What One Gains by Leaving the Republican Party

Recently I wrote a post about my feeling of becoming politically homeless having left the GOP years ago and now disgusted with the idiocy of many Democrats who were too blind to see that they were being set up and played for fools by the far right in the Northam controversy which was quickly followed by attacks on Justin Fairfax and Mark Herring's self-confession after Herring had demanded Northam resign.  The irony as it turned out was Democrat elected officials worrying about the black vote - and hence, in reality their own re-election - when a Washington Post poll showed 58% of blacks in Virginia wanted Northam to remain in office. All of this leads me to a long column in The Atlantic by a former Republican who had spent all of his adult political life in the GOP, even serving in two White House administrations.  The point of the piece is that by leaving the GOP, he argues that he gained much needed perspective and an ability to be more open minded to other views.  Not surprisingly, what drove him away was the rise of Trump and the degradation of the GOP ever since.  Here are lengthy excerpts that I hope my Republican acquaintances will read:

I’m a politically homeless person these days. For most of my life, I’ve been closely affiliated with the Republican Party. My first vote was cast for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I worked in his administration, as well as that of George H. W. Bush; for seven years, I was a senior adviser to President George W. Bush.

Most of my professional friends and almost all of my former colleagues—those with whom I served in government as well as in the think-tank world—have been Republican. The GOP has been my political home since college, a party I was once proud to be a part of, and a source of cherished relationships. Part of my identity was undoubtedly shaped by my party affiliation.

Most of my professional friends and almost all of my former colleagues—those with whom I served in government as well as in the think-tank world—have been Republican.

The GOP has been my political home since college, a party I was once proud to be a part of, and a source of cherished relationships. Part of my identity was undoubtedly shaped by my party affiliation.

It was hardly a perfect party. Like all political institutions, it fell short of its ideals; it was also led by some deeply flawed individuals. Yet in the main, it stood for principles that I believe promote human flourishing.

But since the political rise of Donald Trump, I’ve found myself at first deeply disappointed and now often at odds with the GOP. The party of Reagan has been fundamentally transformed. It’s now Donald Trump’s party, through and through.

That’s turned out to be quite a problem for me, because from the moment he announced his run for the presidency, I believed that Trump was intellectually, temperamentally, and psychologically unfit to be president. Indeed, I warned the GOP about Trump back in 2011, when I wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal decrying his claim that Barack Obama was not born in America.

Instead of rejecting him, however, the Republican Party eventually nominated Donald Trump. His defenders say, with some justification, that he has delivered on the agenda that they wanted. But that is hardly the whole story. Trump has shown himself to be a pathological liar engaged in an all-out assault on objective facts—on reality and truth—concepts on which self-government depends. [Trump] The president is also cruel, and dehumanizes his opponents. He’s volatile and emotionally unstable. He relishes dividing Americans along racial and ethnic lines. He crashes through norms like a drunk driver crashes through guardrails. And he’s corrupt from stem to stern.

Some Republicans quiescently accept Trump’s transgressions, unwilling to take him on, fearful of incurring his wrath. Others convince themselves that the Trump agenda is worth the price of lavishing praise on him and turning a blind eye to his offenses. Still other Republicans protect and defend him at every turn, serving as his attack dogs. As an institution, the party rallied behind him. . . . The Republican Party is both shrinking and getting more Trumpified. 

At the same time, unlike some vocal Trump critics who have left the GOP, I remain philosophically conservative. This means that the modern-day Democratic Party, lurching further and further to the left, doesn’t have room for me.

The main thing I’ve gained in unfastening myself from the GOP is critical distance and detachment. One can see certain things from outside the silo that one cannot see within it.

When I was a card-carrying member of a political party, I wasn’t automatically blinded to other points of view, or unable to challenge conventional orthodoxy. I did it on issues ranging from climate change, to the Tea Party’s anti-government rhetoric, to the characterological and temperamental defects of Newt Gingrich; so have many others. Nor did I knowingly put party above country.

But here’s what I think does happen. People who are part of a tribe—political, philosophical, religious, ethnic—are less willing to call out their own side’s offenses. That’s human nature. To be sure, some are more willing to show independence of judgment than others, but none shows complete intellectual independence. I certainly didn’t.

Some of this has to do with feelings of solidarity, of not wanting to alienate those whose affirmation and support is important to us. . . . When we’re part of a team, we have a natural tendency to let our sympathies shape our views and opinions of others. As a result, we perceive the world differently, often more narrowly and sometimes incorrectly.

I assumed that the claim that the Republican Party’s effort to win the South’s support in the late 1960s was part of a “southern strategy” relying on a coded racial appeal was unjust. Enforcing law and order is certainly a legitimate issue for politicians to run on, and a basic function of government.

Today I see the Republican Party through the clarifying prism of Donald Trump, who consistently appealed to the ugliest instincts and attitudes of the GOP base—in 2011, when he entered the political stage by promoting a racist conspiracy theory, and in 2016, when he won the GOP nomination. He’s done the same time and time again during his presidency—his attacks on the intelligence of black politicians, black journalists, and black athletes; his response to the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia; and his closing argument during the midterm elections, when he re-tweeted a racist ad that even Fox News would not run.

It would be deeply unfair to claim that most Republicans are bigots. But it is fair to say that most Republicans today are willing to tolerate without dissent, and in many cases enthusiastically support, a man whose appeal is based in large part on stoking racial and ethnic resentments, on attacking “the other.” That has to be taken into account. At a minimum, their moral reflexes have been badly dulled.

It’s impossible for me to know with any precision how much of the Republican base is motivated by ethnic nationalism and racial resentments and anxieties, but it’s certainly a higher percentage than I’d thought.

So the rise of Trump has led me to reexamine these earlier episodes in the party’s history. I’m not insisting that my most recent interpretation is the only reasonable one, in part because discerning the motivations of others is difficult. . . . . All I can say is, I’m much more open to the case that the political operatives who produced the Willie Horton ad intended at least in part to appeal to racist attitudes, and that it fit into a two-decade-old strategy. . . . that the GOP’s southern strategy used coded language such as forced busing and states’ rights to make racist appeals.

Detaching myself from my longtime political party means that I find myself more willing than I was to hear the views of people I once tended to tune out, to listen to those I once thought didn’t have much to teach me, and that I now put a greater premium on epistemological modesty than I once did. Aware of having been wrong in the past, I’m more open to being wrong today, and I trust that I’m more open to correction.

I might have shed one particular set of blinders, but I’m hardly free of others. I have certain predilections and life experiences that affect my angle of vision. But I do think I can see better than before how easy it was to turn those with whom I had political differences in the past into caricatures and cartoonish figures. As a very tough, vocal Trump critic, my challenge today is to resist the temptation to turn Trump’s supporters into caricatures, making sweeping, uncalibrated assessments of tens of millions of Americans that are unfair to them.

[W]hat troubles me in the here and now are those who, having decided to stay in the Republican Party, are allowing that affiliation to seriously impair their moral judgments and intellectual standards; to lead them to enable those in power to do grave damage to our civic and political culture; and to encourage them to protect a Republican president for acting in ways that they would condemn in any Democratic president.

Democrats Embrace Modernity as the GOP Rejects It

A column in the Washington Post looks at the drastic chasm that separates the Democrat Party and the Republican Party as we move toward the 2016 election year.  One the one side, Democrats accept changes occurring in the nation's demographics and modern advances.  On the other stands the GOP which wants to return to the 1950's with all of the discrimination and bigotry that those years entailed.  Most specifically, the GOP seeks to return to a time of unchallenged white privilege and religion was forced upon the populace through prayer in schools and near total deference to Christians and their religious institutions.  As a corollary, the GOP and its base reject any modern knowledge that challenges the make believe fantasy world in which so many of the Christofascist of the party base live.   The Republican Party was not always like this and I attribute the party's decline to the rise of the Christofascists within the GOP who despise anyone who is not a white, heterosexual evangelical Christian.  Here are column highlights:

Which political party loves America? Not the United States that once existed, but the flesh-and-blood nation that we live in now.

The debates we have witnessed — too few and far between for the Democrats, frequent enough for the Republicans to constitute a new reality TV show — have provided an incontestable answer to that question.

The Democrats embrace the United States of Now in all of its raucous diversity.   Democrats are not free of nostalgia. They long for the more economically equal America of decades ago and celebrate liberalism’s heydays during the New Deal and civil rights years.

But Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Martin O’Malley all stand up for the rights of a younger America — today’s country — that is less white, more Latino and more Asian (and, yes, more Muslim) than was the U.S. of the past. The cultural changes that have reshaped us are welcomed as part of our historical trajectory toward justice and inclusion.

The Republicans, particularly Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), don’t like our country right now. They yearn for the United States of Then. The current version is cast as a fallen nation. 

[U]nease and even rage characterize the response of many in the GOP ranks to what the country has become. This can cross into a loathing that Trump exploits by promising to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants and block Muslims from entering the country while dismissing dissent from his program of demographic reconstruction as nothing more than “political correctness.”

Given that the divide between the parties this year is so fundamental, it’s shameful that Democrats did not try to make their case to as many Americans as possible.

If you have faith in your response to anger and fear, you should be ready to bear witness before the largest congregation you can assemble.

Tea Party Loser Challenges Mississippi Senate Primary Votes After Loss

The temper tantrums continue among the knuckle dragging Tea Party set in Mississippi where Thad Cochran beat back a challenge from the lunatic far right by seek the votes of Democrats and - God forbid - blacks.  I have long maintained that the Tea Party is overtly racist - as are the Christofascists who make up much of the Tea Party ranks.  Here in Virginia, the leading Christofascist organization The Family Foundation, is lily white and truly only cares about blacks when it comes to duping black pastors into acting as TFF's trained circus dogs. Huffington Post loks at Chris McDaniel's (pictured above) refusal to concede to the will of the voters in Mississippi:

The Tea Party-backed candidate who has refused to concede defeat to Republican U.S. Senator Thad Cochran in Mississippi's primary runoff said his campaign has found more than 1,000 instances of ballots cast by people who were ineligible to vote.

Chris McDaniel said his supporters continue to look for evidence of voters who participated in the state's Democratic primary on June 3 and then voted in the Republican runoff primary on Tuesday, which would not be permitted by Mississippi law.

"We've already found more than 1,000 examples of that in one county alone," McDaniel said in an interview Thursday night on Fox News' Hannity show. "We're talking about widespread irregularities, ineligible voters that should not have been there in the first place."

In a bitterly fought contest, Cochran edged McDaniel by fewer than 7,000 votes out of more than 370,000 cast - a dramatic increase over the 313,000 votes cast in the earlier primary election.


McDaniel attacked his opponent's strategy for attracting Democratic voters.

"They were pushed there by an overt action, an aggressive action on the part of Senator Cochran's campaign that was filled with race-baiting, lies, distortions," McDaniel said in the television interview.

"He literally ran the latter three weeks on food stamps," McDaniel added. "He ran on voter suppression, and he ran on pork."

On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Mississippi office that oversees state elections said she had no comment on McDaniel's allegations of voting irregularities.

"We're not going to comment on speculation right now," said Secretary of State spokeswoman Grace Craig.

Richmond Bound for the Commonwealth Dinner

We have the house/dog sitter lined up as we get ready this morning to drive up to Richmond for the 11th Annual Equality Virginia "Commonwealth Dinner" this evening.  The event is Equality Virginia's largest fund raiser and has become quite a political event given the number of elected officials - sadly, almost all Democrats - who attend.  I suspect once again, we will have U.S. Senators, members of Congress and a host of other members of the General Assembly and down the line in attendance.  It is always a fun event and it is one time each year when activists and allies from across the state get to interact.  The corporate sponsors are quite impressive and Republicans would do well to check them out here (scroll down) so that they know who their anti-gay policies may be alienating.

This year is a special treat - last November at the Legends Gala, the boyfriend was the high bidder on a silent auction package for tonight's event provided by Tysinger Motors that included  2 tickets to the dinner, a hotel room for the night, and use of a 2014 Mercedes E350.  We picked up the car yesterday, and it is amazing:

 

Sadly, we will not be buying one any time soon!  If any reader are at the event, I hope you will say "hello" if you see us!

Can the Democrats Retake the South?

While it is unlikely that anything significant can happen between now and the November 2014 midterm elections, just as the GOP is facing a bleak long term future in may parts of the country due to demographic changes and changing attitudes among the Milennials, change is happening in the South as well.  Even here in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia attitudes are changing be they in terms of gay couples joining heretofore straight only private clubs - my partner and I are examples - or service members openly marrying their same sex partners.  Moreover, in the last two year's statewide elections, Democrats prevailed.  A piece in Politico Magazine looks at why the Democrats may regain the South in the future.  Here are excerpts:

[I]t was one-party domination by Democrats, the party of resistance, of the anti-carpetbaggers. In fact, no other region of the country has ever been so completely dominated by one political party for so long—almost 100 years, so long that generations passed in which some Southern folks never even met a Republican. But all of that changed following the final implementation of Brown, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Those momentous steps toward racial equality birthed the modern GOP in the South. This was the new resistance: The modern Republican Party in the South, once again, was built on race and the anti-Washington Democratic backlash brought about by civil rights.

This is where the road back to power starts for Southern Democrats. Populism and economic inequality will be the battleground of the 21st century, and while it’s true that in the South these issues are still inextricably tied to race, it’s a different conversation than the one our parents had. It is more honest and more open, both about race and about its economic and social implications for our society. We are the only party that can have that frank discussion. Racial equality leads to economic opportunity. We should own this issue, whether we are talking to African Americans, Hispanics or whites.

This is something the Republicans—trapped by their base and their history—simply cannot do. And it is the core not only of their utter lack of support within the black community but also of their problem with Hispanic voters, the South’s fastest-growing demographic. Of the 10 states with the fastest-growing Hispanic populations from 2000 to 2011, all but two are in the South, with Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee topping the list, and Hispanics are more than twice as likely to identify as Democrats than Republicans.

To win over these new voters, Republicans must change their understanding of their own history. The past year has shown just how hard that is. All Democrats must do is embrace our history.

Thanks to John F. Kennedy, Andrew Young, Lyndon Johnson, Barbara Jordan and a host of others, we can do this. We can end the discussion of race as an issue that has divided us since our founding and talk about race as the economic issue it is, with real implications for the present and the future. This is not to say that every campaign must begin with a discussion of race. Far from it. But we must internalize it, embrace it and acknowledge that racial equality—really the equality of and opportunity for all men and women, is at the core what we believe—at the core of our economic message; it has been the very foundation of our party since 1965. I for one am proud of it, and we can now win on it.

Step two for Democrats deals with another taboo subject: money.

For three decades, Southern Democrats have basically run against or away from Washington. And when that does not work, we have run a “the other guy is way crazier than me” campaign to brand our opponents as out of the mainstream. The domination of media by national cable news, the rise of the Internet and the slow death of local news have made bashing Washington, D.C., obsolete or ineffective. But taking down the other guy, while a fun way to campaign, is not a long-term strategy for sustained victory. Sooner or later, our opponents will come to their senses.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U.S.

Click image to enlarge

A new Gallup poll brings more bad news for the Christofascists and their political whores in the Republican Party: Support for gay marriage has solidified above 50%.   For those who welcome equality under the law and who believe that committed couples should enjoy the same civil law rights, it's good news.   For those who only feel good about themselves when they can stigmatize and denigrate others and/or force their religious beliefs on others, it is obviously not welcome news.   Here are some of the findings in Gallup's newest poll:

PRINCETON, NJ - Fifty-three percent of Americans say the law should recognize same-sex marriages, the third consecutive reading of 50% or above in Gallup polling over the past year. The 53% in favor ties the high to this point, also measured last November and in May 2011.

Gallup's May 2-7 poll suggests Americans' support for gay marriage is solidifying above the majority level. Recently, Rhode Island and Delaware legalized same-sex marriage, and Minnesota is likely to follow suit. That would bring the total number of states legally recognizing same-sex marriage to 12.

Just three years ago, support for gay marriage was 44%. The current 53% level of support is essentially double the 27% in Gallup's initial measurement on gay marriage, in 1996.

Nearly all U.S. subgroups are more likely to favor gay marriage now than in the past. Politically, Democrats, independents, and liberals all show increasing support for gay marriage over time, with each well above the majority level now. Republicans, conservatives, and moderates are more likely to favor gay marriage now than in 1996, but the increase in support among these groups may have stalled. Thus, most of the increase in the percentage favoring legal gay marriage in the last three years has come among left-leaning groups politically.

Although a majority of Americans now favor legalizing gay marriage, that is not necessarily because they think it will be beneficial to society more broadly. A relatively small, but growing, proportion believes legalizing same-sex marriage will change society for the better. Currently, 19% hold this view, up from 10% in 2003.

I am sure that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in the offices of hate groups such as FRC, NOM and, here in Virginia, The Family Foundation.

Comparing the GOP and Democrat Platfoms Made Easy for LGBT Voters

Click image to enlarge)

I have noted many times how I cannot understand how anyone who is LGBT can support the Romney/Ryan ticket - or the GOP in general.  The chart above compiled by Marriage Equality USA ought to make the analysis pretty simple for those who are LGBT citizens and those who are friends, family and allies of such individuals.  The GOP party platform makes it clear that animus is perhaps the kindest thing that can be said about the GOP's view of LGBT individuals.   The contrast between the GOP and the Democrats is striking on all fronts, including employment protections.

Wisconsin Democrats Fail to Retake State Senate

In what will likely serve to energize the nastiest elements of the GOP, unofficial results indicate that Wisconsin Democrats failed to take back control of the Wisconsin Senate from Republicans. Two things are striking: (1) the amount of out of state money that was pumped into Wisconsin by the far right and (2) the willingness of individuals in these largely rural districts to vote against the long term interests of their communities out of short term greed to pay lower taxes. The bill will ultimately come due in the form of reduced public services and in some case largely gutted school budgets. Time and time again senior citizens in particular are unwilling to invest in the younger generations. Yet they wonder why America is failing behind other nations in terms of educational outcomes. The Washington Post looks at the recall election outcomes in Wisconsin:

Democrats fell one seat short of a chance at taking back the Wisconsin state senate Tuesday, a result that will disappoint organized labor nationally. According to the Associated Press, State Sens. Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper were recalled, while Sens. Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling, Sheila Harsdorf and Luther Olsen held onto their seats.

Democrats have questioned the results given that Waukesha County was one of the last to finish reporting. In April’s Supreme Court election — also seen as a referendum on collective bargaining — challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg appeared to have beaten Judge David Prosser, before thousands of lost ballots were found in Waukesha.

In a statement, Wisconsin Democratic Party chairman Mike Tate accused Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus of “once again tampering with the results of a consequential election” and said that a “dark cloud hangs over these important results.” State party spokesman Graeme Zielinski added, “We believe there’s dirty tricks afoot.” The party’s legal team is investigating. If these results stand, its an undeniable defeat for labor and for progressive activists.

Outside groups on both sides poured more than $25 million into this fight, in addition to the more than $5 million raised by the candidates themselves. According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s Mike McCabe, Republicans had a slight edge in the money race, but it was “remarkably close.” Unions were the main source of funds for Democrats; limited-government groups such as the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity invested heavily on the GOP side.

Sexual Misconduct - It's Alright If You're a Republican According to Eric Cantor

It's the hypocrisy of the GOP that makes me want to vomit. Case in point: Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor who is demanding the resignation of Congressman Anthony Wiener based on Weiner's incredibly stupid "sex-ting" of inappropriate photos. Cantor obviously applies one standard to the GOP while demanding a far different standard of Democrats. Remember " I was hiking the Appalachian Trial" GOP Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford who was in truth boinking a mistress in Argentina? Or maybe you remember Nevada U. S. Senator John Ensign who was having an affair with the wife of one of his staff members? Still not remembering? How about Louisiana U. S. Senator David Vitter who was a client of the D.C. Madam as well as hookers in New Orleans? In each of these three instances, Cantor failed to call for the resignation of the individuals involved - even though their conduct was far more egregious than that of Wiener. Instead, he said that the decision lay with the individual involved and their constituents. But in the case of Wiener, Cantor wants a resignation. Let's be clear. I am NOT defending Wiener's stupidity. But Cantor's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Hill has coverage on Cantor's hypocritical double standard. Here are some highlights:
*
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called on embattled Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign a day after the New York Democrat admitted to having sexually charged online relationships with six women, none of whom are his wife.
*
“I don’t condone his activity. And I think he should resign,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said after an event in his district Tuesday, according to the Daily Progress. Cantor is the first leader in either party to call for Weiner to step down
*
Cantor upped the pressure on Weiner Tuesday, breaking with Republican leaders who preferred to stand out of the way as Democrats tried to untangle the mess. While GOP leaders had remained silent on the matter, the party machinery has been working to stick Weiner’s troubles to other Democrats.
*
The National Republican Congressional Committee has pointed out which politically vulnerable Democratic incumbents are recipients of Weiner campaign cash, and one, Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) already has said she dump her Weiner contributions.
*
Frankly, in my opinion, Cantor is an embarrassment to rational, thinking Virginians. I view has a whining little worm who while not as insane as Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, is morally challenged at best even though he talks about so-called family values just like Ensign, and Vitter. Residents of Cantor's district need to wake up and vote his sorry, lying ass out of office.

Gay Marriage: Opportunity for Democrats and Liability for GOP as Acceptance Grows

It would be a fitting irony if the Republicans from Karl Rove down who used anti-gay rhetoric to help the Chimperator win re-election in 2004 may have in the longer term set the stage for on-going GOP defeats at the polls. An article in Yahoo News suggests that that is perhaps precisely what is occurring and that the growing acceptance of gays - at least outside of the most backward states in the South - may prove to be an opportunity for Democrats and a growing liability for the GOP. Karl Rove wanted to create a permanent GOP majority and simply be too delicious if he instead planted the seeds for a permanent GOP minority. As I have noted many times before, the majority of the younger generation is accepting of gays and supportive of gay marriage. As the older bigoted and reactionary generations die off, the GOP will need to change or die. Here are some story highlights (I hope Obama wakes up to this reality):

*

WASHINGTON – Gay marriage legalization in several states and the public's growing acceptance of same-sex unions have Democrats sensing political opportunity and some Republicans re-evaluating their party's hard-line opposition to an issue that long has rallied its base.

*
In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues. In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

*

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman. "This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage," creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

*

Democrats have a broader base filled with more accepting younger voters, as well as flexibility on the issue. . . . Conversely, the GOP base is older, smaller and more conservative. Republicans have no place to shift on the issue but to the left, because the party has been identified largely with its rock-solid opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.

*

But as more states accept gay and lesbian unions, there is a debate inside the party over how it should position itself on the issue. The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum. Some prominent Republicans are backing away from cut-and-dried opposition, and some party operatives say it's only a matter of time before others follow suit because the country is changing.

*

Personally, unless and until the Christianists are driven from their stranglehold on the GOP, I doubt there will be much movement on the GOP's position on gay marriage and as the make up of the voting public continues to trend towards gay-acceptance, the GOP will find itself more and more at odds with the general population.

Will the GOP Get the Message?

For a long time now I have been saying that the Republican Party seems to have a death wish in terms of do its best to cease being a viable national party. It seems with each passing day that the GOP party base is more controlled by far right extremists and religious fanatics, leaving less and less room for moderate - and in my view, rational - members of the Party. I, like many gay former Republicans, exited the party a number of years ago as gay bashing and infusing religion into the party platform began in earnest. This last national election all of my extended family members - many of whom were formerly Republicans - voted a Democrat ticket out of disgust for what has happened to the GOP. While Arlen Specter's change of parties to join the Democrats was most certainly motivated by some level of self interest, but what he had to say about what has happened to the GOP is all too true. The GOP is fast headed towards being a regional, religion based party. Thinking, rational people see it happening, yet the Kool-Aid drinking GOP base remain oblivious. Will Specter's departure wake them up? I doubt it. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post on Specter's change of parties:

*
How much more can the Republicans take? Demoralized, shrinking and seemingly lacking an agenda beyond the word "no," Republicans today saw their ranks further thinned with the stunning news that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is switching parties and will run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat. Specter is worried about his own survival -- and particularly a primary challenge from the right. Many in the GOP might say good riddance.

*

But his defection is a reminder that the Republican Party continues to contract, especially outside the South, and that it appears increasingly less welcome to politicians and voters who do not consider themselves solidly conservative. Northeast Republicans have gone from an endangered species to a nearly extinct species. Republicans lost ground in the Rocky Mountains and the Midwest in the last two elections. That's no way to build a national party.

*

The Republicans have many demographic challenges as they plot their comeback. Obama has attracted strong support from young voters and Latinos -- two keys to the future for both parties and once part of the GOP's calculation for sustaining themselves in power. Suburban voters have moved toward the Democrats. Specter can see that problem acutely in the suburbs around his home in Philadelphia

*

Reihan Salam, co-author of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save America," said this week that the danger for Republicans is to believe they now represent a vast, silent majority that is waiting to reassert itself. A louder voice from a smaller cadre of supporters is not the answer, he warned. That will just prevent Republicans from, reassessing their old agenda, developing new ideas and once again learning to reach out broadly.

On the Road to GOP Extinction?

The Gallup folks have released the results of extensive new polling on political party affiliation and - if the GOP base lived in the real world - it should be very sobering to the GOP members of Congress who are showing that they prefer playing politics over doing what's right for the country. The map posted above speaks volumes. Here are some highlights from the study:

*

In 2008, Gallup interviewed more than 350,000 U.S. adults as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. That includes interviews with 1,000 or more residents of every U.S. state except Wyoming (885) and North Dakota (953), as well as the District of Columbia (689). There were more than 15,000 interviews conducted with residents of California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Florida.

*
This large data set provides the unique ability to give reliable estimates of state-level characteristics for 2008. Each sample of state residents was weighted by demographic characteristics to ensure it is representative of the state's population.

*

The accompanying map shows party strength by state for 2008, ranging from states that can be considered solidly Democratic (a Democratic advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more) to those that can be considered solidly Republican (a Republican advantage in party identification of 10 percentage points or more). States in which the partisan advantage is less than 5 points in either direction are considered "competitive." (The full data for all states appear at the end of the article.)

*

All told, 29 states and the District of Columbia had Democratic party affiliation advantages of 10 points or greater last year. This includes all of the states in the Northeast, and all but Indiana in the Great Lakes region. There are even several Southern states in this grouping, including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Kentucky.

*

In contrast, only five states had solid or leaning Republican orientations in 2008, with Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Alaska in the former group, and Nebraska in the latter.

Retaining Influence vs. Winning in November

In watching the morning news while getting my caffeine fix – which was much needed after the birthday celebration last night – Chris Matthews was being interviewed on what is going on within the Democratic Party in the primary races: Obama has broken out and is challenging the powers that be within the party that are aligned with Hillary Clinton. Matthews believes they (the lobby interests, other special interest groups, etc., players in the Democratic establishment) will be doing everything they can to stop the Obama so as to not lose their power and influence. I suspect that Matthews is correct and in my view, Hillary and these players in the establishment are being very short sighted. I continue to believe that Hillary will have a much more difficult time winning in November than Obama would, particularly since she will unite the warring factions within the GOP like no one else can on the Democrat side.

If various dirty tricks are employed against Obama, the party runs the risk of (1) alienating the black vote and (2) disillusioning younger voters who are tired of the same old “business as usually” with a result that many opt out of voting. If this happens to a significant degree, Hillary’s chances of winning in the general election are made even worse. Thus, these interest groups in effect would rather retain their enhanced power and influence within the party as opposed to winning in November, 2008. Is it better for the Democrat Party and the country to have the same tired groups retain power within the Party and have a Republican in the White House? I think not and find it very sad that some are putting themselves clearly ahead of the interest of the Party as a whole, not to mention the country. Personal greed is one of the biggest problem with politicians today. I sincerely hope that they do not prevail.

Get Ready for a Democratic Era??

It would be nice if the analysis in this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101415.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) were to turn out to be accurate and come true. The analysis does make sense and does seem to track trends properly. Of course, personally, I would enjoy nothing more than seeing Karl Rove's ambitions turned upside down and for the GOP to become a permanent minority party - or least a party out of power for many years to come. It would be a most fitting reward for those Christianists who have preached division, anti-gay hatred, taken the country to war based on lies and endorsed the use of torture. Here are some highlights:

Karl Rove's grandest aspiration was to create a Republican majority that would dominate American politics for a generation or more. But as the effects of his distinctive brand of fear-mongering fade, it's the Democrats who are poised to become the country's majority party -- and perhaps for a long time to come.

This sea change is the result of the electorate's disenchantment with conservative Republicans, beginning in the 1990s. Moreover, much of the electorate had grown leery of the GOP's fervent identification with the religious right. As early as 1992, mainstream voters were turned off by Pat Buchanan's nasty, divisive "culture war" speech at the Republican National Convention. Attempts by religious conservatives to stop teaching evolution and funding human stem-cell research spurred a widespread backlash, even in states such as Kansas, which Democrats had given up for dead.

[O]ver the past two decades, two new groups have migrated to the Democratic Party -- and provided the basis for an enduring majority coalition. First, there are women, who used to vote disproportionately Republican. (In 1960, for instance, women backed the Republican Richard M. Nixon, with his 5 o'clock shadow, over the dashing Democrat John F. Kennedy.) But in the 1990s, troubled by the Republicans' ardor for the religious right and opposition to social spending, they began voting disproportionately Democratic -- especially single women, working women and college-educated women. In the 2000 congressional elections, single women backed Democrats over Republicans by a whopping 63 percent to 35. Even better news for Democrats: Women are more likely to vote than men.

Second, there are professionals, once the most Republican of all occupational groups. The reason: Professionals typically used to see themselves as pro-business entrepreneurs, but by the 1990s, most had become salaried workers, wary of big corporations and the untrammeled free market.

So if the electorate is swinging Democratic, why does the GOP still hold the White House? The reason is 9/11, which revived the Republicans' Reagan-era advantage as the party of national security, an edge that had grown irrelevant since the Soviet Union collapsed. But after Bush's victory in 2004, the spell cast by 9/11 began to lift. The quagmire in Iraq undermined the Republicans' reputation for national security competence and toughness. And in the absence of new al-Qaeda attacks at home, Americans resumed their slow, steady movement toward a less traditional, more libertarian society -- one in which unmarried men and women now head the majority of households. The more the aura of 9/11 faded, the more the trends that began in the 1990s surged to the fore.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have consolidated their hold on the Northeast and have begun to make inroads in the Rocky Mountain states -- and even in some Southern border states. Virginia, once a Republican bastion, has elected two Democratic governors in a row and seems poised to make both of its U.S. senators Democratic. In the Southwest, where Rove dreamed of capturing the Mexican American vote, Democrats have been doing strikingly well, backed by Latinos alienated by Republican anti-immigration tirades, sagebrush libertarians fed up with the religious right and moderate transplants from states such as California.

These trends should give Democrats a striking political advantage over the next decade, and perhaps longer.

New Poll: 77 Percent of Public Believe USA Has Meandered off in the Wrong Direction

If the Democrats do not take advantage of this mood displayed by this new poll (http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-voters-mood;_ylt=ApSaMCCsHA70jt9EhumOnmWs0NUE) and gain real backbone to push for change BEFORE 2008, they are idiots and do not deserve to win in 2008. The mantra that change is needed must start now and be a steady drumbeat. No doubt the Chimperator and his psychophants in the GOP will do all that they can to block meaningful change; but this should only help to highlight why the GOP and the Christianists need to be sent packing next November. Here are some highlights from the story:

[M]ost in the U.S. say they are personally happy and feel in control of their lives and finances, according to an extensive Associated Press-Yahoo! News survey on the mood of voters. Beneath the surface, though, personal and political discontent is bubbling.

There is a widespread unease—shared by 77 percent—that the country has meandered off in the wrong direction. Nearly all Democrats and more than six in 10 Republicans think the country has taken the wrong course. And although almost half express interest and hope in the upcoming elections, a third voice frustration—particularly Republicans.

People are paying attention to the 2008 presidential campaign. Solid majorities think their vote matters and say this wide-open presidential contest is more important than usual. Stirred in are warning signs for Republican candidates: Democrats seething after nearly seven years under President Bush are happier and more psyched up about this election than Republicans.

More Democrats than Republicans say they are hopeful about the voting, 54 percent to 39 percent, and more of them are interested in it. Republicans are more likely to say the election leaves them frustrated and bored. Happy and unhappy people alike say they are likelier to vote for the Democratic nominee, with the unhappy—who are likelier to be lower-income and less educated—giving Democrats a bigger, 2-to-1 margin.

With the limp housing and credit markets dominating recent headlines, financial problems are at the heart of many people's worries. Though three-quarters say they control their financial situation, most say they are having trouble getting ahead, including a third who say that has become very difficult. "Something's gotten out of synch between what we make and what things cost," said Sandra Dempsey, 47, a child-care provider in Jonesboro, Ga. "Slowly but surely the middle class is becoming the lower class."

Affluent Voters Switch Brands - Stands on 'So-Called Moral Issues' Prove Costly for Republicans

It is about time that educated, affluent voters leave the anti-knowledge, anti-equality GOP and focus on those who seek to move the country forward, not back to the 19th Century. This Wall Street Journal story (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119518268221495363.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks) shows that the GOP's ties to the Christianist lunatic fringe are beginning to take a serious toll. I for one hope the trend continues unabated. Here are some story highlights:

Jim Kelley, . . . , looks like one of those plutocrats whom Democrats are talking about taxing more. He buys companies for the $7 billion private-equity firm Vestar Capital Partners, with headquarters on New York's Park Avenue. Mr. Kelley, 53, is writing big campaign checks for Barack Obama and other Democrats -- and taxes don't make his top 10 list of critical political issues.

In this newly competitive state and elsewhere, Republicans are struggling to reassure their nervous religious-right base, while Democrats are profiting from increasing support among high-income voters. And that support may be more impervious to warnings of higher taxes than some Republicans assume. "The Democratic Party stands more for creating equal opportunity," says Mr. Kelley. He says the party "speaks more to me on issues of the environment, and even more to me on national security," while he criticizes Republican stands on "so-called moral issues" such as gay marriage.

"There's a difference in the type of giver that I've seen," observes Kirk Dornbush, a veteran Democratic fund-raiser who runs an Atlanta-based biotechnology firm. In the past, he explains, affluent donors from business or the professions were often "people that needed access." Now, he says, Democrats are benefiting from concerns over America's "loss of standing in the world," Mr. Bush's environmental policies, and concern over the possibility of recession. An increasing number of high-income Americans "are yearning for something different. And something different is the Democrats."

"Twenty-five years ago...business could safely vote Republican and believe that their interests in business were going to be taken care of," says Neil Westergaard, editor of the Denver Business Journal. "As the Republican Party has changed, I think that became less [true]."

Will Bush Suck the GOP Down the Drain With Him?

This is an interesting column from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/will-bush-suck-the-gop-do_b_71216.html). One does have to wonder why, if the Chimperator's popularity is so low, the GOP continues to blindly follow his lead. I am all for loyalty, but when the emperor has no clothes, at some point reality should kick in. The only explanation would seem to be - as Arianna Huffington describes - is that the GOP has been completely taken over by the Christianist lunatic fringe. I hope Bush DOES suck the GOP down with him. I also echo her question as to why the Deocrats seem incapable of growing some balls to confront Bush. The 2006 election clearly showed a desire for real change in direction, yet the Dems still play nicey-nicey. Why?? Here are some column highlights:

George Bush continues to swirl around the drain; the only question now is: will he suck the Republican Party down with him? Michael Gerson, the speechwriter responsible for many of the president's rare moments of eloquence ("the soft bigotry of low expectations," "Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end.") certainly sounded gloomy about the current state of the GOP during his spot on Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "The party is in a funk. There is a lack of creativity, very little domestic policy energy. I think it's going to be a problem."

Of course, Gerson is one of the party's brightest thinkers and a Bush loyalist, so his calling it "a problem" must be translated as "a disaster." In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, a whopping 74 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Only 24 percent think we're heading in the right direction. Which makes the behavior of the leading GOP presidential candidates all the more befuddling. To a man, every one of the top tier candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee -- seems intent on competing to see who can out-Bush Bush.

I've written about how the lunatic fringe of the GOP has taken over the party. Well, the takeover is so complete that those looking to lead the party have come to the conclusion that the only way they can win is to compete for the 24 percent of the country that does not think we are headed over the edge of a cliff. They are all vying to be voted head wacko of the lunatic fringe.

Now, can some please explain to me why the Democrats keep caving in to this bunch of dead-enders?

Democrats fund local races in push for takeover

This article from the Virginian Pilot (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=135096&ran=28914) notes the change in the financial winds for the Democrats in Tidewater Virginia. Needless to say, it would be wonderful to have the Democrats retake control of the Virginia General Assembly. The GOP was the minority party for literally a century in Virginia, and during the period the GOP has been in charge, there has been a decided upswing in the influence of the Christianists in state legislation. With growing Democrat support in Northern Virginia, this surprising show in this area is encouraging. A loss of GOP control is the only hope for seeing more progressive legislation. I pray that the renewed strength of the Democrats continues:

Flush with unprecedented amounts of cash, Democrats are funneling money into General Assembly races in Hampton Roads and across the state in hopes of retaking control of the Senate and House. Republican candidates still maintain their traditional edge in fund raising – they have taken in $21.9 million compared with nearly $20 million for Democrats.

But as of Sept. 30, the state Democratic Party and its political action committees had raised nearly twice as much as the Republicans, $11 million to the GOP’s $5.9 million, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a Richmond-based group that tracks campaign fundraising and spending. That’s leading Democrats to predict they will claim the four seats needed to gain control of the Senate. The House, where the GOP holds a 57-40 advantage, with three independents, will be a tougher hill to climb.

Having so much money gives Democrats flexibility to put resources where they need them, said Stephen J. Farnsworth, a University of Mary Washington political science professor . The issue isn’t the statewide totals, it’s what’s being spent on key Senate races – and in many of those, Democrats have the edge, he said. Of the five most competitive local races, Democrats have cash advantages in three.

Democrats positioned to widen majority in Senate

This Reuters story (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0544310120071008?pageNumber=3&sp=true) is encouraging even though the 2008 election is still 13 months away. Personally, I hope the trend continues because the GOP needs to be severely punished for (1) the manner in which it has allowed Chimperator Bush and Darth Vader Cheney to continue a disastrous war and dismantle many constitutional protections, and (2) allowing the Christianist base to try to turn the country into a theocracy where one's civil legal rights are determined based on your compliance with the Christianists' religious beliefs. A changed political atmosphere is terribly in need in this country so that politicians (and some judges) do not feel free to inflict their religious beliefs on others. Here are some highlights from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats are positioned to bolster their Senate majority in next year's elections, which would give them more clout regardless who succeeds President George W. Bush in the White House. With Republicans dogged by retirements, scandals and the Iraq war, there's an outside chance Democrats will gain as many as nine seats in the 100-member Senate in the November 2008 elections, which would give them a pivotal 60. That is the number of votes needed to clear Republican procedural roadblocks, which have been used to thwart the Democrats' efforts to force a change in Bush's policy on the Iraq war, particularly plans to withdraw U.S. troops.

The last time Democrats had an overriding majority in the Senate was in the 1977-1979 congressional session, when they held 61 seats. "Sixty is not outside the realm of possibility," said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

With the elections a year away, many Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush, whose approval rating was around 33 percent in recent polls. But they remain largely tied to his unpopular stance on the Iraq war, now in its fifth year. Many are concerned about their future and Senate Democrats have raised more in campaign contributions than Republicans.