dajafi wrote:Interesting discussion. Maybe it centers on how quickly the best and brightest within the Republican Party realize that, right now, the Democrats are closer to the mainstream of American public opinion than they are, and that the Democrats' proposed solutions, imperfect though they might be, simply seem more relevant than the more-of-same that the Republicans are offering.

That said, I'm a bit closer to jerseyhoya on this; I do think these things are cyclical. Go back fifty years and you see these same two factions within the Republican Party: the Eisenhower/Rockefeller types who more or less accepted the New Deal and decided they could thrive within its framework--especially if a willingness to do so meant the difference between winning and losing--and the Buckley/Goldwater types who wanted to burn that system down and to some real extent preferred to lose running on their principles than win compromising them. That viewpoint becomes less and less attractive as you spend more time out of power.

dajafi wrote:The thing is that, as much as people look at the 1968-2008 period as one of Republican ascendancy, the only candidate who ever ran even sort of explicitly on that Buckley/Goldwater worldview and won was Reagan--and he was a political genius running in a climate as favorable to him as the current moment is to Obama. Bush wasn't that guy in 2000, and the way he won in '04 was a unique result of that political moment.

(The question is whether moderate Republicans can ever really rise again. I've written many times here that I think this only happens if and when they stop giving Norquist and Dobson an effective veto over their national leadership, and start embracing a worldview--and this is definitely in the Eisenhower/Rockefeller tradition--that allows for the possibility of government, even limited government, working as a positive force in the lives of average Americans. But maybe that's just me.)

Perhaps what happens is that eventually, parties out of power come back to power by first pissing off their base, then convincing said base that what the true believers initially see as compromise or capitulation actually can be accommodated within the party's philosophy. With the arguable exception of free trade, there's no serious debate among Democrats anymore about most of the "deviationist" things Clinton pushed in the '90s. It just took both time and the miserable experience of being completely shut out at the federal level by Bush and DeLay to incorporate welfare reform, newfound regard for law enforcement, etc as part of the scenery.

Probably one could make a case that this is what Douthat and his bunch are trying to do--but to my knowledge, they don't really have champions in office, the way the New Dems did at the state level and in Congress starting in the '80s. Maybe Pawlenty, coiner of the "Sam's Club Republicans" handle, is in that boat.

dajafi wrote:Actually, it's ironic that Bill Clinton could prove to be the bridge from the old, intellectually exhausted and widely despised Democratic Party of the Reagan era to a new center-left Obama-era majority... keeping in mind that Obama and the Democrats have to deliver as a governing party, which is probably no better than a 50 percent shot. Otherwise, they'll default it back to the Republicans, and this moment will be no more lasting than '76 or '92.

jerseyhoya wrote:Paul, I think part of our difference here is Arkansas is sort of an anomaly, but you're using it as your go to example. No Southern state is as staunchly Democratic as Arkansas, and no state outside the South has the same overwhelmingly Christian right electorate utterly dominating the nomination process.

TenuredVulture wrote:If I were running the Republican Congressional Campaign, I'd release a bunch of ads on the theme, "We're not the majority in Congress."

Maybe it centers on how quickly the best and brightest within the Republican Party realize that, right now, the Democrats are closer to the mainstream of American public opinion than they are, and that the Democrats' proposed solutions, imperfect though they might be, simply seem more relevant than the more-of-same that the Republicans are offering.

mpmcgraw wrote:The ten commandments have ZERO to do with American law. A grand total of TWO of them are applicable. Its just a fricken joke.

TenuredVulture wrote:By the way, the craziest thing--I get these e-mails from the DFA (I'm not even sure what that stands for

Monkeyboy wrote:I believe this was put out by the Obama campign.

KEATING ECONOMICS: John McCain & The Making of a Financial Crisis:

jeff2sf wrote:Housh, don't watch. What could be said by either party that would sway you? You have enough info. Anything cool that comes out of it can easily be youtubed. Spend time doing something more valuable than watching these guys.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:I believe this was put out by the Obama campign.

KEATING ECONOMICS: John McCain & The Making of a Financial Crisis:

I can't watch this at work, but I think it's stupid stupid stupid for them to go this route, if it is indeed put out by the campaign.

uncle milt wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Housh, don't watch. What could be said by either party that would sway you? You have enough info. Anything cool that comes out of it can easily be youtubed. Spend time doing something more valuable than watching these guys.

i'm going to quizzo.