Now, that’s not fair. The GOP of the 1860s believed in civil rights, infrastructure improvements, a strong federal authority to protect ALL citizens, etc., and were thus hated throughout the South. The only thing the GOP of today shares with the GOP of the 1860s is a belief that Democrats are traitors and unAmerican. After all, the Democrats of the 1860s questioned the Illinois president’s legitimacy, supported states’ rights to oppress minorities (among other things), were the only party white southerners would support, etc. I am not making this up, though I am exaggerating. Change your partners, do-se-do. And this is as it should be. With a two-party system, the parties should NOT have principles. They should have inclinations and preferences, which make co-operation possible, rather than cast-iron principles to that make them incapable of the negotiations and compromises actually necessary to govern. In a system of proportional representation, such as you find in just about every other democratic republic, the parties are numerous, and principles make more sense. The more ideologically rigid a party, the fewer people it actually represents, but in a two-party everyone is compelled to either (a) make their vote irrelevant, or (b) vote for a party that only partly represents their values. This is why so many of us think we are voting for the lesser of two evils. Would we still feel that way if there were ten parties, and one of them was a more exact fit for us? I know lots of folks who would vote for a Libertarian party but feel obliged to vote (holding their noses) Republican. Just as I know many folks. who vote Democratic with equal reluctance. Anyway, would it not be better if the two parties were both broadly centrist, and acted a rival teams rather than like a pair of opposed religious sects.
In my lifetime I remember a GOP that was more of a “loyal opposition”, willing to compromise to try and move their agenda. With the rise of Rush/Fox/etc., the Republicans have become more ideologically rigid, which has forced the Democrats/liberals to become the same. Does anyone believe the Tip O’Neil/Ronald Reagan compromise could have happened in today’s milieu?
Again the fiscal cliff looms dead ahead‘Tis stiff-necked breed of Congress that I singAnd We the People positively dreadBare ruined brains where thoughts never take wing\Not one in all the Capitol will seekA compromise where both sides bend a bitCommittee chambers absolutely reekOf stench of failure, or perhaps of…..it\Both sides will gird themselves for brutal warCareer politicos of endless yearsOn every fire they kerosene will pourAnd burn the nation down around our ears\I’d just as soon be stoned or thrashed with sticksThen suffer through these modern politics
Actually it goes beyond the Tea Party types. Howard Dean, a progressive ex-governor from Vermont also thinks we should let it happen. He thinks the drastic consequences presented are overblown and that it is an opportunity for Obama and congress to make substantive changes in our economic situation. The more I look at it beyond the scare tactics pumped out by Washington the more I agree, let it happen.
To those springing to Rubio’s defense, saying that one tiny little gesture (actually, a string of them through the speech, culminating in the furtive water bottle grab) shouldn’t even be discussed…..yeah; Howard Dean feels your pain.
And by “stole 5 trillion from America” you mean rescued it from almost certain collapse, right?And the sweating, daubing and furtive water drinking only elevated him to on par with Bobby Jindahl; certainly a performance to aspire to…
Doughfoot about 11 years ago
Now, that’s not fair. The GOP of the 1860s believed in civil rights, infrastructure improvements, a strong federal authority to protect ALL citizens, etc., and were thus hated throughout the South. The only thing the GOP of today shares with the GOP of the 1860s is a belief that Democrats are traitors and unAmerican. After all, the Democrats of the 1860s questioned the Illinois president’s legitimacy, supported states’ rights to oppress minorities (among other things), were the only party white southerners would support, etc. I am not making this up, though I am exaggerating. Change your partners, do-se-do. And this is as it should be. With a two-party system, the parties should NOT have principles. They should have inclinations and preferences, which make co-operation possible, rather than cast-iron principles to that make them incapable of the negotiations and compromises actually necessary to govern. In a system of proportional representation, such as you find in just about every other democratic republic, the parties are numerous, and principles make more sense. The more ideologically rigid a party, the fewer people it actually represents, but in a two-party everyone is compelled to either (a) make their vote irrelevant, or (b) vote for a party that only partly represents their values. This is why so many of us think we are voting for the lesser of two evils. Would we still feel that way if there were ten parties, and one of them was a more exact fit for us? I know lots of folks who would vote for a Libertarian party but feel obliged to vote (holding their noses) Republican. Just as I know many folks. who vote Democratic with equal reluctance. Anyway, would it not be better if the two parties were both broadly centrist, and acted a rival teams rather than like a pair of opposed religious sects.
edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago
In my lifetime I remember a GOP that was more of a “loyal opposition”, willing to compromise to try and move their agenda. With the rise of Rush/Fox/etc., the Republicans have become more ideologically rigid, which has forced the Democrats/liberals to become the same. Does anyone believe the Tip O’Neil/Ronald Reagan compromise could have happened in today’s milieu?
rockngolfer about 11 years ago
Too much was made of Rubio reaching for the water.Disagree with his ideology.
Jason Allen about 11 years ago
“Republicans don’t drink liberal kool aid.”No, they have that “special” tea.
Godfreydaniel about 11 years ago
Again the fiscal cliff looms dead ahead‘Tis stiff-necked breed of Congress that I singAnd We the People positively dreadBare ruined brains where thoughts never take wing\Not one in all the Capitol will seekA compromise where both sides bend a bitCommittee chambers absolutely reekOf stench of failure, or perhaps of…..it\Both sides will gird themselves for brutal warCareer politicos of endless yearsOn every fire they kerosene will pourAnd burn the nation down around our ears\I’d just as soon be stoned or thrashed with sticksThen suffer through these modern politics
Rickapolis about 11 years ago
The party of no. No. NO. NONONO. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
SABRSteve about 11 years ago
You lefties are spending way too much time on MSNBC, MediaMatters, and Moveon.org. The GOP is trying to save the country.
StCleve72 about 11 years ago
Groucho sings the Republican response to the State of the Union: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
oneoldhat about 11 years ago
hack attack
Mickey 13 about 11 years ago
“want the sequester to happen.”
Actually it goes beyond the Tea Party types. Howard Dean, a progressive ex-governor from Vermont also thinks we should let it happen. He thinks the drastic consequences presented are overblown and that it is an opportunity for Obama and congress to make substantive changes in our economic situation. The more I look at it beyond the scare tactics pumped out by Washington the more I agree, let it happen.
hippogriff about 11 years ago
mikefive: Newsworthy? Not particularly. Illustrative? Definitely, which is why so many are using it.
NDeeZ about 11 years ago
To those springing to Rubio’s defense, saying that one tiny little gesture (actually, a string of them through the speech, culminating in the furtive water bottle grab) shouldn’t even be discussed…..yeah; Howard Dean feels your pain.
NDeeZ about 11 years ago
And by “stole 5 trillion from America” you mean rescued it from almost certain collapse, right?And the sweating, daubing and furtive water drinking only elevated him to on par with Bobby Jindahl; certainly a performance to aspire to…
Uncle Joe Premium Member about 11 years ago
Rubio hates government except when it’s helping him & his family. Typical conservative.