Deevolution of Republican Party Continues - A Legislator in Oregon

[David G]

Another voice of reason and sanity and compromise.... another moderate Republican... finds political life untenable in today's extreme political landscape:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...ce_not_to.html

Why is Atkinson exiting Oregon politics?

"We don't do that in Oregon politics anymore," he said. "In Oregon politics, that kid would be considered a Hispanic kid who is a drain on the system. That's the pettiness of politics right now. It's completely devoid of humanity."

When Atkinson announced last week that he would not seek re-election in November, the state Senate lost one of its more thoughtful, balanced and idealistic personalities.

"Twenty years ago, he would have been considered an idiosyncratic conservative," said Jack Roberts, the former labor commissioner. "In a healthy party, that kind of conservatism, which carries some independence of thought, would be valued. Now, it doesn't seem to be."

[Chris Coose]

A smart friend reveled in the birth of the tea baggers. He had no problem forecasting the division and collapse of the Republican Party.
Heard on NPR radio today, Latinos are polling to vote for Obama at 7-1.

[skuthorp]

Communist friends of my mother used to say that the way to get a left revolution in hedonistic Aus was to join a right wing party and push the conservatives further and further right, even to fascist positions so as to stir the people enough to revolt. Of course you would likely loose your life to the cause but your comrades would subvert the revolution and take over.

[BETTY-B]

How many is that now? If the open minded ones that are already in office, are bailing, how many have decided to not even get involved? And if they do have a desire, where would they go? It's interesting to see the ones that actually switch party's. Seeing how far Right even Obama is, maybe the future balance will come from a split of the Democrats.

[skuthorp]

Both of our major parties, in spite of the labels, are of the right. The movement of the 'labor' party to the middle right has pushed the conservatives to a more extreme position as both jockey for the 6-7% of votes that make the difference between office or opposition. The Greens have captured what remains of the left vote, but it remains to be seen if in the long term they have the discipline to become a viable alternative.

[David G]

Here's an article on Olympia Snowe's decision to retire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us...pagewanted=all

I ask the conservatives amongst us - doesn't this sort of polarization worry you? Doesn't it raise concerns about the future of the Republican party? Of good government in general? It certainly worries and saddens me.

[Keith Wilson]

This pretty much explains US politics over the last 30 years.

[David G]

And another thing that makes it all worrisome: it seems as if the squeezing out of moderates has not pushed those disaffected folks toward the Democrats, but rather toward cynicism, bitterness, and apathy. This is NOT a recipe for a healthy democracy.

I wonder if this was an unintended byproducts of the ongoing swing toward laissez-faire capitalism, corporate dominance, and the concentration of wealth and power. Sometimes... if I stand too close to TylerDurden... I think maybe it was part of the design. Discourage enough moderates, so that they drop out of the political process, leaving only the fringes to snark and bicker... thus creating gridlock and allowing lobbyist and their bought-and-paid-for "house-poodle" politicians to manipulate the process any way they want.

Too cynical?

[Norman Bernstein]

And another thing that makes it all worrisome: it seems as if the squeezing out of moderates has not pushed those disaffected folks toward the Democrats, but rather toward cynicism, bitterness, and apathy. This is NOT a recipe for a healthy democracy.

I wonder if this was an unintended byproducts of the ongoing swing toward laissez-faire capitalism, corporate dominance, and the concentration of wealth and power. Sometimes... if I stand too close to TylerDurden... I think maybe it was part of the design. Discourage enough moderates, so that they drop out of the political process, leaving only the fringes to snark and bicker... thus creating gridlock and allowing lobbyist and their bought-and-paid-for "house-poodle" politicians to manipulate the process any way they want.

Too cynical?

Not really, but it's possible to be both cynical and optimistic, at the same time.

If history teaches us anything, it's that nothing is ever static, and the pendulum swings. Only an idiot would think that the extreme rightward shift in the GOP is a permanent motion; Newton's Law tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, maybe not 'equal', but this is what being reactionary is all about.

Right now, the Republican Party has major, and possibly irreversible, structural problems. Once again, using history as a guide, something will eventually grow out of this; maybe a moderate third party, for example.

[S.V. Airlie]

Question..was the guy up for re-election?Is he pulling a Lieberman as liberlips saw he was losing as a demoncrat in a potential race and went Independent?Is this guy saying what he believes, what he wants the people to believe, or using it as an excuse to switch and win..I don't know. No one can be sure of what the speel is really that he is throwing out. He may be being honest by what he says, and he may not be.

[David G]

Ruth Marcus on the issues facing both Dems & Reps in the 2016 election. Her comments on the Reps are germane to this topic, I think:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...RAS_story.html

"I would argue, if Romney were to lose, that the message is not the candidate’s deficit of conservative bona fides. Rather, Romney’s problem is his dual lack of both political skills (grits, y’all?) and ideological convictions. He oozes inauthenticity, which threatens to repel conservatives and independents alike.


The 2016 argument for a return to conservative purity is especially unconvincing in light of the implacable demographic math of a future, more diverse electorate. Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to assemble a winning coalition if they cling to an unforgiving policy on immigration. Many on the Republican bench — former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — seem to get this. It’s less clear that the Republican base does."

[S.V. Airlie]

So when is Obama going to wade into the immigration issue, or is it just status quo? Don't mention it and it will just go away. Isn't the immigration issue on the dem platform?

[tigerregis]

This thread is about the Republican Party. Your position Mr Airlee is to change the discussion to fit your agenda. Phooey

[David G]

So when is Obama going to wade into the immigration issue, or is it just status quo? Don't mention it and it will just go away. Isn't the immigration issue on the dem platform?

Do see if you can grasp what the topic is, and address it, if you would be so kind.

[McMike]

And another thing that makes it all worrisome: it seems as if the squeezing out of moderates has not pushed those disaffected folks toward the Democrats, but rather toward cynicism, bitterness, and apathy. This is NOT a recipe for a healthy democracy.

I wonder if this was an unintended byproducts of the ongoing swing toward laissez-faire capitalism, corporate dominance, and the concentration of wealth and power. Sometimes... if I stand too close to TylerDurden... I think maybe it was part of the design. Discourage enough moderates, so that they drop out of the political process, leaving only the fringes to snark and bicker... thus creating gridlock and allowing lobbyist and their bought-and-paid-for "house-poodle" politicians to manipulate the process any way they want.

Too cynical?

[S.V. Airlie]

A post here, stated that latinos were voting 7 to 1 for Obama, I am giving a reason for that.And to your point rarely is as question answered here when I post on subject..usually ignored for the most part. I addressed this one on this thread..actually several questions. As they were more about reasons why maybe the guy is leaving the repub party, you more than like/love the reason he gave. It fits what you want to believe. Here with questions need not rock the boat.

pss. if the poster posted that latino were voting 7-1 for Obama and you didn't say much about it,I feel even I have a right on a top heavy lib forum like this one..The post had nothing really to do with the guy leaving the republican party either.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

This pretty much explains US politics over the last 30 years.

Your diagrams have shifted the frame itself significantly to the right, so as to (partly) fit everybody in. Present-day Republicans are eager to label Democrats like Obama and Clinton as "left," but that's no reason to honor their notion. Roosevelt and Johnson were "left" without remotely being leftists. Most of Europe has been "left" for some time. Clinton, and especially Obama, are right-center, somewhat to the right of Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller. Just because Republicans are now extreme right-wingers doesn't make less extreme folks "left." This is not a mere quibble, unless you consider political discourse to be irreparably corrupt.

[Willin']

When our very respected moderate Republican senator Olympia Snowe announced her retirement recently I was initially a little depressed at the loss of a good and honest Senator. Then former Independent Maine Governor Angus King announced for the seat. Now I'm boundlessly optimistic, as are a lot of people around here..

If we continue to replace the old guard, business as usual, money talks status quo with savvy, incorruptable independents, well that might at least be a first step in unseating the big money interests in Washington. It's just a shame it's the moderates that are stepping down instead of the money grubbing, special interest, old school hardliners.

A man can dream, anyway

[Chris Coose]

Too cynical?

Olympia's departure shall allow change and it looks like we have a former Independent (left leaning) governor lining up to surely take her place.
I'm not a big fan of Angus King but he's pretty level headed and a politician (loosely stated) in the George Mitchell tradition.

The Republican party is so split and decrepit in Maine, they'll be lucky to come up with 35% of the vote for their senate candidtate.

Olympia and Susan Collins are hobbled by their party affiliation. Had Olympia cared to remain in politics a switch to Independant would have been applauded and she'd have been easliy re-elected.

[Chris Coose]

So when is Obama going to wade into the immigration issue, or is it just status quo?

Voting Latinos have one primary political calling. Jobs.
Obama isn't exactly landing that one too well but I can imagine a Latino looking at the clown parade and just lowering his/her head.

What does it say about these Bozos when jobs is Latino's top agenda and Obama is polling 7:1 for their votes?

Then substitute above the word "immigration" for "jobs" .... same thing , but lots more head shaking.
You are correct Obama doesn't have to say a GD'ed thing. When he does the ratio will go 10:1.

[S.V. Airlie]

I don't have a crystal ball Chris. I do not know what the ratio of voters will be.I do suspect most as dems, so you might be closer to the truth there.l appreciate the response and wonder why you did not have your hand slapped as mine was for posting it.Now about the questions that I posted and (on topic) I asked on this thread? I'm curious about your thoughts on them..

[BETTY-B]

Your diagrams have shifted the frame itself significantly to the right, so as to (partly) fit everybody in. Present-day Republicans are eager to label Democrats like Obama and Clinton as "left," but that's no reason to honor their notion. Roosevelt and Johnson were "left" without remotely being leftists. Most of Europe has been "left" for some time. Clinton, and especially Obama, are right-center, somewhat to the right of Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller. Just because Republicans are now extreme right-wingers doesn't make less extreme folks "left." This is not a mere quibble, unless you consider political discourse to be irreparably corrupt.

Exactly. Here's the reality:

[David G]

Another female voice comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/op...ef=maureendowd

"The attempt by Republican men to wrestle American women back into chastity belts has not only breathed life into President Obama, it has roused and riled Hillary. And that could turn out to be the most dangerous thing the wildly self-destructive G.O.P. leaders have done. In some kind of insane bout of mass misogyny, Republicans are hounding out the women voters — including Republicans and independents — who helped them gain control of the House in 2010.

Senator Olympia Snowe, who’s fed up and leaving Congress, told The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty that “it feels as if we are going back to another era,” warning that Republicans could drive women into Democratic arms."

[Wavewacker]

In my area, we are getting alot who are going with Paul, that's how backward it is here. I've been talking Paul up too hopefully he will run as an independent and a vote for Paul is almost a vote for Obama!

[David G]

Yeah... I wouldn't mind seeing Paul run a 3rd party candidacy. Good insurance for Obama's reelection. It's weird - when I look at Obama objectively - it is with very mixed feelings and a longing for certain presidents long gone. But when I compare him to the current crop of Republican clowns and whores, I can't wait to vote for Obama. Those idjits scare the wheeeee outa me.

[David G]

Another take - which echos my perceptions closely:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...UlT_print.html

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.


When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach...



What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California’s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.


From the day he entered Congress in 1979, Gingrich had a strategy to create a Republican majority in the House: convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents, especially those in the Democratic majority. It took him 16 years, but by bringing ethics charges against Democratic leaders; provoking them into overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to vote against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to create even more public disgust with politicians; and then recruiting GOP candidates around the country to run against Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his goal.


Ironically, after becoming speaker, Gingrich wanted to enhance Congress’s reputation and was content to compromise with President Bill Clinton when it served his interests. But the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity existed across party lines, activated an extreme and virulently anti-Washington base — most recently represented by tea party activists — and helped drive moderate Republicans out of Congress. (Some of his progeny, elected in the early 1990s, moved to the Senate and polarized its culture in the same way.)


Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 and rolled out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the following year. The pledge, which binds its signers to never support a tax increase (that includes closing tax loopholes), had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. The Norquist tax pledge has led to other pledges, on issues such as climate change, that create additional litmus tests that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible. For Republicans concerned about a primary challenge from the right, the failure to sign such pledges is simply too risky.


Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

[John Smith]

So when is Obama going to wade into the immigration issue, or is it just status quo? Don't mention it and it will just go away. Isn't the immigration issue on the dem platform?

He's put more resources into border patrol, and illegal immigration at the Mexican border is down. the old left wing media just doesn't give him the credit.

[John Smith]

Voting Latinos have one primary political calling. Jobs.
Obama isn't exactly landing that one too well but I can imagine a Latino looking at the clown parade and just lowering his/her head.

What does it say about these Bozos when jobs is Latino's top agenda and Obama is polling 7:1 for their votes?

Then substitute above the word "immigration" for "jobs" .... same thing , but lots more head shaking.
You are correct Obama doesn't have to say a GD'ed thing. When he does the ratio will go 10:1.

I think your lack of attention is showing. It is Republicans around the country that are passing laws that will make it more difficult for latinos to vote. They are the ones who will be pulled over and have to have their papers on them.

[Tom Montgomery]

So when is Obama going to wade into the immigration issue, or is it just status quo? Don't mention it and it will just go away. Isn't the immigration issue on the dem platform?

A fact that goes unreported by the right-wing blogosphere: Net migration from Mexico to the United States has diminished to about zero over the last five years.

But no doubt the GOP will continue to push the illegal-immigration bogeyman throughout the presidential election campaign.
.

[Gerarddm]

Modern GOP is going the way of the Know-Nothings.

They are frozen like deer in the headlights of a train called The Future Unlimited, and they are about to get run over.

[David G]

Recent column by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/op...dsebJ0b2nkBYuQ

America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by dreams of riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for their children, to big houses, big cars and big lives...


Republicans promised to get government out of the way. Reduce the burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair chance to let their ambition run.

If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are hitting a creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this argument. If you believe that there has been a hardening of the national arteries caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable Medicare program and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this streamlining agenda, even if you don’t buy into the whole Ayn Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.

On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative, offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an exhausted Democratic Party, which says: We don’t have an agenda, but we really don’t like theirs. Given these options, the choice is pretty clear.

But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in Tampa. It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism. There was certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in which individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits and governing institutions.

Today’s Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine their own fates. In a Pew Research Center poll, for example, 57 percent of Republicans believe people are poor because they don’t work hard. Only 28 percent believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets out of the way, then people’s innate qualities will enable them to flourish.

But there’s a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run their race. I don’t see what the party is offering the waitress with two kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.

The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more than the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable people to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.

Government does not always undermine initiative. Some government programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others depress it. What matters is not whether a program is public or private but its effect on character. Today’s Republicans, who see every government program as a step on the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They celebrate the race to success but don’t know how to give everyone access to that race.

[John Smith]

So when is Obama going to wade into the immigration issue, or is it just status quo? Don't mention it and it will just go away. Isn't the immigration issue on the dem platform?

What's your point. The border is more secure than ever, and he's deported more illegals than anyone else did.

My brother wrote me after the last election: The tea party had an impact. My reply was, "Like the ice on the Titanic"

[John Smith]

Voting Latinos have one primary political calling. Jobs.
Obama isn't exactly landing that one too well but I can imagine a Latino looking at the clown parade and just lowering his/her head.

What does it say about these Bozos when jobs is Latino's top agenda and Obama is polling 7:1 for their votes?

Then substitute above the word "immigration" for "jobs" .... same thing , but lots more head shaking.
You are correct Obama doesn't have to say a GD'ed thing. When he does the ratio will go 10:1.

I believe Obama has introduced a jobs bill 16 times. Wonder why he can't get it through congress.

[John Smith]

Another female voice comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/op...ef=maureendowd

"The attempt by Republican men to wrestle American women back into chastity belts has not only breathed life into President Obama, it has roused and riled Hillary. And that could turn out to be the most dangerous thing the wildly self-destructive G.O.P. leaders have done. In some kind of insane bout of mass misogyny, Republicans are hounding out the women voters — including Republicans and independents — who helped them gain control of the House in 2010.

Senator Olympia Snowe, who’s fed up and leaving Congress, told The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty that “it feels as if we are going back to another era,” warning that Republicans could drive women into Democratic arms."

That may well be the sleeping giant that the republicans are waking up.

What hasn't been mentioned in combo with the photo id's is married women will need a marriage certificate as well as a birth certificate. Another little obstacle that will, at least, be found annoying.