If this one party state you keep speaking of actually gets around to accomplishing anything productive, then maybe we won't be that bad off. But if the Dems go out like a bunch of drunken sailors, they'll be tossed just as fast the Repubs were.

what is the point of being a Democratic Party leaning (I) in a one party state. In a one party state, the independents will be powerless. The only solution is for all of the Republicans to move over and start voting in the Democratic primary and to start organizing for their pet issues inside the Democratic Party. that is the only way that social conservatives, small government conservatives, etc can ever hope to offset the liberal progressives advantage of having non-white vote automatically for Democrats.

You're right; all politics is local. And if the moderates are purged, as suggested by Nugent, then the moderates should leave Nugent et. al. in the dust. Given the current climate, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for many of the moderate Repubs to shed the R and replace it with an I. There seems to be many more people in that category than in the current Repub party, and I think they probably agree more times than not. Rather than focusing on what the Repubs need to do to get back in business, why don't we just say good riddance to them? Using the same formula and expecting different results is insanity, no?

As for the direction of the Republicans, the real decision is going to come not from the blog wars, but from the mundane activities of which people get advanced by their local party, which group successfully fundraises, and which ones get elected in 2010 and earlier. If the moderates are all pushed out on the local level, or if they can't raise any money, then that will decide the future of the Republican party. If instead, a moderate gets advanced and wins some elections in blue-leaning places now, then that will be the ascendant part of the party. As people like Pawson and Jindal have also recently emphasized, they have to demonstrate an ability to solve problems. If they do so, it'll be plenty good for another 5% swing and the Republicans will be in charge again.

So anyone who comes in, thoughtful and reflective, presenting views outside their ilk, will meet with often fierce resistance and shunning.

The thing is for the GOP is that they've billed themselves as the party of christian fundamentalism. And you cannot spread a broad tent over a narrow confine of that reality. Plus, you have that annoying little fact that the GOP's headmasters are all henchmen for big busine$$ and BigOil…weilding their army of fear-mongering spindoctors… You know, that little detail.

Eventually you have the two halves of their fatal dichotomy come to loggerheads; and that manifests as an internal conversation each republican has to eventually have with themselves: “How can I belong to a group that espouses fear mongering, hating liberals and waging wars when Jesus taught to cultivate loving his enemies and trying to bring about peaceful coexistance of mankind?”

You see? Fundamentalism vs the BigOil agenda was destined to explode like the collision of matter and anti-matter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/c...

To be honest, I don't have a prescription for what the Repubs need to do and I'm certainly not going to pretend that I do. But I do think that BOTH parties need to be a bit more welcoming as both of them seem to shove you out as soon as you disagree with them.

And how does criticizing someone for referencing the Bible make me 'not a true republican'? Despite the efforts of many on both sides to tar the GOP as a homogeneous religious movement, it just isn't so. And you in particular have been here long enough to know that many of my personal beliefs (religion, abortion, stem cell research, drugs, sex education, etc.), are not the view of the majority of Republicans.

The party indeed has a wide diversity of opinions and members (even 3 blacks, 2 Hispanics and a gay guy in Connecticut, I believe!). Another inconvenient truth, that Republicans are more tolerant of diverse views than is presented.

And Rudi -

How about a UFC match between Ted and Al?

Just curious. Because if you are, you're not a true republican.

And if you're not a republican, then surely you must realize I am speaking to theim in their own language. So all we're left with is that you are being petty by saying I need medication.

Which is it?

But Ted Nugent writes as though conservatism=<strike>anarchy</strike>ignorance.
Ted Nuggent as a Republican spokesman, and I thought Franken is a flake.

To believe that the Repulbicans can make a comeback is to believe that the Republicans can be relevant in California again. Since no one in their right mind would suggest that the Republicans will ever be relevant in California again, then it is possible that the Republicans will fad away.

Also, the Republicans at the local level have been much better at limiting their spending that the Republicans at the national level. Heath Schuler has many voters who have moved from New England to North Carolina. How many people from North Carolina have moved to New England?

Anyway..

She left it on and I just happened to turn around and see their announcement for a series they're starting on “TV and Presidencies”. Some supposed documentary about how TV and presidencies “grew up” together.

The one clip they showed to lure people in was of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. What they're actually up to is trying to re-rally their base by bashing democrats and singing the high songs of praise of republicans, I gather from watching the promo..

In ordinary circumstances we could just write this off. But I can't shake the feeling that they're trying for another version of the “KILL HIM” Palin rally, under the benign wraps of a mere documentary. Kid you not, the promo for their series was a clip of Clinton's famous denial of Lewinsky and then a picture of her semen-stained dress. They're going to milk that setup clear into the 22nd Century. Are they trying to fan flames of hatred against the current incoming democrat? This is how they rally their base? Hatred? Really? The “christian” right??

And they wonder why their party is no longer palitable to many former members. Here's a tip gang (and I mean “gang” literally): Many of your base are actual practicing christians who have read and UNDERSTAND the passages describing Jesus where he taught peace, personal reflection and loving thy enemies…

And why are the democrats their enemies? Are they trying for another civil war? They are predominantly southern harkening currently…

Hmmm….. The Devil is behind them. The Bible did warn that in the end times the antichrist would come cloaked as “a true believer”, yet lay waste to the land.

How is that possible? I think the GOP is showing us just exactly how…

How long can one defy logic and overwhelming evidence while embracing a warped and distorted view? There is a heavy price to pay for performing political gymnastics via the language of deceit, and the Republican Party has seen those results from recent elections.

In the search for inner peace, we must forego all inducements and rise above moral paralysis. Shrewd as we may think our decision to deceive may be, the high standards of conduct expected of politicians may lead to the collapse of that credibility without which we cannot perform to our satisfaction. Without which our efforts are doomed to fail.

I submit that freedom, never subject to the dictates of others, implies that we can free ourselves from the chains that make us answerable to the commandments of other mortal men.

Were you shocked and amazed that Human Events would publish this article? I was. I always thought conservatives were serious.

There is a difference between H.L. Mencken and Ann Coulter which has to do with audience: anyone who reads Mencken, even after all these years, must acknowledge that he has a point; only a True Believer can enjoy Coulter.

But Ted Nugent writes as though conservatism=anarchy.

Is that really the message conservative intellectuals want to represent them.

I am a liberal and I read Eunomia and Larison makes me think. Moderate Voice and its writers make me think. Human Events and “RINO hunting” honestly make me sad.

Its a matter of human nature— which tells us that power and money lead to abuse which leads to outrage which inevitably leads to dumping the party in power.

The GOP will come roaring back as the party of clean government, and family values. LOL.

Finally, the GOP is not going to wither and die, despite the hopes of the far left AND the far right, no more than the Democrats did after their time in the wilderness during the 80's. Politics is cyclical, the GOP will come back, then the idiot conversation will be if the Democratic party will ever be relevant again.

I agree with that.

But, no, Jazz, there is no future for a third, fourth, or fifth party. Our system ensures that two parties are the maximum viable number and the two we've got have a firm enough grip on the reins of power to preclude being edged aside.

Note, too, that the Republicans are in no way as bad a shape as they were in 1964. The very next election could conceivably see a reversal of the House for reasons much along the lines that AustinRoth describes.

What wins elections? Two items, mainly. First, is the economy going well? If yes and your party is in power, good tidings, and if your party is not, bad tidings. revers please for a bad economy.

Second, are your candidates, especially your Presidential candidate, more like-able and inspiring than the opponent? See Reagan/Carter, Reagan/Dukakis, Bush/Kerry, Obama/McCain (the others recent elections were driven more by the economy).

Finally, the GOP is not going to wither and die, despite the hopes of the far left AND the far right, no more than the Democrats did after their time in the wilderness during the 80's. Politics is cyclical, the GOP will come back, then the idiot conversation will be if the Democratic party will ever be relevant again.

But the truth is they need each other. In the end, our 'leaders' in Washington have way more in common (protecting their seats by doling out largess) than they have in difference. But, without the loyal opposition, who is there to blame for failure?