When did the Republican Party go off the rails?

[Swordfish]

I would even go a little farther and say it was when they hired Ken Starr to investigate Clinton. It looks to me as if he had orders to bring Clinton down by any means necessary and that was fucked up and wrong.

By extension, could this also mark the high water point of the democratic party?

Starr was a viscous partisan attack dog, and the with hunt was deplorable.

but was it much less deplorable than lying under oath and fucking an intern?

Or the fact that many on the left DEFEND that behavior to this day?

[lokisnow]

Pelosi has bigger balls than 537 other congresspeople currently serving.

[Shryke]

By extension, could this also mark the high water point of the democratic party?

Starr was a viscous partisan attack dog, and the with hunt was deplorable.

but was it much less deplorable than lying under oath and fucking an intern?

Or the fact that many on the left DEFEND that behavior to this day?

It's not so much that they defend it as that they don't fucking care.

I don't care how many interns Clinton fucked, I care how many people he had tortured.

[drawkcabi]

I don't see a false equivalency I just see two parties that have gone off the rails in two different ways but to the same degree.

Democrats went scared ballsless to the same degree that Republicans went batshit crazy, both cases adds up to a stymied goverenment.

There is one other difference that might make it seem like there's a false equivalency in that with Republicans, the crazies drown out the moderates because their so crazy while with the Democrats the ones with courage are outspoken enough because the cowards are so cowardly but they are still the majority and rule sell out the party.

[DanteGabriel]

By extension, could this also mark the high water point of the democratic party?

Starr was a viscous partisan attack dog, and the with hunt was deplorable.

but was it much less deplorable than lying under oath and fucking an intern?

Or the fact that many on the left DEFEND that behavior to this day?

You know, it is possible that a lot of us on the left think Bill Clinton did a foolish and stupid thing that was not worth impeachment or the multi-year circus of Ken Starr's prosecution.

The moral bankruptcy of the Republicans hounding Clinton for his adultery was exposed by the fact that so many of his chief persecutors (Gingrich and Hyde especially) had their own infidelities.

[chuck norris 42]

What do the republicans mean when they say "Obama is a Marxist"?

If it is a quick way of saying that Obama wants bigger government and Marxism proved that big government did not work then it is the typical sort of blanket statemtent a politician makes.

If they actually mean that Obama doesn't want individuals to own factories and is happy to have a civil war to make this happen then it is going way too far, You may as well say kills an orphan before breakfast.

[Shryke]

I don't see a false equivalency I just see two parties that have gone off the rails in two different ways but to the same degree.

Democrats went scared ballsless to the same degree that Republicans went batshit crazy, both cases adds up to a stymied goverenment.

There is one other difference that might make it seem like there's a false equivalency in that with Republicans, the crazies drown out the moderates because their so crazy while with the Democrats the ones with courage are outspoken enough because the cowards are so cowardly but they are still the majority and rule sell out the party.

I don't get this at all.

Your definition of "off the rails" for the Democrats is that they have trouble getting shit done?

That's a fucking low bar.

[drawkcabi]

I don't get this at all.

Your definition of "off the rails" for the Democrats is that they have trouble getting shit done?

That's a fucking low bar.

No, my definition of "off the rails" is that the Dems are letting the Republicans walk all over them, the very threat of a filibuster has them hiding under the covers and yammering "Please no! Please no! We'll be good!" When if they'd just say "Go for it!" they'd be getting a lot more respect.

[Shryke]

No, my definition of "off the rails" is that the Dems are letting the Republicans walk all over them, the very threat of a filibuster has them hiding under the covers and yammering "Please no! Please no! We'll be good!" When if they'd just say "Go for it!" they'd be getting a lot more respect.

So your definition of "off the rails" is that the Democrats are getting reamed by the setup of the US government.

Again, that's a REALLY low bar. So low as to be meaningless.

[drawkcabi]

So your definition of "off the rails" is that the Democrats are getting reamed by the setup of the US government.

Again, that's a REALLY low bar. So low as to be meaningless.

Is it in the setup that they must shit their pants at the threat of filibuster?

[Jaime L]

Democrats went scared ballsless to the same degree that Republicans went batshit crazy, both cases adds up to a stymied goverenment.

I'm just surprised you'd see those two sins as equal.

If a company fails because one corporate officer embezzles money and another was too incompetent to stop him, the lionshare of the blame has to lay with the former. There's a markedly different level of culpability here.

[DanteGabriel]

The more I think about it, the harder it is to assign a single moment when the Republicans went off the rails. It's been a long slow journey into madness for them. There are, however, some significant milestones in their progression towards their current state as a party of irrational screaming children:

- the Southern Strategy and the conscious decision to make racism a cornerstone of their platform

- Watergate as an example of the imperial presidency, and the fact that a couple of Bush's stalwarts (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were in Nixon's administration at the time and the main lesson they took out of it was that you shouldn't get caught when running an illegal police state out of the Oval Office

- Reagan's embrace of the idea that government is the problem, and his successors' determination to prove him right

- Reagan's embrace of the religious right and the ascent of dingbats like Pat Robertson as political heavyweights

- Bush the Elder destroying Dukakis with the face of a black man as his chief weapon

- the GOP's conscious decision to destroy health care reform in 1994 because they feared it would usher in another New Deal-like age of Democratic domestic policy dominance

- the Ken Starr witchhunt, an attempt to negate the results of a presidential election by any means necessary

- Bush the Lesser's use of 9/11 as a political weapon to paint anyone opposed to his policies as a terrorist sympathizer

- the dishonest rush to war in Iraq based on cherrypicked intelligence run by Dick Cheney's private intelligence operation

I'm sure others can think up other instances in which the GOP chose the cheaper, easier path to power rather than engaging in an honest attempt to lead.

[Shryke]

Is it in the setup that they must shit their pants at the threat of filibuster?

What else are they supposed to do? How are you defining "shitting their pants" here?

There is pretty much no difference between the "threat of a filibuster" and a filibuster at this point.

Literally the only difference is that some GOP guy needs to go "Yeah, I'm filibustering that". That's it.

If the Democrats can't get 60 votes in the Senate, shit ain't passing. And everyone knows this.

[Shryke]

The more I think about it, the harder it is to assign a single moment when the Republicans went off the rails. It's been a long slow journey into madness for them. There are, however, some significant milestones in their progression towards their current state as a party of irrational screaming children:

- the Southern Strategy and the conscious decision to make racism a cornerstone of their platform

- Watergate as an example of the imperial presidency, and the fact that a couple of Bush's stalwarts (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were in Nixon's administration at the time and the main lesson they took out of it was that you shouldn't get caught when running an illegal police state out of the Oval Office

- Reagan's embrace of the idea that government is the problem, and his successors' determination to prove him right

- Reagan's embrace of the religious right and the ascent of dingbats like Pat Robertson as political heavyweights

- Bush the Elder destroying Dukakis with the face of a black man as his chief weapon

- the GOP's conscious decision to destroy health care reform in 1994 because they feared it would usher in another New Deal-like age of Democratic domestic policy dominance

- the Ken Starr witchhunt, an attempt to negate the results of a presidential election by any means necessary

- Bush the Lesser's use of 9/11 as a political weapon to paint anyone opposed to his policies as a terrorist sympathizer

- the dishonest rush to war in Iraq based on cherrypicked intelligence run by Dick Cheney's private intelligence operation

I'm sure others can think up other instances in which the GOP chose the cheaper, easier path to power rather than engaging in an honest attempt to lead.

I think it all comes back to the idea of the Southern Strategy though. Appealing to the worst in humanity (racism, fear, hatred, anti-intellectualism, etc) in order to acheive the goal of .... getting more power for you and your monied buddies.

[S John]

Nice post Jaime.

There are many aspects of conservatism that I find appealing. To me, the federal government is an overwhelming bureaucracy and I feel tiny and utterly helpless in the face of that monster. To the point of near political apathy on my part. Mainly, I just want to be left alone. Less taxes for less services is a trade that I would probably take 9 times out of 10. I do sometimes wish that I had the ability to make that trade. While I do not harbor any ill will toward the socialist and socialist-lite governments of Europe and Canada, and can even admit that some of them have a good thing going, I am not convinced that that is the path for the United States. I guess I'm a bit of an individualist. Beyond things like basic infrastructure, postal service, and military, I'd like to have the option of taking care of myself. I think that the federal government doesn't need to be bigger, it needs to be smarter. I'd like us to identify and cut wasteful spending, and I'm sure there is plenty, and see those extra funds not reallocated but instead be dedicated to paying down some national debt. Show the world that we're good for the money, instead of begging for more.

I like the idea of small federal government, and I'd like to see a lot more things decided at the state or local level. I think that if more were left up to state and local governments then government would be more approachable, and possibly, less susceptible to national trends of bullshit. Think about how all these ridiculous talking points sweep the nation day after day. It really is an endless tide of crap. A juicy, yet substance-less tidbit emerges in DC at dawn, and by dusk fanatics from Maine to California are frothing at the mouth. Keep more government at the state level and maybe some of that will become self-contained. And on a less cynical note, maybe what is right for Oregon is not right for Florida. I think that sometimes national policy can be so broad and safe that it might not really be saying much at all, but a local movement might really accomplish something. With a national constitution protecting basic rights, I do not see anything wrong with letting the states tailor just about everything else to their specific needs.

Also, think of what it takes to be politically successful at the national level. You almost have to be independently wealthy in order to run for national office. If most important issues were decided state by state then I think you really broaden the pool of potential candidates. I think you'd see a lot more participation from the more moderate crowd who, like me, are overwhelmed by the scale and pettiness of national politics and party lines.

Anyway, I say all of that because next I want to say that I think that the social agenda of the Republican party is retarded (yea, the R word). I can't understand how the Republicans can say that they support less government intervention in the form of less taxes and less federal government, and yet want a say in everyones personal business. If you want government to leave people alone... then how about fucking leaving them alone? Gay marriage? I say, lets do this. Marijuana? Light me up. And, last but not least, secular government pls. You guys worry about spending and budgets, and lets leave the slinging of Bible verses up to the Reverend.

In addition, as JL has so eloquently laid out, there really does seem to be a very real vibe of anti-intellectualism that is alive within the party. And that is completely inexcusable. It is dishonest and reckless and I won't be associated with it. We need to respect our global neighbors, respect the planet, and think before we act. The Republican party reminds me a bit of a cornered animal, just taking wild swipes at anything that moves, working completely on instinct instead of reason. The really crazy part is that not everyone thinks its crazy.

So yea, though I think I'm a conservative at heart, I've found myself aligning with Libs again and again to the point where I'm really not sure if I am a liberal or a conservative or wtf I am. All I know is that there's a lot of bullshit out there, so I turned off the news, registered Independent, and called it a day.

[drawkcabi]

I'm just surprised you'd see those two sins as equal.

If a company fails because one corporate officer embezzles money and another was too incompetent to stop him, the lionshare of the blame has to lay with the former. There's a markedly different level of culpability here.

I'd see the blame as 50/50.

ETA: Of course I am talking about the blame of the company failing from an objective point of view, the embezzler and the incompetent officer share equally for the downfall.

From a subjective point of view I would find it much easier to forgive the incompetent one over the embezzler.

[Night Watchman]

What else are they supposed to do? How are you defining "shitting their pants" here?

There is pretty much no difference between the "threat of a filibuster" and a filibuster at this point.

Literally the only difference is that some GOP guy needs to go "Yeah, I'm filibustering that". That's it.

If the Democrats can't get 60 votes in the Senate, shit ain't passing. And everyone knows this.

As far as I'm aware (and I could be mistaken) the Majority leader could require that it's a good ol' fashioned filibuster, turning Republican attempts to gum up the works into a farce. If the Democrats play their cards right (by no means guaranteed) they could gain from a filibuster.

[Shryke]

As far as I'm aware (and I could be mistaken) the Majority leader could require that it's a good ol' fashioned filibuster, turning Republican attempts to gum up the works into a farce. If the Democrats play their cards right (by no means guaranteed) they could gain from a filibuster.

As far as I'm aware, no he can't.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In addition, as JL has so eloquently laid out, there really does seem to be a very real vibe of anti-intellectualism that is alive within the party.

I will simply say on this point that I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-intellectualism. The educated elite of the Democratic party may think of themselves as preferring intellectualism, and that may be accurate. But I think you are fooling yourselves if you think that is representative of everyone in your party either. Of course, almost by definition, anyone who posts on this kind of message board is not anti-intellectual, and its overwhelmingly liberal. But there are a lot of conservative counters out there that are just as intellectual.

[Shryke]

I will simply say on this point that I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-intellectualism. The educated elite of the Democratic party may think of themselves as preferring intellectualism, and that may be accurate. But I think you are fooling yourselves if you think that is representative of everyone in your party either. Of course, almost by definition, anyone who posts on this kind of message board is not anti-intellectual, and its overwhelmingly liberal. But there are a lot of conservative counters out there that are just as intellectual.

I think you are REALLY foolish if you believe the 2 are even close to comparable.

After all, where's the Democrats Palin?