? Why's that?"
It is what it is. You can't become president anymore unless you hose off some of the country with testosterone. The reality is, when looking at his history, it's clear that he's more willing than any recent president or candidate to want to seek a peaceful solution. I doubt Barak Obama would have invaded Iraq. Or Vietnam.

Here is the definition of unilateral. You need to read it and understand it because you're using it incorrectly.

Vietnam War - South Vietnam dead: ~250,000; wounded: ~1,170,000. US dead: 58,209; 2,000 missing; wounded: 305,000. South Korea dead: 4,900; wounded: 11,000. Australia dead: 520; wounded: 2,400. New Zealand dead: 37; wounded: 187. Those numbers certainly don't look like unilateral action to me. Unilateral would mean that there would be US (and maybe ARVN) numbers exclusively. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was concocted as an excuse to enforce the Eisenhower Doctrin in response to the Domino Theory, which provided that allowing communism (in this case the Chinese brand) would lead to Soviet domination. In 1963-1965, this was a very real concern, especially since the Soviets were in turmoil politically (Khrushchev was ousted in 1964) and it was the height of the space/missle race. It's entirely consistent with the Eisenhower Doctrine, although it expanded it out of the Middle East.

Bay of Pigs - strawman much, will? Tell me exactly how many US troops you think were involved in this little fiasco? If you name any number greater than zero, then you're wrong. CIA operatives/spies don't count since they're not military, and that is what we (and Obama) are talking about, exclusively. Bringin up the Bay of Pigs is completely pointless since it has zero bearing on what we're discussing.

Iraq War - The coalition doesn't count? It's entirely relevant to the argument that you're trying to make. Please explain to me as well as the families of the 176 UK soldiers and 133 other coalition members who died in this war why they don't count. Did the majority of the international community rightfully condemn the US? Yes. Did we act unilaterally? No. Don't try to pretend that we did.

Will, your theories don't line up with what actually happened. And Obama didn't say that he wouldn't seek a peaceful solution. He said that he would respond with force IF SOMEONE ATTACKS US OR IS ABOUT TO ATTACK US. He said nothing about unilateral invasions. If he did, please point it out to me. If not, drop it because you're wrong. Look back at the quote and show me where he said anything about invasions. I agree that he most likely would not have invaded Iraq, but you're making huge assumptions and putting words in the man's mouth that he not only didn't say but didn't even come close to saying.

...and the cycle continues.

Time for the dems to wear the pants. What will we think once Obama cracks under the pressure? If it happens in his first term perhaps the people will be disgusted enough that an independent choice will be a real choice. That would make the election year entertaining!

"Unilateral" changes when dealing with the US because we've got worshipers. If the US declared war on Mars tomorrow, the UK and Australia (maybe even Spain) would have our backs. Why? Well it has jack to do with Mars, I'll tell you that.

What this means is that "unilateral" for the US means something different. And it's okay to admit that while the dictionary says one thing, reality demonstrates otherwise. Unilateral for the US means that the UN and most of our allies have told us to shut up and sit back down but we and our religious followers aren't listening.
Yes, I'd say that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Seeing as you're so dictionary-happy tonight, I'm surprised you didn't bother to look up "troops" before throwing it at me.
–noun
1. an assemblage of persons or things; company; band.
2. a great number or multitude: A whole troop of children swarmed through the museum.
3. Military. an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.
4. troops, a body of soldiers, police, etc.: Mounted troops quelled the riot.
5. a unit of Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts usually having a maximum of 32 members under the guidance of an adult leader.
6. a herd, flock, or swarm.

1 out of 6 definitions refers to military. I was using #4, in case you were wondering.
Someone "about to attack us" was how we got into Iraq in the first place. I'm surprised people still haven't learned from this. Imminent threat has been used as pretense to be the aggressor in war for thousands of years. It will stop being effective the second people see it for what it really is. But they likely won't.

Obama's speech in Oct 2002 gave a pretty good overview of his position on going to war.

This was two years before he was in the US Senate... it was weeks before Congress voted on a war resolution.... and it was six months before Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq began...and certainly before Obama had any realistic expectations to be the Democratic nominee six years later:

History shows no scarcity of so-called "false flag" incidents either. It's been a popular way to whip up domestic military sentiment from ancient Rome to the burning of the Reichstag to the Gulf of Tonkin to, some say, 9/11.

Human beings are easily manipulated. So we have to have people in power who we can trust to have our best interests at heart. Because there IS no objective view, from the level of a citizen. You're told what you're told and it may or may not be the truth. I think that THE single thing that has hurt the GOP is the perception that the current administration lies for its own goals.

Then you're not using the word correctly. Sorry. Vietnam was the closest we got to unilateral action. The word "unilateral" means what it means. I've pointed you to the definition. If you want me to budge on the point at all, you need to chose another term.

Zero, will. The answer is zero US military personnel. No troops, truck drivers, cooks, tank mechanics or quartermasters. Oh, I suppose you can count BOTH CIA operatives (yes, there were two Americans on the ground, but neither was in the military) in place at the time, but this was an invasion of Cuba by Cubans. The closest you're going to get to your point is an invasion by proxy, which really doesn't fit your point at all.

So how does this change the fact that you're accusing Obama of something he didn't say? I suppose you'd just be happier if a future President, upon learning of an eminent Canadian invasion, would deny it and arrest those making the reports, like Stalin.

You don't need to apologize. I forgive you.
Like I said, the US can't act unilaterally. Some countries will back us regardless of whether they agree with us or even if it's in their best interest. That means that the word "unilateral" is meaningless when speaking of the US. It has to shift to compensate.

BTW, I just looked up "unilateralism" and it said:
n.
A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.
Do you really think the US consulted Poland or Romania before invading Iraq? We made the determination, THEN the coalition formed.
I expected better of you. I explained this just fine. You're welcome to look up "troops" to verify. The point was that it was the US didn't consult any of our allies and didn't get any of their support. So it actually fits my point quite well.

I'll drop the fact that you're using "unilaterally" incorrectly since it looks like neither of us will give on this.

Let me spell out the Bay of Pigs for you, will. The US didn't act. Period. We supported an action by Cuban nationals against the Cuban government, so it does not in any way, shape or form fit your arguement. If it did, then we would also include the support of the muhajadeen in Afganistan in the 80's, the Contras, the Italian and Greek governments in the 50's and the Israelis. Fact: not one single American soldier was involved in the invasion. That fits withing your definition of "troops". The "troops" involved were not American; they were Cuban. They did not represent the United States of America. There were no citizens of the US carrying guns invading Cuba. Is that clear enough for you?

There are two things here - "unilateral" (which I'm going to just drop as being pointless) and "action". In order for there to be "action", the US has to actually act. That means troops sporting the stars and stripes on their shoulders on the ground. Without that, there is no action. The Bay of Pigs is the strawman in your argument and in no way fits.

Here:
Ameri-lateral n.
When the US decides completely on their own and against the stern advice of basically all of their closest allies to commit to a military or covert, pseudo-military action. Usually the US's fan club will join in, despite not being consulted, not being provided with all the evidence/intelligence, and it not being in their best interest. See: US intervention in Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq 2.

As for the Bay of Pigs, I suppose you don't think the US bears any responsibility? Didn't we have a large part in planning and didn't we basically fund the entire thing? This is not dissimilar from how the US used the Mujahideen to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. We trained them, we armed them, we funded them.... but we don't get to think of the US as bearing responsibility?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical...ay+of+Pigs.htm

I don't think the theory that US troops need to be on the ground sporting a US flag for the US' involvement to be consider "action' holds water. I think we supported, funded, supplied and helped plan the invasion. To me that add up to US action.

Hallelujah! I thought I was going nuts. :eek:

I like the new word, but Obama said "unilateral". That said, I don't think there's much more to discuss. Both of us are wearing our pig heads.


Responsible? Sure. But that doesn't matter to the topic at hand in the slightest.

And Tully, we may have supported it - and I've conceeded from the beginning that we did - but we weren't involved. If Kennedy had sent the promised air support, that would have been something different, but he didn't. So there we are.

If we want to start a list of proxy fights during the Cold War, I'm all for it, but that's what this was - a proxy fight. Soviets versus US, with various flavors of Cubans doing the heavy lifting. We can talk about the Germans or the Greeks or the Pakistanis and Indians doing the exact same thing, but it boils down to the fact that the two major players in the event had exactly zero troops on the ground.

And, btw, Castro was well into the Soviet sphere of influence by mid-1961. Remember that the Missle Crisis was less than 2 years away when the BoP happened.

To wrap this all up into the neat little package it is, regardless of any US equipment or planning that went into the Bay of Pigs invasion, it wasn't anything that would be described by what will said:

We didn't invade. We didn't have our asses handed to us. It's a strawman in the overall argument.

I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree here Jazz. For me the support was involvement. And that's just where I think we should leave it.

Yeah...._Jazz, he's sounding like he could commit illegal acts of war....



Whose comments seem more reasonable, and on the mark.... Obama's....or the column critical of David Brooks, writtn by Lt. Col W. Pat Lang, (Retired) Pat Lang is former US Army Special Forces, fluent in Arabic, served as DIA Director of Humint, and as DIA Middle East region DIO, in the early 1990's. Why isn't Pat Lang one of Obama's principle foreign policy advisors.

I know I live in a land with two dominant right wing political parties. The MOST liberal US senate member is running for president. He does not even talk about using military force only as a last resort....instead, he talks about using force specifically in instances not involving self defense. He demonizes the politcal wings of the dominant factions in Palestinian territory and in Lebanon. Lebanon is 35 percent shi'a... Bush backed the billionaire son, al Hariri, of the assassinated Saudi (sunni) billionaire Lebanese prime minister, and the druze leader, Jumblatt....because they are easy to manipulate.

Read the comments about retaliation IN SELF DEFENSE, spoken by Israel's Omert. Pat Lang doesn't agree with his former colleagues, the generals in the pentagon, and he doesn't agree with Obama's rhetoric about who the "terrorists" are....

I live in a land where the MOST liberal US senator positions himself to the right of republican president Eisenhower, to the rignt of retired US Special forces Lt. Col. and ME DIA intelligence chief, Pat Lang, and in his rhetoric....to the right of Israeli prime minister Olmert.

But I'm supposed to take all of your POV's seriously, and I'm supposed to post about the "decline" of the republican party, when there appear to me to be TWO of them, now!

Real "change" and a campaign to bring "unity", would have less of the same ole neocon reflexive militancy, IMO.

Reciprocity? We're supposed to take you seriously why?

Two way street, my friend. If you want us to pay attention to you, you have to respect our opinions.

You see a candidate ready to commit war crimes. I see one willing to look at all options.

McCain was talking about nuking Iran. That'd be war crimes.

I do see Obama as the least of all evils this time around.

Really? NUKING Iran? Guess I missed that one........

He sure did. I'll see if I can find the quote.

Hillary even said that she'd nuke Iran if they attacked Israel (it was on Olbermann like a month back).

I saw that. Not sure she used the term "nuke" but her conversation left me with no doubt what she was talking about.

There's probably a transcript out there somewhere.

Same with McCain.

But really if Iran got the bomb and did in fact "nuke" Israel what would our responsibilities and options be?

We could wipe Iran off the map (I use that phrase ironically) without poisoning the Middle East for a half a century.

Should the highly improbable happened and Iran nukes Israel (thus irradiating the area where they want the Palestinians to live), the UN would move into Israel to help with the cleanup and a coalition of Western nations would bomb Iran into oblivion and then invade to clean up what was left. Dropping nuclear weapons on Iran would likely irradiate areas where Iran has a lot of military, like the Caspian, Persian Gulf, Turkey (our ally), and possibly even the UAE (our ally).

To get back to the OP, of course the Republican Party isn't done for. We live in a two-party country, and it will remain that way for a very long time.

That said, the GOP is in big trouble. Essentially, the Republican coalition begun by Goldwater, raised on Nixon, and matured by Reagan, has been taken to its logical conclusion (i.e. complete and utter ruin brought about by its own hubris) by Bush.

Here's a great article by George Packer about this very thing. Although, as always, I don't agree with everything Packer wrote (he almost completely elides the historically monumental corruption of the Bush era GOP), he does provide a very thorough examination of the evolution of the conservative movement in the United States over the last 45 years.

well, except that Nixon wasn't very conservative.
And there are a lot of people who think Bush II isn't conservative either.
To a degree this depends on how you define "conservative." If you define it by reference to whether it comports with leftish views, then yes, Bush II is conservative - but that's an oppositional definition. If you define it as Burkean in mindset, then no, he's not any kind of conservative. And he is certainly no libertarian.

Psst... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=79207

I'm not sure I agree with your definition either, Will.
But I'm not much of a conservative, so who am I to say?

I'm not a woman, but I can define what a woman is.

The word was meaningless as soon as the media got ahold of it. "Liberal" and "conservative" shouldn't even be used anymore.

well, there is no definable set of characteristics of a conservative like there is of a woman.

There is a school of thought that lefties are actually reactionary these days. Anyone can come up with conceptual frameworks to argue anything.

The Rush Limbaugh Academy?

The point I was making in the other thread was:
"Conservative" used to mean something definite. It no longer has that meaning. Therefore, using it is a waste.

I have no idea what Limbaugh says. I haven't listened to his show in years. I read a lot and that's something I saw, and honestly I don't remember where.

Why do you assume being reactionary is necessarily a bad thing? It need not be a bad thing if the aspect of the past you're trying to return to was good, right?

Don't get hung up on labels, dc_dux. It'll do you in every time.

Loquitor...that was exactly my point....dont get hung up on labels.

Republicans