Is a third party forming right under our noses?

[atszyman]

Most of us here were complaining about the lack of a viable third party during the election, some of us are still complaining about it. But has a third party already made it's way into our political system? I've seen multiple interviews with Christine Todd Whitman about her new book It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200408/qid=1107360161/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-3932480-0774555?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). She's a former republican Governor of New Jersey and former cabinet secretary of GWB. It almost looks like the moderate Republicans (McCain, Powell, Giulianni, etc) might almost be fed up enough to start breaking from the neocons.

Just a thought.

[jadam]

That would be good, they would be getting my vote!

[Thomas Veil]

It almost looks like the moderate Republicans (McCain, Powell, Giulianni, etc) might almost be fed up enough to start breaking from the neocons.Wow, it's so cool to hear you say that...because more and more, I've come to realize that we really have three major de facto parties in this country: the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Neo-Cons.

And the more I realize that, the more I think, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The more I've pondered the election and the devastating influence the neo-cons have in this country, the more I think that the Republicans and Democrats should team up to marginalize the neo-cons in the same way they've been doing it to us. We need an all-out propaganda counter-assault on the neo-cons...not starting 18 months before the 2008 election, but now. And when I say "propaganda", I don't mean lies, I mean we need to expose their lies. Kerry's campaign people did a lousy job of that, and that's a big part of why he isn't president now.

I know that many "old school" GOP members are appalled at what's happening to their party. So yeah, let's all root for a split. Having the Republican party disavow their neanderthal branch is the first step towards returning them to the swamp from which they came.

[mischief]

The best approach for any group hoping to defeat the mutant GOP/NeoCon hybrid is to become Republicans themselves.

I said it a year ago about the Dems: If they're to have a shot in hell of defeating the agenda they must cross the aisle and be absorbed, this would leave the GOP spin-machine with nothing to push against.

[Dont Hurt Me]

As a former Republican party supporter i agree. They have gone extreme. We need a Party to represent our interests at the moment the other two seem to be off on their own extreme agenda's. Neither party as far as i can tell represents the American worker nor America. Just look at everything moving to China. Even the Mac. All you have to do is look at the Patriot Act and then the Mexico border to see the lie's. Our elected officials from Both partys refuse to address it both were eager to let the Patriot Act go in effect so they can build another branch of Govt around false security.
On a side note both of these guys have put all kinds of stumbling blocks in place to prevent the formation of a real 3rd party. Wouldnt it be refreshing to have a Party who is looking out for the welfare of the United States and its citizens instead of Special Interest and foreign govts. Until we remove special Interests from the halls of Washington we will never have a Govt working for the people of the United States.

[skunk]

Until we remove special Interests from the halls of Washington we will never have a Govt working for the people of the United States.
Until your campaign financing is reformed, the Special Interests will own your candidates before they even get elected.

[Thomas Veil]

It's true that even if you were to defeat and marginalize the neo-cons, you'd still be left with two (admittedly more moderate) parties who have sold their souls to the corporations.

IMO, the next task after getting rid of the neo-cons would be to rescue the Democratic party from the moneyed special interests. That's actually a much harder task.

But, first things first. It'll be interesting to see how the new chairman of the Democratic party (? Howard Dean ?) handles the assault of the far right.

[mischief]

It's true that even if you were to defeat and marginalize the neo-cons, you'd still be left with two (admittedly more moderate) parties who have sold their souls to the corporations.

IMO, the next task after getting rid of the neo-cons would be to rescue the Democratic party from the moneyed special interests. That's actually a much harder task.

But, first things first. It'll be interesting to see how the new chairman of the Democratic party (? Howard Dean ?) handles the assault of the far right.

There are tactics to accomplish both of these goals. All of us who are not satisfied can use them and there's no significant downside.

1: Change your declared Party. Either register Undeclared or register Republican. This accomplishes 2 things:

a: It takes you off the Republican's statistical radar and makes you part of a non-quantifiable force in terms of the neocon spin machine. If they have nothing to push against they'll starve for strategy. The entire neocon machine is built around making their constituents afraid of outsiders. If there are no outsiders with a coherently defined identity they cannot use Xenophobia effectively without resorting to more traditional racist, classist, religious, etc. slurs.

b: Those that willingly register Republican without changing who they are as Greens, Social Democrats, Independants, etc. can work against the neocon agenda from within the Republican party.

With enough pressure from within and the effective dissolution of the Democratic and other parties the Neocons would be forced to form their own party or get out of politics.

If the Republicans were left effectively alone on the stage of partisan politics and the rest of the nation were effectively Undeclared they'd have to be civilized or show themselves to be motivated by fear/greed/etc.

Without significant parties other than the Republicans to lobby the Washington Special Interest machine would latch on to the remaining party like some sort of giant leech.

Endgame: Our turncoat conspirators within the Rebs go Undeclared, taking the other moderates with them. Voila... grassroots coup at it's finest.

[kuyu]

Exactly!!! What this country needs is a party that pulls the best parts from the left and the right.

I want a politician that supports the republicans' economic policies and the democrats' social policies. FWIW, almost everyone I know who voted for Bush voted against banning gay marraige, wants soft drugs legal, and thinks that the best government is one that ensures our saftey, liberty, and ability to make our own choices.

The only way this is going to happen is if the two-party loyalists do as follows.
1) Stop thinking that the other party is evil.
2) Stop rejecting everything the other party says because they have the wrong letter by their names.
3) Stop believing that everyone with views unlike your own is automatically stupid and wrong.
4) Start making decisions on an issue by issue basis. Just because you like one parties stance on one issue does not mean that you must support everything they stand for.

For instance, it's OK to think that abortion should be legal and that SS is unsustainable (and visa versa). The two are not mutually exclusive. :)

[mischief]

My point was that the party system is an anachronism too well suited to abuse by lobbyists and insular thinking. With a party system, (particularly one in a country that will take any excuse to polarize) it's far too easy to get lazy and just use the "us and them" model.

This country would be better off with a "Ghost-third" party if any. A group defined by their mutual refusal to remove their officially recorded affiliation with any party. This group would answer the question:

" Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" (See also: Liberal vs conservative, etc.)

with: " I am an American, a Patriot and I will vote my conscience."

Further questioning would be answered with silence.


Deny the existing system intelligence on it's opposition.

Spread facts whenever you can find them, truth will sort itself out.

Post your views and observations here or on your own 'blog.

Link to other sites by Undeclared citizens doing the same.

Find and link in good debunks of anything and everything.

Link in anything you can verify independantly about politicians, policies and lobby interests.

It is possible to end this idiocy. It must be ended the way Vietnam was ended: The combined power of good data flow and pointed nonparticipation in the war. In this case the war is between political parties and the draft happens when you register. Both sides rely on raw numbers of inductees. Starve the war of warm bodies for the forces on either side and the conflict grinds to a halt. QED.

[aloofman]

As an independent, undeclared voter, I'm in favor of anything that weakens the two-party stranglehold on American voters. Individual politicians I can like or dislike, but as institutions I hold both parties in contempt. Both care more about getting their people elected than helping their constituents; if the two things happen together, that's just a bonus. Both are in the grip of rabble-rousing activists that don't represent most Americans. And both avoid accountability and blame the other for all the nation's problems. This might stop if Americans demanded it, but they don't. We get the leaders we deserve.

As for this old-school Republican book, I don't think it will yield much more than quaint nostalgia. If the Iraq war disaster didn't get the neocons thrown out by other Republicans, then nothing will. And by re-electing them, Americans have basically sent the message that we like what they're doing. So why would they stop?

[Thanatoast]

If the Iraq war disaster didn't get the neocons thrown out by other Republicans, then nothing will. And by re-electing them, Americans have basically sent the message that we like what they're doing. So why would they stop?Ugh. What an utterly depressing thought. :(:(:(:mad:

[Thomas Veil]

Why do you think people were talking about seceding or moving to Canada? :(

[chanoc]

I have an idea for a duo party Republicans. One will be the Liberal Republicans (Yeah I know this sounds oxymoronish, but hear me out.) with the right-wing gays, atheists, and other non-bigots.

And now for the second Republican party: Neocon Fundamentalist Xian Republicans!

For the Democratic party, maybe have a far left and a moderate Democrat.

[Xtremehkr]

It'll take a while, but I don't see why not. My Poli Sci teacher liked to remind us that when one party gets too powerful it splits, historically speaking.

That could mean new names for the parties. The Bush wing should bring back the "Know nothings" name. I would perfectly summarize the current policy of ignoring anything they don't want to hear.

[aloofman]

It'll take a while, but I don't see why not. My Poli Sci teacher liked to remind us that when one party gets too powerful it splits, historically speaking.

Historically speaking, the parties tend to change over time, even if the names don't. A hundred years ago it was the Republicans that were the working man's party and the Democrats that strongly opposed civil rights. They have the same names, but they are not the same parties in that they don't stand for the same things. In the early decades of the United States, parties came and went after a couple decades. Now they change platforms and keep the names the same.

It's worth pointing out that the GOP didn't use to be strongly associated with evangelical Christians. Between Eisenhower and Reagan, Republicans were mostly associated with business and small government. Some Republicans consider these the "good old days", but in those days the GOP also never controlled the House and rarely held the Senate. From this point of view, it's hard to argue with results. They found ways to get elected, and religion was one of them.

Often lost in the discussion is the fact that only really big change that's occurred politically in the last 25 years is that white southerners finally started voting Republican like the conservatives they've always been. After the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Democrats steadily lost traction in the South, first in the presidential elections of Nixon, then in the legislatures. Almost all of the congressional seats that have swung to the right (and stayed there) in the last 20 years have been in the South. There was about a generation-long lag after the civil rights movement because both voters and politicians in the South were conditioned to call themselves Democrats. It wasn't until all the grandchildren of Confederates had all died off that they could stomach the idea of voting for the party that won the Civil War.

Southern conservatives (the Dixiecrats) were a major component of FDR's New Deal coalition. Now that coalition is gone and the Democrats have to find votes elsewhere. It's not some kind of disaster. It's the same sort of political evolution that has always been happening in American politics.

[Xtremehkr]

He specifically meant that once a part becomes too dominant, it tends to split into opposing factions.

The Democrats did this to themselves with the civil rights issue, which lost them the south.

Once living standards tank again, it should bring about some change. Eventually, a new civil rights push. Just a guess.

The author is talking about the same kind of diversion of ideals within the Republican Party based on religious lines. The church will eventually go too far and ruin their progress. And there are those within the Republican Party who are actually pretty moderate but can't be happy with the current incarnation of republicans politics which has little to do with any of the tradtitional ideals.

[jefhatfield]

if you look at mccain, he's actually a conservative, but he is not always in lockstep with the president

but in a strange way, moderates worship mccain

2008 is ripe for a charismatic moderate to take it all (clinton was america's moderate answer in 1992 and 1996, as was reagan in 1980 and 1984...remember clinton had a lot of republican votes and reagan had a lot of democratic voters...both presidents captured the moderate majority in america)...there was no way america was going to go for a traditional, liberal, big government democrat in 1992, so they went for clinton who had aspects of both the democrats and republicans

look for mccain, condi rice, joe lieberman, rudy giuliani, and schwartzeneggar to be looking at 2008...moderates like them very much

george w bush did not seem to start out as a right wing christian conservative, but knowing that he could get elected using this platform, he morphed himself and beat out genuine christian conservatives like pat robertson and pat buchanan

don't get me wrong, if america were ripe for an ultra liberal in 1992, clinton would have morphed himself into jesse jackson ;)

[IJ Reilly]

John McCain is only a moderate when judged within the greater scheme of the Republican party, which has become deeply and often radically right-wing.

[Chip NoVaMac]

So funny that I mentioned in the Dean thread that there is a demand or need for a third party based on the moderates from both the DNC and RNC.

It may be the only time that I would contribute my hard earned cash towards a party if the "moderate" party came about.

[jefhatfield]

John McCain is only a moderate when judged within the greater scheme of the Republican party, which has become deeply and often radically right-wing.

with gonzalez as attorney general and rice as secretary of state, even the bush administration is moving to the middle

rudy giuliani is on the short list of presidential hopefuls and arnold is a popular governor in the most powerful state

the moderates are taking back the gop in a big way

in one way it's good for america since radicals on the left or right don't have the good of the country in mind, for the majority

it's bad in the way, if you are a democrat, that they will take a lot of swing voters who would have easily gone for the democrats in the past

a moderate, mostly pro-choice gop can potentially be an unbeatable entity which can get a political stranglehold the way that roosevelt-truman did for 20 years, but it's unlikely one party will hold the executive and legislative branches for such a long stretch

reagan had the white house, but much of what he wanted to achieve was tempered by the democrat's power in the senate and house

clinton had two terms but he faced strong opposition from gingrich and company

bush is a weak president who will be unable to work with a deeply divided america...his poor performance in his first term pretty much disqualifies him for presidential greatness in the category of a reagan or clinton

here's what i can envision for a 20 year strong strong gop (i am a democrat btw)

condi rice as president
rudy giuliani as vp, or vice versa, with arnold and a couple of moderate republicans down the pipeline to ensure 20 years of power

arlen spector as senate majority leader
some "moderate" republican as speaker of the house

...and a moderate supreme court

heck, i could even vote for them once or twice ;)

[jefhatfield]

he he...i have got to be fair

2008...presidential hopefuls...a double southern ticket with warner of virginia and edwards for president and vp, or vice versa...first, the democrats have to recapture at least 25 percent of the red states

but over the next 20 years, the democrats have to be careful not to alienate the west coast, the great lakes states, and the northeast

...moderate supreme court

a remaking of hilary clinton, nancy pelosi, and barbara boxer as moderates to strengthen the democrat's middle power base

take back the evangelicals who voted democrat for most of america's history...as a top evangelical once said, who thought christians would vote pro war, pro business, and pro republican?

if there were an equal representation of pro lifers and pro prayer in school issue democrats, then the gop would not stand a chance and be marginalized as a pro-rich voting minority

[Chip NoVaMac]

he he...i have got to be fair

2008...presidential hopefuls...a double southern ticket with warner of virginia and edwards for president and vp, or vice versa...first, the democrats have to recapture at least 25 percent of the red states

but over the next 20 years, the democrats have to be careful not to alienate the west coast, the great lakes states, and the northeast

...moderate supreme court

a remaking of hilary clinton, nancy pelosi, and barbara boxer as moderates to strengthen the democrat's middle power base

take back the evangelicals who voted democrat for most of america's history...as a top evangelical once said, who thought christians would vote pro war, pro business, and pro republican?

if there were an equal representation of pro lifers and pro prayer in school issue democrats, then the gop would not stand a chance and be marginalized as a pro-rich voting minority

Speaking as a Virginian Democrat (is there really such a thing any more?), Warner is a worse than GWB! At least GWB believes in his own lies! And holds true to them. Warner on the other hand will bow to who ever has the power and/or money. To be fair Warner has been held up by the "born-again" right on many of the issues, but in the end has no backbone.

[IJ Reilly]

with gonzalez as attorney general and rice as secretary of state, even the bush administration is moving to the middle

rudy giuliani is on the short list of presidential hopefuls and arnold is a popular governor in the most powerful state

the moderates are taking back the gop in a big way

Such a fantasy! Since when are any of these people moderates? Giuliani is dead meat within his own party, and it isn't even clear whether Schwartzenegger will play in California for much longer, having reversed himself on at least two of his major campaign promises.

[jefhatfield]

Speaking as a Virginian Democrat (is there really such a thing any more?), Warner is a worse than GWB! At least GWB believes in his own lies! And holds true to them. Warner on the other hand will bow to who ever has the power and/or money. To be fair Warner has been held up by the "born-again" right on many of the issues, but in the end has no backbone.

the press seem to put him on the list of hopefuls

maybe you know him in virginia, like us anti-reagan and anti-nixon californians disliked those two, but america in general, not just virginia, will place the votes

...and the bad mistakes people made as governor or senator in their states are often forgiven

some liberals in arkansas were angry with clinton over his over friendly relationship with some arkansas based polluters, but the issue hardly raised an eyebrow on the national arena

[jefhatfield]

Such a fantasy! Since when are any of these people moderates? Giuliani is dead meat within his own party, and it isn't even clear whether Schwartzenegger will play in California for much longer, having reversed himself on at least two of his major campaign promises.

i think the gop is moving moderate and they are going to pummel us democrats in the next couple or few elections due to that move

if the gop remains so called "right wing evangelical" or moves to the right even further, the democrats will pummel them with no effort at all

america is mostly a moderate country and the middle ground is where elections are won or lost

arnold has made mistakes, but he has started off much better than governors reagan, brown, dukemeijian, and davis...i will admit that republican governor pete wilson, a moderate, did well among voters of both parties since he stayed out of making any huge mistakes...so far arnold has done well even though i did not vote for him but have since realized that he has achieved a lot

with friends like hatch of utah, and or course kennedy, arnold can find himself in the run for president someday...unless he really screws up, i think he has an even chance of making it for the white house

[IJ Reilly]

I will predict here and now that Schwartzenegger has no future in politics beyond the job he is doing now. As I have before I wish him success governing California because lord knows the state needs effective governance, but no way am I going to forgive him his multiple flaws as a person and a political leader -- all of which will not serve him well beyond the confines of California. Since you bring up Wilson, he's no moderate. He was a political chameleon with no apparent principles to call his own, who was the architect of electric power "reforms" that brought us rolling blackouts widespread fraud and economic calamity, and he did it out of pure political ambition. He's toast.

[jefhatfield]

I will predict here and now that Schwartzenegger has no future in politics beyond the job he is doing now. As I have before I wish him success governing California because lord knows the state needs effective governance, but no way am I going to forgive him his multiple flaws as a person and a political leader -- all of which will not serve him well beyond the confines of California. Since you bring up Wilson, he's no moderate. He was a political chameleon with no apparent principles to call his own, who was the architect of electric power "reforms" that brought us rolling blackouts widespread fraud and economic calamity, and he did it out of pure political ambition. He's toast.

hey, i am with you politically

but i am afraid that the gop will beat us to the middle (moderate promise land) and start some sort of dynasty and thus win in 2008

but if the gop stays in power until 2012, america will feel the need for change, no matter how well things are going and the democrats could run a mediocre campaign and win...politics (white house, house of representatives, senate) is historically very cyclical but some factors within our control can change, within a margin of four years, how long or short that cycle is

[Dont Hurt Me]

America works best when there is a balance of power in our govt. At the moment 1 party runs the show. Legislature has its hands full with the current administrations concepts of law. America has swung a little right but i think it will swing back to the middle not left and the republican party seems to me better position for that middle. Democrats are stuck in old ways and the same big money pockets. I dont see any moderate coming out of the democratic primaries and surviving.

[Chip NoVaMac]

the press seem to put him on the list of hopefuls

maybe you know him in virginia, like us anti-reagan and anti-nixon californians disliked those two, but america in general, not just virginia, will place the votes

...and the bad mistakes people made as governor or senator in their states are often forgiven

some liberals in arkansas were angry with clinton over his over friendly relationship with some arkansas based polluters, but the issue hardly raised an eyebrow on the national arena

And that is a sad state of the intelligence of the American voter IMO.

I have much more respect for a politician that holds to their position, than one that swings with the wind. (Lordy, did I just say that I have respect for GWB, with that comment? :eek: :eek: :eek: ). What I can say positive about Warner is that it appears that he is leaving Virginia no worse off after the raping of the coffers and the public that Gilmore (who is on the RNC short list that I saw).

[Chip NoVaMac]

Since you bring up Wilson, he's no moderate. He was a political chameleon with no apparent principles to call his own, who was the architect of electric power "reforms" that brought us rolling blackouts widespread fraud and economic calamity, and he did it out of pure political ambition. He's toast.

Thank you for the words I was searching for to describe Warner.

My own persnal experience with Warner was on the WTOP radio call in, "Ask the Governor". He was making a silly statement that traffic safety in NOVA was not as bad as we drivers think. That speeders are a minority on NOVA highways. I called in, and he stated that in his travels he never noticed "speeders' on the roadways I mentioned. I reminded him that he probably has an escort of Impalas or Crown Vics, and the State Police are notified of his travels. I invited him to join me in my own car to see first hand the woes the average person faces. He declined of course. :D

The man has his mouth and hands in so many pockets, he makes a whore blush.

[aloofman]

if you look at mccain, he's actually a conservative, but he is not always in lockstep with the president

but in a strange way, moderates worship mccain

That depends on what you mean by "conservative" and "moderate". McCain seems to believe that the government shouldn't spend more money than it takes in, which would seem to be a conservative position, but most Republicans in Congress don't seem too bothered with it. McCain fits the profile of "moderate" if you mean someone who doesn't think that one party always has all the answers and that compromise is necessary.


look for mccain, condi rice, joe lieberman, rudy giuliani, and schwartzeneggar to be looking at 2008...moderates like them very much

I feel compelled to point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for president of the United States and it's very doubtful that he'll be able to in time for the 2008 campaign. A consitutional amendment would be required to allow a foreign-born U.S. citizen to become president (or vice president, for that matter). There is currently no political or popular momentum behind such an amendment, and even if there were, it takes several years for 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment. An Arnie 2008 campaign is almost impossible at this point.

Even if he could, it's not clear whether he could win any national office. California's situation was pretty unique. He would not have been elected if he'd had to endure a normal primary election because he is too moderate. And the main reason for his popularity is that the state legislature is so unpopular.

[aloofman]

hey, i am with you politically

but i am afraid that the gop will beat us to the middle (moderate promise land) and start some sort of dynasty and thus win in 2008

but if the gop stays in power until 2012, america will feel the need for change, no matter how well things are going and the democrats could run a mediocre campaign and win...politics (white house, house of representatives, senate) is historically very cyclical but some factors within our control can change, within a margin of four years, how long or short that cycle is

Part of the reason that American politics is cyclical is that the opposition party adapts and eventually hits on a formula that wins. I disagree with that idea that voters will tire of the GOP and Democrats will have an election in the bag. The bigger factor, in my opinion, is who the Republican party nominates in 2008. Will he -- pretty sure it will be a man -- be able to speak the language of the evangelicals like Bush does? Will the budget situation be so bad that the GOP can't talk their way out of it? Bush's politics are very personal and he's pulled a lot of his party on board with him, not the other way around. Will the next Republican be able to corral the party base the way Bush has? It's tempting to say he won't because the GOP over the last four years has been as disciplined as anyone can remember or could have been expected.

One trend that political cycles have yielded: the party of an outgoing two-term president rarely wins the presidential election. In the past 125 years, only FDR and Bush Sr. have done it. So the Democrats had better come up with someone better than Dukakis.

[atszyman]

I feel compelled to point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for president of the United States and it's very doubtful that he'll be able to in time for the 2008 campaign. A consitutional amendment would be required to allow a foreign-born U.S. citizen to become president (or vice president, for that matter). There is currently no political or popular momentum behind such an amendment, and even if there were, it takes several years for 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment. An Arnie 2008 campaign is almost impossible at this point.


Even if an amendment was to pass tomorrow, every amendment I've heard proposed requires 35 years of sole US citizenship which rules Arnold out. He holds dual citizenship with US and Austria. The earliest he could run would be 2040.

I've always liked McCain, seems like a decent guy with fairly good ideas. Not to mention he's shown a great ability to work with both sides. However I wish he'd be more vocal in his criticisms of the administration. You'd think with the right pick of his stands he could appeal to a lot of fence voters and many true conservatives, and a lot of Dems who want the Neocons gone. This should make it an easy walk into the presidency in '08.

Giuliani bothers me just because he tows the party line too much rather than having his own beliefs. Everytime I saw him on the news this last year he stood 100% behind the current administration and defended their every move. I used to be 100% certain that Cheney would be dropped to have Giuliani on the ticket for this last election to prepare for a run in '08. I'm almost glad I was wrong.

[jefhatfield]

I feel compelled to point out that Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for president of the United States and it's very doubtful that he'll be able to in time for the 2008 campaign. A consitutional amendment would be required to allow a foreign-born U.S. citizen to become president (or vice president, for that matter). There is currently no political or popular momentum behind such an amendment, and even if there were, it takes several years for 38 states to ratify a proposed amendment. An Arnie 2008 campaign is almost impossible at this point.

Even if he could, it's not clear whether he could win any national office. California's situation was pretty unique. He would not have been elected if he'd had to endure a normal primary election because he is too moderate. And the main reason for his popularity is that the state legislature is so unpopular.

see what may "hatch" concerning arnold ;)

if the gop thinks they have a chance with arnold, they have the ability, with their numbers in congress, to make it happen for him through a consitutional amendment

the gop are the master chameleons this decade and they will be "anybody" america wants them to be in order to get elected...the democrats, in 2000 and 2004, were a little too rigid and tried more to sell there platform without asking america what they wanted first

it is the republicans who know more about compromise and that's why they captured the middle ground...and the middle ground, imho, may have moved somewhat, but not too much, to the right since clinton's two terms

to me, my fellow democrats looked like they got caught up too much in dogma and were unwilling to look at their own weaknesses

clinton was a master at looking at what was wrong with his party and able to mold himself into what americans wanted at the time and needed and stayed on course in the image he made of himself in order to easily capture a second term by a margin of several states...some ultra liberals were upset that clinton did not turn more into a liberal democrat and push more for medical marijuana and gay rights...those issues will ultimately be addressed sometime in the future but clinton knew he had to grow the dem's street credibility with the party's relationship with wall street and a sound economic policy

bush jr. could have lost the election if he had lost ohio or florida which the gop was prudently planning for from the beginning...they never stopped worrying about those states and could not think that since they were popular there some years ago...therefore making it good for them in november 2004

[takao]

Even if an amendment was to pass tomorrow, every amendment I've heard proposed requires 35 years of sole US citizenship which rules Arnold out. He holds dual citizenship with US and Austria. The earliest he could run would be 2040.

OT: arnolds dual citizenship just got into discussion as well...(dual-citizenship is hard to get in asutria..for normal people impossible)... his support for the death penalty does interfere with the political culture in austria and the austrian law(death penalty is banned here)..some politicians demand now that he have to give the austrian citizenship back...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/austria.schwarzenegger.ap/

[IJ Reilly]

Even if he could, it's not clear whether he could win any national office. California's situation was pretty unique. He would not have been elected if he'd had to endure a normal primary election because he is too moderate. And the main reason for his popularity is that the state legislature is so unpopular.

His own party would hammer him in the primaries for being a moderate on social issues, and even if he got past that, in a lengthy general election campaign he'd be made to answer for his checkered personal life and his performance as Governor.

[aloofman]

it is the republicans who know more about compromise and that's why they captured the middle ground...and the middle ground, imho, may have moved somewhat, but not too much, to the right since clinton's two terms

What exactly do you base this assertion on? The Republican party has not compromised on any major issue since Bush came into office. They have been disciplined enough within their own ranks to pass their agenda on party-line votes. With the exception of the "No Child Left Behind" law (which has never been fully implemented anyway), no major law has passed with bipartisan support during this administration. Whether you agree with Bush or not, it's hard to argue that the GOP has been compromising with the Democrats. Comprimising within the GOP, maybe.

They solidified their majority by using scare tactics, more effective propaganda, and taking advantage of the Democrats' disunity, lack of an effective counter-message, and crappy candidates.

bush jr. could have lost the election if he had lost ohio or florida which the gop was prudently planning for from the beginning...they never stopped worrying about those states and could not think that since they were popular there some years ago...therefore making it good for them in november 2004

I agree with you there. The GOP has just been much more organized and disciplined over the last ten years than the Democrats. It's not even close. The Dems will have to close that gap to win the presidency.

[jefhatfield]

What exactly do you base this assertion on? The Republican party has not compromised on any major issue since Bush came into office. They have been disciplined enough within their own ranks to pass their agenda on party-line votes. With the exception of the "No Child Left Behind" law (which has never been fully implemented anyway), no major law has passed with bipartisan support during this administration. Whether you agree with Bush or not, it's hard to argue that the GOP has been compromising with the Democrats. Comprimising within the GOP, maybe.

They solidified their majority by using scare tactics, more effective propaganda, and taking advantage of the Democrats' disunity, lack of an effective counter-message, and crappy candidates.



many on the far left think that bush just powered the right wing of his party past all moderate republicans and democrats...but that is not true

there is a struggle right now in the gop over whether the hard liners or the moderates will take control of the party...right now, neither wing of the gop has complete control and it's likely neither side ever will

to kill a bill or proposal, just make it too left wing or too right wing...in government, the way it is set up in the usa, there is always compromise, whether it happens in front of the news media or whether it happens behind closed doors

the gop had the very able, perhaps ruthless, back deal masters in newt gingrich and bob dole...while they were known to have right wing views, both men knew that it was better to get something passed with something they believe in on some level as opposed to getting it rejected for being too right wing

we can look to bush jr. and say he did this or that to bring america more to the right, but legislatively, it's ultimately the individual senators and congresspeople who control what gets passed and what doesn't

originally, the constitution set up the three branches of our government, but did give slightly more power to congress than the judicial branch and the executive branch...remember the president was able to pack the courts more then so the judicial branch was able to be in the pocket of the executive branch, which later was lessened by marbury vs. madison

our very constitution would not have been ratified if it had not been set up to give the individual congress members the ultimate authority in the end...that beat having a counter revolution in the 1790s, or having large population states having to have to enforce a federal mandate through the use of troops against the smaller, less constitutionally inclined states

[jefhatfield]

I agree with you there. The GOP has just been much more organized and disciplined over the last ten years than the Democrats. It's not even close. The Dems will have to close that gap to win the presidency.

i will be more than happy if the democrats win florida in 2008 or just ohio...and still keep the states that were won in 2004 ;)

an interesting article i read on the 2000 election claimed that many evangelicals were not on board with bush jr. as much as they were during 2004 and if the evangelicals came out in the same force in 2000, they would have "soundly" beat gore

some evangelical voters, in 2000, were a bit upset over the allegations that he drank (too much) and did drugs...and many were not ready to cast a vote for junior quite yet...of course, we know from 2004 that all is forgiven ;)

[Thanatoast]

we can look to bush jr. and say he did this or that to bring america more to the right, but legislatively, it's ultimately the individual senators and congresspeople who control what gets passed and what doesn't.While this is literally true, I don't think it paints the entire picture of modern politics. Members of Congress are ultimately slaves to their constituents, who they (nominally) try to please, to get re-elected. With the enormous power of persona imbued upon the Presidency and through the judicious (and malicious) use of national media he can drive the direction and tone of national debate. If Bush hammers on the drums of war, the Congress will cave, because they know that if they go against him all of a sudden their political opponents will brand them traitors who want terrorists to eat our children. So they have to go along. Ultimately, it *is* the Congress that gets things done, but few of them have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the President should he decide to press an issue.

[aloofman]

the gop had the very able, perhaps ruthless, back deal masters in newt gingrich and bob dole...while they were known to have right wing views, both men knew that it was better to get something passed with something they believe in on some level as opposed to getting it rejected for being too right wing

Gingrich and Dole had to compromise because their bills had to be signed by a Democratic president and they couldn't normally override his veto. The current administration has not had to compromise except with its own party. Bush has never vetoed a bill passed by Congress.

[jefhatfield]

While this is literally true, I don't think it paints the entire picture of modern politics. Members of Congress are ultimately slaves to their constituents, who they (nominally) try to please, to get re-elected. With the enormous power of persona imbued upon the Presidency and through the judicious (and malicious) use of national media he can drive the direction and tone of national debate. If Bush hammers on the drums of war, the Congress will cave, because they know that if they go against him all of a sudden their political opponents will brand them traitors who want terrorists to eat our children. So they have to go along. Ultimately, it *is* the Congress that gets things done, but few of them have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the President should he decide to press an issue.

i hope congress is not there to cave, but if they were, then we should just call our leader, king george :)