Noonan seems to think so, and I agree with much of her piece. Funny thing politics. After 2004, there were people talking about the Democrats being a "National Party No More." We see where that led... http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html To me, the fact both parties could die and come back to life in alternate cycles displays the weakness of the two-party system. Or at least, this two-party system. Another might work better.
I agree that things don't look too rosey for the Republicans right now. I think that's because people tend to blame the president (and his party) more than anyone else when things aren't going well. But all it would take is for the Dems to take the presidency and pass some of their bone-headed ideas that would decimate the economy and, suddenly, all the hoople-heads would hate them again. Our constitution, which requires a majority of electors to win the presidency pretty much guarantees a 2 party system. So when the people are pissed off at one of the party, they have no where to turn but the "other" party.
It is hard to get more bonehead than what the Republicans have done in their years in power...does the Medicare Prescription Drug bill ring any bells?
Yes, so we can have a ONE party system! It's pretty much the cycle of our times. The Bene Gesserit have a saying, "Don't count a man dead 'till you've seen his body, and even then you can make mistakes." That's not the MOST boneheaded idea they've had, but it certainly isn't their best! I guess people just don't understand that your best interest isn't really any either party's interest until that interest guarantees them votes, money, power or a combination of the three. ~String
Parties don't die - they just change their spots. Like in the UK. During the 80's the (then) very socialistic Labour party were repeatedly trounced by the Conservatives - for a while Labour were completely unelectable. This resulted in the Conservatives drifting steadily rightwards, while the Labour party steadily modernised - dropped their old socialist hangovers, and transformed themselves into a centre-right party. While this was happening, the Cons continued drifting towards the right until it came to the point that people got tired with their self serving antics and corruption - so then it was the Conservatives turn to get trounced for a decade or so. During that period the Cons moved back towards the centre, to the point where these days the two parties - much like the Dems and Reps - are almost identical with the exception of a few charaterising ideologies and key voter groups. Its the Cons turn to take the helm again at the next election I predict.
Democracy is for pussies. Real countries have royalties. Obama won't get the AIPAC's blessing, thus he will lose the election (with the kind help of the Diebold gaming er.... voting machines)
Republicans aren't dead, but the age of neo-con politics is. Republican voters, are finally starting to see what us democrats saw all along. That the neo-con policies aren't in America's best interest. Plus, time itself favors progressive politics. When it comes to progressive policies, it's not if they'll come to pass, it's all about when they'll come to pass.
That's what scares me AIPAC! If Israel is our closest ally, how come they haven't volunteered their troops to help us fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
If the Israeli's joined the fight, they'd ignite the situation, and further motivate those Muslims who are neutral to the extremists.
Heh! I never thought the Dems were all that socialist even back in the Carter days - certainly not compared to the British Labour Party of that era - we had PROPER commies back then Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think the difference is that the political boundaries over here are have pretty much stabilised - us brits are mostly fiscally conservative and mostly socially liberal. Well, we don't respond well to heavily moralistic governments at least. The Cons have learned their lesson on that front these days (mostly) so I can't see them heading back down the Thatcheresque social authoritarian route any time soon. I don't see the Republicans as being so easily able to move back towards the centre if the time comes that they ever need to, due to their strong ties with religious conservatives - the Dems are more flexible in that respect I reckon (darned liberal flip floppers!!!)
You mean the one that won bi-partisan, that is Democratic, support? Yeah, it's a disaster. No Child Left Behind? Same story...
Count I don't think you can pin this one on the Democrats. The bill would not have passed were it not for the extrodinary efforts of the Republicans...extending voting beyond the normal timeframe; conducting the voting in the dead of night. No this one squarely falls on the Republcians, it is their baby. They owned both houses of congress and the White House. And the Republican president signed it into law. And now you are going to say the Democrats made me do it....that is good! Eighty plus percent of the Republicans voted for the Medicare Prescription drug plan with an integral piece of that legislation being the restriction on negotiating price for the drugs as the government does with the military and Veterans Administration. In 2007 the Democrats tried to overturn that provision of the 2003 bill and allow the government to negotiate the best price for the drugs and guess who voted for it and who voted against it. The Democrats overwhelming voted for it and the Republicans against it. The bill was limited to allowing the government to negotiate price, striking the provision in the 2003 legistlation. And guess who vetoed it, W. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Medicare_legislation
I think you need to go back and read what I wrote. I did not say the Democrats made anyone do anything, but if you think the Dems weren't deeply involved in both bills you're just not being honest with yourself. Heck, Ted Kennedy stood on stage with Bush and lauded No Child Left Behind. And I'm not trying to excuse the Republicans' behavior in Congress during the relevant period. It was awful.
How is less than 20 percent of the vote for it, for the bill? How is passing a bill in 2007 to eliminate the provision that prevents the government from negotiation of price with the supplier support of the bill. Why is it the Republicans voted overwhelmingly to keep the provision in the bill in 2007? And then you wonder why the Republicans are getting their butts kicked this year? I think you are smarter than that.
The Corporate Authoritarian Right still has the upper hand and growing strengh in the major media, a shifting and uncertain but probable general majority of the Dems, all but a couple of the Reps in Congress, and a growing influence on the Supreme Court. As long as they have a use for the Republican Party they all but completely control, it will continue. If Republican candidates lose, but force the Democratic candidate to adopt CAR - favored positions, that is fine with them. The people backing the Republican Party's recent incarnation do not need to win elections to get value for their investment. The political fight now is within the Democratic Party, which is fundamentally split and has been for a while.
