« Dawn's Early Write | Main | Imagine My Surprise »

Frozen In Time

Time Magazine's Joe Klein delivers a devastating assessment of the pitiful performance of Democrats lately, in The Incredible Shrinking Democrats.

The day after the President's speech, the party's congressional leaders gathered at the Franklin D. Roosevelt memorial to carp. How 70 years ago! "Progressive" Dems - and I use the term advisedly, since liberals seem more interested in preserving the past than in discovering the future - are right to admire Roosevelt. But the Roosevelt they worship is a bronze sculpture, frozen in time. The real F.D.R. was a gutsy innovator. The current Democrats resemble nothing so much as the Republicans during the 25 years after Roosevelt's death—negative, defensive, intellectually feeble, a permanent minority. There are reasons to oppose this President - arrogance abroad, crony capitalism at home - but undifferentiated opposition is obtuse and most likely counterproductive. The Democrats' current crudeness is a function of their desperation, and the imminent ratification of Howard Dean, the least charming presidential candidate in recent memory, as their party chairman only serves to punctuate the problem.
Owww.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Frozen In Time:

» RightPundit linked with Curlish Democrats

» Conservative Friends linked with The future of the Democrats

» The LLama Butchers linked with It's bad enough when they pine for JFK...

» The Big Picture linked with Conservatives and Liberals: Trading Places

» No Oil for Pacifists linked with Demonizing Republicans, Day 386

» No Oil for Pacifists linked with Demonizing Republicans, Day 386

Comments (48)

Hunting season has official... (Below threshold)
OneDrummer:

Hunting season has officially started for those who eat their own kind....

Based on my limited intelle... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Based on my limited intellect, I am predicting a split in the Democratic party by 2008, no later than 2012. At this time, Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi will lead the fringe left in a lemming march to the cliffs of insanity while John Kerry or Barak Obama will lead the moderate liberals in an attempt to find where their party used to be. This will effectively lead to new party in the US and three (somewhat)effective candidates for the next presidential election.

"Honey, I shrank the democr... (Below threshold)
JAT:

"Honey, I shrank the democrats!"

It's delightful, it's de-lo... (Below threshold)
Neal:

It's delightful, it's de-loveley!

I don't think they'll split... (Below threshold)

I don't think they'll split that soon, Drew, but it's a nice vision. Just imagine how the Dim's will feel, getting the same treatment Perot gave the Republicans in 92, only every election, instead of just one.

MUAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Gawd, I love it when a plan comes together.

FDR loved his country and i... (Below threshold)
ridgerunner:

FDR loved his country and it's people. It is obvious to anyone who listens to what Democrats say (when you can actually get them to lay out their views) they have loyalties to instiutions and philosiphies above our country and its' constitution. They are like embedded French or something.
The Republicans have fissures that can be exploited. But the Democrats, as presently constitued will not be able to work this to their advantage until the American people are abe to recognise them as being of us.

Sorry I'm so cheap, but is ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Sorry I'm so cheap, but is there any way to read the entire article without subscribing to their liberal magazine?

The current Democrats re... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

The current Democrats resemble nothing so much as the Republicans during the 25 years after Roosevelt's death—negative, defensive, intellectually feeble, a permanent minority. There are reasons to oppose this President - arrogance abroad, crony capitalism at home - but undifferentiated opposition is obtuse and most likely counterproductive.

I have to say I agree with quite a bit of Klein's analysis here in regards to the Democrats shortcomings. There IS alot of negativity, and not enough problem solving happening. Alot of complaining, not enough attention on improving policies or dealing with important issues...

I agree that a split may ve... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I agree that a split may very well be on the way, but I don't think it will happen before the '08 election, but if they can't garner any kind of win in '06, '08, or '10, then the split will start happening, and it will be between the left and center wings of the party.

Also, I think one problem is that the dems are all about how bad the other side is, without any fresh ideas of their own. One only needs to look to social security to see this-while they all seem to hate Bush's plan, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of alternative ideas coming from the Dems, and even worse, some of them are denying there is a crisis at all.

I'm going to go out on a li... (Below threshold)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and beat this horse I've been beating just a little bit more:

Howard Dean will surprise people! I don't think he's the left winger that either the right or the fringe left hope/believe he is. Yes, during the primaries -- which happened to be the time he came to national attention -- he was running as the "progressive" we've all come to know and love. But if you look at Dean's record and comments pre-running for president you'd see he's actually a more middle of the road, pro-gun, fiscally conservative, halfway sensible guy. Now, think how far he would have gotten during the primary running under that platform. Think Joe Lieberman without the name recognition. Dean's smart, and he played to win. And that means tacking away from the center during primaries, and tacking back to the center once you are nominated. Yes, Dean lost, but he got a lot further -- a hell of a lot further -- than anyone would have thought two years ago.

Now I could be wrong; maybe Dean did drink the progressive cool-aid / have a road to Damascus moment and is a true believer, but I hope not. I'm no fan of the Dems these days, but I like a good, healthy two party system. I hope to hell Dean rights the ship (pun intended) and helps purge (or at least greatly minimize) the Dems of their moonbat wing of the party.

...Howard Dean, th... (Below threshold)
...Howard Dean, the least charming presidential candidate in recent memory...

Has everyone already repressed the memory of Dennis Kucinich?

AARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!... (Below threshold)
OneDrummer:

AARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Yeah, I can imagine Lieberman doing that unhinged schtick. Doh.

Dean is he moonbat wing of the party.

Also, I think one proble... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Also, I think one problem is that the dems are all about how bad the other side is, without any fresh ideas of their own.

Yep. I hear alot of complaining, but not many alternative solutions. Thats one of the main problems.

Nathan, not sure if I agree... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Nathan, not sure if I agree with your assesment, but it's going to be a whole lot of fun to watch whatever happens. I live in a very liberal area and they are just tearing themselves apart in their misdirected hatred of all things not "progressive".

They look at Dean, Boxer and Pelosi as their saviors. I hope they keep thinking that way.

We'll always have a two party system, one party just makes a lot more sense these days.

The democrats are attacking... (Below threshold)
TheEnigma:

The democrats are attacking President Bush while their own made similar proposals in the past and these proposals were greeted warmly


Clinon and Privatizing Social Security

If there's a working brain ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

If there's a working brain left anywhere in the upper echelons of the democrat party the split will come soon, very soon. Surely someone there realizes that they need to distance themselves from the moonbats soon enough to reorganize and present a viable candidate/plank/ideology going by 2007 at the latest or watch the whole thing go down the tubes. They don't have to win in 2008 but without a good showing they are doomed for a long time to come. Someone there needs to grow enough of a spine to tell George Soros and the limosine liberal crowd to take a hike. Make those that think it needs to move further to the left start their own new party, and take the old party back.

Mesablue,I ... (Below threshold)

Mesablue,

I agree, the progressives love Dean, and hope / expect him to take them to new heights. I just think that the reality of the Dean chairmanship my not be so palatable as their fantasy. For instance, how happy will the progressives be if ?

Opps... screwed up my HTML.... (Below threshold)

Opps... screwed up my HTML.

Last sentance should go:

... how happy will the progressives be if this is true?

We'll always have a two ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

We'll always have a two party system, one party just makes a lot more sense these days.

Sure, a one party system always makes sense to some who are in the party in power. That is because they are short-sighted twits who don't understand the nature of power.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
-Lord Acton

there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of alternative ideas coming from the Dems, and even worse, some of them are denying there is a crisis at all.

While I agree that the dems need to get off their asses and put forth a counter-proposal if they want to have any real standing in their opposition, their denying that ss has reached a crisis stage is not evidence that they think everything is hunky dory.

crisis, n: An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Bush himself said it will start losing money in 2018. Sounds like a problem to me, but not a crisis. There are ways to fix it, and sadly most of them involve higher taxes, but private accounts will not fix the problems of ss; instead they will speed up the problem.

Nathan,Exactly, it... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Nathan,

Exactly, it is a fantasy. Half the hippies that supported Dean probably didn't even know about his stand on gun control -- or much of anything else.

But, they (the libs) were able to justify Clinton's misogony with their twisted "greater good" rationalizations.

I'm sure they'll find away to justify this too, as their party moves farther and farther away from providing nationally electable candidates.

"Progressives" be they Demo... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

"Progressives" be they Democrats or other are stuck in 1929. All their "ideas" relate to the start of the last depression. Unfortunately the Dem party is dominated by "progressives".
Drew - JFK is as far left as Dean, check his voting record.

"Sure, a one party system a... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

"Sure, a one party system always makes sense to some who are in the party in power. That is because they are short-sighted twits who don't understand the nature of power.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
-Lord Acton"

Mantis,

Hopefully you aren't calling me a short-sighted twit.
Maybe if I said -- one party is making more sense to the Americans who actually vote these days, you would have gotten my meaning.

The Dems had the power for over 30 years and we didn't lose the two party system, I don't see it happening now.

The Dems have just let the whackos take over the nuthouse and I'm enjoying every minute of it. The overall political views of the American people haven't changed. the Dems changed and they refuse to admit it.

The Dems have just let t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The Dems have just let the whackos take over the nuthouse and I'm enjoying every minute of it. The overall political views of the American people haven't changed. the Dems changed and they refuse to admit it.

No, I'm not calling you a short-sighted twit, just anyone who believes a one-party system is a good idea, which you clearly don't. As far as the above quote, I don't think the dems have changed all that much, they are just very disorganized and far too hesitant to form a clear platform. And I do think that overall political views of Americans have changed, even if only in the short term.

"Bush himself said it will ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Bush himself said it will start losing money in 2018. Sounds like a problem to me, but not a crisis.

Except that if you wait until then to fix it, it will be even more difficult. Think of the problem as a cancer, the sooner you find it and deal with it, the more likely you are to recover from it, the longer you wait to treat it, the more lower your chances of recovery are, and if you wait to late, they can't do a think to fix you.

Social security is something that needs to be fixed now, when there are still a wide range of options available, if we wait until the problem rears its head, it may be too late to do anything.

Also, the problem for the moonbats who control the party, is that they do not realize they are the ones out of touch, they think that those who disagree with them are morons. They may think they can right off flyover country, but the reality is that until they moderate their party, they are going to continue to lose elections and lose power.

Just Me,I pretty m... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Just Me,

I pretty much agree with everything you said there, except maybe the point about dems thinking those that disagree with them are morons. Some may, surely, but I think this is a bit of applying the attitudes of a small group of vocal jerks too broadly. I'm sure there are people high up in the Rep. party who think those that disagree with them are morons too, they just keep it to themselves better.

btw I am a liberal, but not a democrat, who does not think that conservatives are morons. Certainly some are, but morons are everywhere. Nor do I think Bush is the devil, Rove is an evil genius, or that neo-cons want to invade Canada. Just putting it out there to remind people not everyone who calls him/herself a liberal is a nutjob, even on the internet.

Rod: Yes, I realize where ... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Rod: Yes, I realize where Kerry's true allegiance lies. But I also see where his voter base is right now. Kerry is more appealing to moderates (although not as appealing as someone like Liberman) and, as shown by the '04 election, can garner more of them than any of the fringe candidates. In addition, he is at the heart of some bitter infighting within the party right now and is disagreeing with nearly everything said by Pelosi, Reid and the other far lefties. That's why I think he could be one of the leaders of the "moderate" movement within the Democratic party. Not because he's really that way.

"btw I am a liberal, but no... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"btw I am a liberal, but not a democrat, who does not think that conservatives are morons. "

Okay-there may be a few out there, but I read lots of the liberal responses to the whole "red state/blue state" thing after the election, and the general consensus seems to be that anyone who voted for Bush was a moron or a religious bigot.

I debated with several liberals at a message board, their general thinking is that anyone who votes for Bush is a moron.

So while I believe there are some out there who don't assume that I am a moron, there are a lot of people, and not just the far left public voices who really do think that conservatives who voted for Bush are morons.

Also, notice I referenced those comments about the moonbats-I think you can be a liberal, be a democrat and not be a moonbat.

Old Coot: Library. Period... (Below threshold)

Old Coot: Library. Periodicals section.

And if the library doesn't ... (Below threshold)
julie:

And if the library doesn't work out for you, try: www.bugmenot.com

What we have -- what we hav... (Below threshold)

What we have -- what we have pretty much always had -- is a one-and-a-half-party system. It has been extremely rare that the nation has been genuinely split about which party to support.

Generally, there has always been one dominant party, which may screw up and lose support over some ephemeral issue or another for an election cycle or two, but which recovers -- until the one time it doesn't, and the other party moves into dominance.

What we've just seen is one such reversal; over a period of ten years the dream of Reagan Republicans has come about and the GOP is now the dominant party in American politics.

Democrat whining and sniping about Republicans "believing a one-party system is a good idea" is nothing more than sour grapes. No Democrat alive knows how to be the second party in American politics, and they haven't figured out how to identify and exploit legitimate failures of the dominant party.

One day they will -- or else some other party will have to rise into second place and keep the GOP honest. But it is simply not in the makeup of our political system to have only one political party.

So quityerbitchin, Mantis, and get to work figuring out how to do your job as the second party in a one-and-a-half-party system. There might be some Republicans still around from the pre-Gingrich days who could offer suggestions.

Damn. Mantis is onto the Ca... (Below threshold)
Steven L.:

Damn. Mantis is onto the Canada thing.


WAVE OFF. WAVE OFF. Go to Alternate plan.

McGehee,Like I sai... (Below threshold)
mantis:

McGehee,

Like I said, I'm not a democrat. And I wasn't saying that Republicans believe a one-party system is a good idea. Anyone with half a brain knows that it's not. I was responding to mesablue's post, which I misinterpreted anyway. Anyhow, I don't have to figure out how to do any job as a member of any party, because I'm not. I'm just a voter.

Steven L,

I knew it!

I hate to bring up a little... (Below threshold)
Zen_more:

I hate to bring up a little history in the midst of all this wild prognostication, but remember Eisenhower? A Republican? Elected (and re-) only SEVEN years after Roosevelt's death? Remember Dewey? Almost beat Truman THREE years after Roosevelt's death? If "...the current Democrats resemble nothing so much as the Republicans during the 25 years after Roosevelt's death..." they're in much better shape than most think.

Joe Klein writes: <i... (Below threshold)
s9:

Joe Klein writes: "Progressive" Dems - and I use the term advisedly, since liberals seem more interested in preserving the past than in discovering the future - are right to admire Roosevelt.

Good thing Joe decided to use scare quotes around the word "progressive" here, or it might not have been clear that he expects you to know the difference between progressives and liberals.

I realize that may be an unrealistic expectation around these parts...

Drew writes: Base... (Below threshold)
s9:

Drew writes: Based on my limited intellect, I am predicting a split in the Democratic party by 2008, no later than 2012.

At least, you aren't selling yourself short. For a more informed prediction, see this article by Grover Norquist.

The future is pretty easy to make out: the United States is well on its way toward becoming a One Party State. The Democrats are already dead as a national party— they just haven't stopped moving yet. When the final collapse comes, it will be a split into not just two factions, but several, and all of them will be powerless to win elections at the national level. It will be difficult for coalitions of them to obtain majority power even at the state level.

The only interesting wager here is how long it will be before the Republicans have a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. I'm projecting it will happen no later than 2008.

mesablue writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

mesablue writes: Exactly, it is a fantasy. Half the hippies that supported Dean probably didn't even know about his stand on gun control -- or much of anything else.

Dude. You haven't been paying attention to what the hippies are actually saying to one another these days. A whole lot of them have come to the conclusion that "gun control" is a losing issue for them.

I have a lot of hippie friends, and all the ones who used to support gun control— all of them— have changed their minds in the last four years. And every single one of them who supported Dean knew about his position on gun control, and they liked it.

You definitely need to check your premises about what you think the hippies of today are thinking. You might be out of touch.

s9,I can only go b... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

s9,

I can only go by what they tell me. I live in the middle of lesbian/gay/hippieland for my area. I was "outed" as a republican by a local bartender and since then I've had to listen to every goofy moonbat in town -- not one of them knew about Dean's gun control stance.

Maybe your hippies are smarter than my hippies. I sure hope they smell better.

The real problem with moder... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The real problem with modern Democrats is that their policies are based upon false principles. Socialism, communism, and all the other 'isms that flow from the font of far left ideology are some of the most atrocious examples of creative stupidity the world has ever seen. It isn't that the lefties evil, they're just damned fools who can't seem to learn from their own mistakes, let alone the mistakes of others.

As long as the far left continues to control and define the democratic party, it will continue to slip further and further down the drain of irrelevance.

Now some would say that this is a good thing. I don't see it that way because as bad as the moonbats are, there are cakes just as fruity on the far right. The left likes to portray conservatives as being a bunch of Pats, as in Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. The truth of course as that these two personalities represent the far-right fringe. The problem is that without a viable opposition in the form of a rational and viable left wing, these turkeys get a free hand to shove their bullshit down everyone's throat. Not only will this create massive problems for the country at large, but conservatives and Republicans will take the blame for it.

I think we should do everything we can to preserve the democratic party because like it or not, it is the only thing, politically speaking, protecting us from the devils of our worse nature. Because while Bush may not be the nazi the moonbats claim he is, there are members of his party who do fit that description. Without something to keep them in line, they're likely to cause more trouble for this country than the lefties could ever hope to create.

"The Democrats are already ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"The Democrats are already dead as a national party— they just haven't stopped moving yet. When the final collapse comes, it will be a split into not just two factions, but several, and all of them will be powerless to win elections at the national level."

I don't know that I agree. There are plenty of reasonable liberals/democrats out there. When the current dem party collapses, I think the more reasonable people of the party will probably band together and create their big tent. Right now the left wing of the party seems unwilling to accept or give much voice to the people on the other end of the party spectrum, and they tend to marginalize them. The GOP tends to do a better job of welcoming both ends of the spectrum into the party. If the dems learn to do this, they may not be dead in the water, but their current course seems to be taking them that way.

I can't help but think that when they go down, some of the more reasonable minds among them, will realize they need to recreate their tent to give a voice and support to everyone.

It seems to me that Klein's... (Below threshold)
Ben:

It seems to me that Klein's supposed grounds for criticizing Bush - "arrogance abroad, crony capitalism at home" - are the exact grounds (and phrasing) that Democrats have been criticizing Bush and have directly lead to their diminution as a party. Rather than being a helpful suggestion to other Democrats, Klein can't even get his own Bush hatred out of his system long enough to diagnose the Democrat's problem.

Just to be clear, Bush is not arrogant abroad nor does he support, represent or condone "crony" capitalism, unless Klein means to suggest that all capitalism is "crony." (Given that Democrats are closet socialists, maybe he does.) The jury - i.e., the electorate - returned its verdict on these Democrat charges and found Bush not guilty.

Lee writes: Witho... (Below threshold)
s9:

Lee writes: Without something to keep [the national socialist faction of the Republican party] in line, they're likely to cause more trouble for this country than the lefties could ever hope to create.

You Republicans better figure out how to keep your fascists "in line" yourselves— because you ain't gonna get any help from the Democrats (as much as they'd like to be there for you in your moment of dire need). Now that you're almost done freezing the Democrats out of Washington, D.C. and most of the state capitols, they simply don't have the power to stop your fascists from taking over your party. The power to do that will have to come from inside the "adult supervision" faction of the GOP, or it won't happen at all.

Just Me writes: I... (Below threshold)
s9:

Just Me writes: I think the more reasonable people of the party will probably band together and create their big tent.

That's where you're wrong. The reasonable people will recognize where the power will have become concentrated, and they will switch to the Republican Party.

At that point, we will still have all the old partisan bickering we used to have when the government was split between Democrats and Republicans, but it will all be happening inside Republican caucus chambers under Republican Party rules, rather than Congressional rules.

The left will meander off into the Land Of Misfit Trotskyists, where no voices ever gain access to the mass media, without which they will be unable to organize into an effective political movement. Instead, they will do what the left always does when they are deprived of a seat at the policy-making table by the right.

I trust I don't have to explain what that means.

Oh, and while we're on the ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Joe Klein... I wouldn't get all wound up over his "analysis" of the Democrats. The guy has been caught too many times just making sh!t up out of thin air to support his arguments.

See here for a good takedown of Joe Klein's capacity for honest analysis.

I find it particularly rich... (Below threshold)

I find it particularly rich to see yet another Leftard accusing the Right of fascism, closet or otherwise. Can anyone here name one government, since Fascism was invented, that sprang from a Right/conservative point of view?

Lessee now:

Rome: practiced a early form of socialism, with extensive state welfare programs and authoritarian collectivist interference in individual lives. This was later revived to some extent by Mussolini.

Mussolini: ardent socialist in early life, turned on his former party, but continued to institute the socialist agenda whilst founding the first formally Fascist system.

Hitler: creator of the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party, short form "Nazi", for those who were asleep in history class.

Stalin: the worst mistake the U.S.A. ever made was allowing Stalin to claim to be a socialist or communist, when in fact he was the next step in the evolution of the Marxist belief set: a fascist.

Now, I'm not saying that socialism inevitably leads to fascism, though the distinctions can be a bit hard to see. Sweden, "Great" Britain, and most of EUnuchland aren't exactly run by dictatorships just yet.

But about the only practical difference I can see between fascism and socialism is that fascism is slightly more efficient, being less prone to tyranny by committee and more prone to tyranny by individual.

"The future is pretty ea... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"The future is pretty easy to make out: the United States is well on its way toward becoming a One Party State. The Democrats are already dead as a national party— they just haven't stopped moving yet. When the final collapse comes, it will be a split into not just two factions, but several, and all of them will be powerless to win elections at the national level. It will be difficult for coalitions of them to obtain majority power even at the state level."

I would argue that the split has already started, its called the Green Party. What hasn't occurred yet is the tipping point in which a significant number of Democrats jump ship to the Green Party, or form yet another Party.

The Greens may attain parity and replace the Democratic Party if they recruit a truly viable candidate to lend legitimacy to the party, then that will be a tipping point.

I think as things are now, the Democrats are pushing moderates toward the Republican party. As a result the Democrats are in for another horse whipping in 2006. Which opens the door for 2008, to be the make or break election for the Democratic Party.

The Green Party has a good chance to take the largest segment of Democrats, but the Democratic Party may fracture into many smaller parties. Look at how the Party is put together as coalitions of various Special Interest Groups, with competing goals. How is that the Environmentalists and the UAW are in the same party?

"How is that the Environmen... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"How is that the Environmentalists and the UAW are in the same party?"

I have long wondered the same thing.

Republicans have their competing beliefs-the social conservatives/social liberals, but they tend to be individual belief more than two huge lobbying groups. But I have never understood how the UAW could get behind Gore especially or Kerry, but the answer there is probably power-the UAW isn't so much for the dems because of the union positions, but because the dems are more likely to keep the union powerful and viable.

Mr. Bowen writes: <i... (Below threshold)
s9:

Mr. Bowen writes: I find it particularly rich to see yet another Leftard accusing the Right of fascism, closet or otherwise.

Dude, I'm not even going to bother with deconstructing this mess you just made, because the errors are stacked up high and deep just in the first sentence.

At 7:37 PM yesterday, Lee wrote: I think we should do everything we can to preserve the democratic party because like it or not, it is the only thing, politically speaking, protecting us from the devils of our worse nature. Because while Bush may not be the nazi the moonbats claim he is, there are members of his party who do fit that description. Without something to keep them in line, they're likely to cause more trouble for this country than the lefties could ever hope to create.

Our dear friend Lee is no "Leftard," as is plainly obvious from just the one post I excerpted above. If you have a problem with people pointing out that there are fascists in the Republican party, take it up with him.

I'll confess though: I thought he was going a little over the top, myself. I doubt there are any genuine fascists in the Republican party. All I can see are a fairly small cadre of "pseudo-fascists," to use a term coined by David Neiwert.

But, hey— I'm not a Republican. What do I know? Maybe you guys really do have a cadre of Führer-worshipping fascists running around loose inside the party headquarters, and we poor hippies out here on the street just never see them.

Eric writes: The ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Eric writes: The Green Party has a good chance to take the largest segment of Democrats, but the Democratic Party may fracture into many smaller parties. Look at how the Party is put together as coalitions of various Special Interest Groups, with competing goals.

Yes, do look closely at that— because it will reveal the flaw in your analysis.

When the Democrats are finally broken and it is clear to everyone that they cannot field a slate of competitive candidates all the way up and down the ticket in all fifty states, you will see that the largest group of Democrats will belong to a minor party called "The Democratic Party." There will be a collection of other, smaller, minor parties— at least one of which will have a name like "The New Democratic Party" to differentiate it from the old one. There will be the Greens. Then there will be the other Green party (there are already two of them today, you know). And who knows? Maybe the SEIU will manage to found a "U.S. Labor" party or something.

All of them will be unable to field a viable Presidential candidate, or form an effective coalition to achieve even a significant minority in the U.S. Senate.

Get a grip on it, people! The Republicans have rolled the table. Now, it's just a matter of reciting the Conan The Barbarian slogan: "What is best in life? To defeat your enemies, to see their supporters driven into bankruptcy, and to hear the lamentations of their creditors. Ah yes, that is best in life."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy