I remember similar things being said about the Democrats following the 2004 election, when they couldn't beat a guy who we already knew was the worst president ever. But instead of bitching about it, they made Howard Dean their national chairman, and he set about developing the 50-state strategy. Being out of power is the ultimate organizing tool, and Democrats had most of this decade to work on that. History will ultimately judge how effective the Republicans will respond to the current situation.

Scott is right, however, early results suggest the GOP sux at this as well. 21%. Are you kidding me? All we have heard is that Obama is a socialist, and the result. The GOP lost 4% pts in the last month.

Although, the Dems being Dems, it wouldn't take much to swing the I's back to R's. If Obama pushes anything even remotely looking like amnesty, watch those number swing hard right and fast.

This ought to be interesting.

Considering the leaders of the Democratic party are such mental heavy hitters as Pelosi, Reid & Frank, I wouldn't get to confident in the future of the D party Jeff.

The GOP has never really been a conservative party. In the latter half of the 19th century, some democrat presidents were equally conservative by today's standards, for example, Grover Cleveland. T. Roosevelt was a progressive, as was Hoover. The only GOP presidents of this century who "walked the walk" as well as talk the talk were Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Since then the GOP, with a few exceptions such as Goldwater, have adopted a "same but less" attitude, rhetoric aside.

I believe the old regime is dead forever (or at least a generation). The GOP needs to revamp itself into a "classic liberal" mold in the face of the new american fascism...a move that could attract both independents and democrats but their problem is the socially conservative christian fundamentalist whackjobs who neither understand nor care about markets or limited government but just want to declare jihad on abortionists and gays.

I see a third party emerging...

Old Ducker is right. You would be hard-pressed to say that either George Bush governed according to true conservative principles, like those espoused by Barry Goldwater way back when. Both men expanded government in ways that were downright creepy and had much more to do with cronyism than anything even resembling free market capitalism. The third party question is an interesting one. Almost every Constitution Party member I've ever spoken to used to be an active Republican, but who left the party because of guys like Arlen Specter. It seemed that the only faction of the GOP still supporting GWB in his waning days were the religious conservatives, simply because he paid them lip service on gay rights and abortion. But the fiscal conservatives and liberterian-leaning conservatives had abandoned him long before that.

My hope is that the south will rise again, and that Obama will be smart enough to let them secede.

Jeff Alworth:

Ah the Whigs--they had their moment, didn't they?

Bob T:

Some years back a former Oregon Sec of State wrote a column in the big zero criticizing the Whigs because they were not a big tent party. In other words, the better half of the party decided it was better to break up the party than to look the other way on slavery, like the Democratic Party did.

Bob Tiernan Portland

mp97303, muchissimas gracias for the laugh about the country turning hard right over "amnesty" for the undocumented . . . we can all use a chuckle during swine flu season.

And if you swing any influence there, please, please, please make the Republicans reinforce their branding as the party of racism and bigotry. They have long since written off African Americans, pace Michael Steele's DOA hip hop conservatism (you can't make this stuff up). Now let them complete the job of constructing the anti-immigrant right and affixing it to the GOP elephant / dinosaur! Yes, remember the explosion of popular support for Tom Tancredo . . . oh please, oh please, oh please!

No, as usual, what is going to bring the Democrats down is that they are going to forget to be Democrats. The sad signs of necrosis are already creeping in . . . the refusal to prosecute the torturers, to impeach Bybee, to go after single payer health insurance, to meaningfully cut back on military expenditures, to fundamentally redirect the American imperial project . . . hell, we're not even going to get card check.

America voted for change we could believe in. What we are in for seems to be something dramatically less.

Jeff, a minor correction re:Fox news. While it's true they have their fair share of douchebags (Hannity), they also have Judge Andrew Napolitano...albeit only on radio. Napolitano is the real deal and his show is a "must" if you want to keep up with the libertarian-conservative right, aside from the blogosphere. His regular litany of excellent guests include Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente, among others...

Thomas: Texas tried it.

They're back!

Fiscal responsibility? Social progress? Promoting science and education? Taking care of veterans? States rights? Energy independence?

It sounds like a good home for a) disaffected Republicans b) Democrats who aren't totally thrilled with Obama's insane deficit spending c) Libertarians who aren't totally comfortable with the "Big L" wing of the Libertarian Party.

I like what I'm seeing, frankly. We need real 3rd parties in this country... I'd hoped that Bob Barr might bring the Libertarians a certain modicum of respectability this time around, but he turned out to be a total fizzle, and that's not even to mention the blithering idiots the the Green Party ran this time around.

Hearing the Green VP candidate bloviate on the "hip-hop nation" was possibly the saddest thing I saw during the entire campaign and Cynthia McKinney is the definition of "useful idiot".

Man, this is such amazing hubris. Want to see how fast the worm can turn? Check it out:

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. But there was an important national story here: evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton was for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of 1998 that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controlled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans. Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures: - GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 45 - GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 7 - GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11 - GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998 - State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9 - Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998 - Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

Hopey is making all the classic Democratic blunders that keep the GOP alive, instead of driving a stake through its shriveled heart. Just for start's he's:

• wading into his own personal Vietnam in Afghanistan

• turning an "out of Iraq" campaign policy into "50,000 troops or more stay in Iraq as long as things stay quiet, more if we need them"

• pushing even more radical positions on executive power than Bush did in the courts, arguing that citizens spied on by their government should not even be allowed to have a day in court;

• bowing ever deeper to the health insurance lobbies by renouncing his own expressly stated belief that single-payer is the best health insurance system and letting Baucus say that the ONLY option off the table from the start is single-payer;

• ignoring his prime Constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed by arguing against holding the Bush junta accountable for its express embrace of torture and war crimes;

2008 was 1964 all over again --- let's just pray that BHO doesn't follow in LBJ's footsteps any more than he already has.

@Joe Hill

:-) Wait and see.

Jeff Alworth:

Bob, history's not your strong suit, is it? I note that Republicans, in their petulent manner, still refuse to take any responsibility for anything. Point out that the party is in freefall and all they can do is mention the Democratic Party. Which is more than I did.

Bob T:

Actually, history is one of my strong points, and what I pointed out about the Whigs was accurate (and I don't know why that party should be criticized for not wanting to look the other way on slavery in order to win more elections, like the Democrats.

Anyway, that's what I commented on, and there was no need to comment on what you wrote about the Republicans because I mostly agree. They are becoming a pup-tent party, but rallying to the wrong issues. Seems most of them would be happy with another depression so long as abortions become illegal at the same time, crosses are put in every government park, and Ten Commandments placques placed in every courthouse. I'd prefer that they drive away the anti-free-market Republicans instead (which will leave about three, or maybe two).

Bob Tiernan Portland

The party that retains the squishy but populous center is the party that will retain power. Current Dem leaders seem to grasp this (maybe to a fault). The Republicans are repulsive to anyone who is not genetically predisposed. How long will it last? After the economy comes back and booms, and GWB, the wars and all are distant memories, and the American population is in fat/happy/stupid mode (as in 2000), the cycle will repeat.

The GOP is intent on branding itself as the party of the KKK, the right wing militias, the anti-modernist science haters, xenophobic haters, and the segregated country clubs. The GOP is the present day confederacy, still fighting the civil war, and headed toward fighting another war of secession. They are such patriots!

I've had the same thoughts about the Whigs of late, and in fact got down my book entitled, "American Whig Party" (Holt) and took another look at it.

I think there is no doubt that the same sorts of dynamics are at play, and that what we have known as the Republican Party is in its death throws. However, that is not to say that a new group might come along and steal back that Party. In Oregon, and around the Country, what happened to the Republicans starting about 25 years ago was that there was a concerted effort to take over that Party by the far-right, people we might have called "John Birchers" a generation ago.

The people that show up run a political Party. In Oregon, a solid 100 people - if from across the State with geographic representation, could run either the Republican or Democratic Parties. They would just have to get elected in precincts, which basically means you fill out a form to get you name on a ballot, and then volunteer to make the trip to the State Party meetings. With 36 Counties, half of which are on the rural east side, and a quarter of which are in the rural south end of the State - Oregon is an easy take over target for those willing to organize at the County level. Unlike the "urban" counties where up to several hundred people gather at meetings, in the rural areas it can be a problem to have a quorum and to have enough people to function. Several Counties don't have a local political party in operation. So, a very small dedicated group could take over a party.

Anyway, I've had thoughts along the lines that some "conservative" Democrats who hold beliefs that are generally democratic in nature but more centrist could easily switch voter registration and take over the Republican Party in a couple year period. In my estimation, these conservative democrats would for example be those in support of Second Amendment rights, in favor of as much local control as possible (example the land use issues discussed here like what is going on with the Metolius), and be fiscally conservative. Certainly, the splits and divisions under the current "big tent" of the Democratic Party are large enough to fill two political parties.

The definition of "republican" from the last 28 years that has as its hallmarks things like pro-corporate/no regulation, tax cutting for the rich, death to infrastructure, and every person for himself/herself - these are dead ends. The political philosophy that embraces these concepts will not be accepted by Americans for a long time to come. With these issues "dead", what is left? Well, the divisions within the Democratic Party rise to the top as the ways to cut the line between conservative and liberal/progressive.

I'm too old, too tired, and generally too burnt out to do this myself - but I don't doubt that somewhere there are "conservative" Democrats who are giving thought to just such a take over of the Republican Party.

You may not be aware, but some veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan refounded the Whigs last year as the Modern Whig Party.

Since then, we have attracted members from the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties. We currently have nearly 30,000 members. We try to be practical about politics and are generally open on social issues and prudent on fiscal issues.

Perspective. That's what you guys need here.

You act as if the Republican Party is gone. Trampled. Done with. Over. One election cycle was lost (badly, I'll admit) and now it's death to the GOP. Seriously?

Does 1996 ring a bell? Or how about 2002 and 2006? Dems were completely knocked to their knees, losing power in both houses, including many gubernatorial seats across the nation. You all should know this stuff ebbs and flows. Democrats may stay in power through the next few election cycles, but I guarantee you the power will shift again. You can't deny historical proof.

Oh, and Steve, speak for yourself. Your definition of what a Republican is totally way off base:

"The definition of "republican" from the last 28 years that has as its hallmarks things like pro-corporate/no regulation, tax cutting for the rich, death to infrastructure, and every person for himself/herself - these are dead ends."

If you really think most conservatives have that mindset you're head is in the sand. Maybe it fits for some in the party, but it sure as hell doesn't for me (and speaking from the conservative perspective, I can tell you that most of my friends and other conservatives I know don't take that stance either).

Bill R:

...and the segregated country clubs.

Bob T:

Like the one Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddic) was in until a few years ago after he was found out?

Sheesh!

Bob Tiernan Portland

The lunatic fringe has taken over the GOP to such an extent that I really can't see how the moderates can recapture it. I can foresee the emergence of a three-party system -- the Democratic Party, the Republican Party (a remnant of the former GOP appealing to racists, homophobes and religious wackos, chiefly in the South and rural West) and some sort of traditional conservative/libertarian party. This, of course, would make the Democrats the dominant national party for many years to come.

Political parties are not what they were in the 19th century when candidates were nominated by conventions of their grassroots activist members. Primary elections have given that power to all registered party members, most of whom pay little attention to politics. These party members may be single-issue voters or may vote on personality or perceived character more than on the party platform. The ability of candidates to raise money is as important as their political positions.

As a result, the politics of elected officials can be very different than the politics of party activists. Critics of the system have some justification in speaking of one corporate party with two factions - even though the grassroots of the major parties are quite different from each other, and neither are aligned with the interests of big corporations.

The Republicans are out of favor because of the Shrubbery's utter failure on multiple fronts and the party's inability to separate from the rhetoric associated with that failure. Voters are not buying it outside the south.

If the economy continues to collapse, things could change, as Republicans may be perceived as no less incompetent than Democrats. If the economy recovers and Obama succeeds on several of his policy initiatives, I would not be surprised to see the Republicans shrivel up and blow away.

Do not worry, though, as Big Money will buy its way into whatever successor party develops, and things will be, in the end, not much different.

"The definition of "republican" from the last 28 years that has as its hallmarks things like pro-corporate/no regulation, tax cutting for the rich, death to infrastructure, and every person for himself/herself - these are dead ends."

"If you really think most conservatives have that mindset you're [sic] head is in the sand."

How can I think anything else, since for the past 30 years I've never heard Republicans advocate anything else? If that isn't the conservative mindset, I'd like to hear you describe what the conservative mindset really is.

Republicans today are defined by what they are AGAINST (i.e., virtually everything) instead of what they are FOR. They offer no positive, practical approaches to the serious problems facing this country. That's why their ranks are shrinking and will continue to shrink. Americans understand that we need solutions, not slogans.

Posted by: Tom Civiletti | May 1, 2009 9:34:09 AM

Political parties are not what they were in the 19th century when candidates were nominated by conventions of their grassroots activist members.

Amen. And if the name sounds good you don't get it. The best thing about 19th century, English pols, was that the parties were named by the opposition. Consequently, Tory and Whig are insults. The American Whigs were a dim echo. If we had parliamentary gov, the Whigs would be the party of rural land interests.

I think Jeff is 1/2 right. The Reps do look like the spent Whigs, but not the American ones. Joe Hill made the point months back, and the basic observation about the fin de Whigs looking like the fin de Reps has been made and ignored repeatedly.

futile stunts like teabagging.

Futile? Futile? You call taking over every story on BO, save one, for two days "futile"? "Mission Accomplished". Would you like a list of real, progressive issues that needed attention those two days, that withered instead, due to your swallowing hook, line and sinker, the teabag distraction? I still say gay Republicans missed a trick for some free air time.

Thanks, billllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly

I think the 'circular firing squad' is assembled and firing away in the republican party at this moment with all the accuracy of 'shoot, fire, aim.' They seem to be more likely to split into several smaller third parties than rally around one or two ideas and candidates at this point.

In the late 70's, republicans on the way up, Democrats on the way down. Today, Democrats on the way up, republicans on the way down, down, down.

I think the moment the tide started to turn was the Terri Schiavo matter. Just my opinion, of course.

Bob T:

Like the one Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddic) was in until a few years ago after he was found out?

Sheesh!

Roger P:

Are Republicans in general and conservatives in particular so bereft of ides that the best they can come up with is the political equivalent of the playground epithet "so's your mother?"

Sheesh! is right.

Roger Pike:

Are Republicans in general and conservatives in particular so bereft of ides that the best they can come up with is the political equivalent of the playground epithet "so's your mother?"

Bob T:

I don't know -- ask one of them.

But as for my own reply, my point is that when it comes to such club memberships of Republicans you should hold it against them about as much as you you do for Kennedy's own membership. Now what was that? Slap-on-the-wrist anger? And, "Well, he apologized so it's over". Yeah.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T:

I don't know -- ask one of them.

But as for my own reply, my point is that when it comes to such club memberships of Republicans you should hold it against them about as much as you you do for Kennedy's own membership. Now what was that? Slap-on-the-wrist anger? And, "Well, he apologized so it's over". Yeah.

Roger P:

How telling it is that you refuse to allow yourself to be lumped in with conservatives or republicans. Yet you pontificate, categorically, that Dems gave Kennedy a pass. What arrogance. Consider, that Kennedy felt compelled to apologize. He did so because of the reaction of Dems; upset over his membership. That Democrats are unhappy with Kennedy in no way disqualifies them from condemning that behavior among Republicans; particularly when the Republican transgressions are part of a continuing pattern of abuse.

But, that analysis is only part of my reason for charachterizing that post as "school yard." It is even more telling that you gratuitously labeled Kennedy as "D-Chappaquiddic". These days, whenever a Republican is losing a debate, which is...well...always, they seem to lapse into the same tired mantra: well...uhhh... you....uhhh...Clinton....Lewinski...uhhh...Chappaquiddic. It's all they have left. Since the label was in no way germane to a discussion of memberships it certainly falls into the catagory of deliberately provocative.

I must be childish myself because while not a Republican, I find "Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddic)" pretty funny.

Old Ducker:

I must be childish myself because while not a Republican, I find "Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddic)" pretty funny.

Roger P:

If it walks like a Duck...:-)

"The people that show up run a political Party. In Oregon, a solid 100 people - if from across the State with geographic representation, could run either the Republican or Democratic Parties. They would just have to get elected in precincts, which basically means you fill out a form to get you name on a ballot, and then volunteer to make the trip to the State Party meetings. With 36 Counties, half of which are on the rural east side, and a quarter of which are in the rural south end of the State - Oregon is an easy take over target for those willing to organize at the County level."

.......

Folks, these words from Steve (who has had the experience, as I have, of strong involvement both at the county and state central comm. level) are truer than many people want to admit.

Suppose there is a centrist candidate for Gov. on the Republican side (think Max Williams or Frank Morse) with an excellent ground organization because that person has the appeal to young people and to burned out activists old enough to be the parents of those young people---as Obama did.

Hillary obviously never saw Obama coming, and the current GOP would not see these folks coming.

I once worked on a presidential primary where the party establishment supported a particular candidate but there were 2 other candidates in the race with the sort of appeal to people who were not long time activists that Obama had in 2008. The 2 other candidates got so much of the vote that the establishment candidate got less than 35%.

Some of those people were fired up enough to run for pct. person (a requirement to vote for delegates in those days) and stuck around for county reorganization as well. In some cases, one activist would nominate another activist for county or state office and all the other activists would vote for that nominee.

The establishment person who had said to me before the primary that "you people don't care about the party, only the presidential race" was confronted some years later with a list of party offices either elected, appointed, or contested but lost and had to admit the folks who had backed the establishment candidate had not run for half those offices.

It takes people willing to show up to meetings and people to make the trip to state central committee meetings. But if those folks can carpool to out of town meetings and don't have young kids at home to worry about, you'd be amazed what power those people have. Like the saying says, half of life is just showing up.

Bloggers can spread information, but if they don't attend meetings and become voting members of party organizations, they can't change the direction of a party. Oregon parties are very open to the people who have the time to show up and vote at meetings.

Kari writes, "Are we really talking about a 40 year old car accident?"

Good point. Let's talk about Dubya's 40 year old military record instead.

o.0

Chris Lowe:

In terms of your moral lauding of the Northern Whigs who broke up the basis of their former power to join the Republicans

Bob T:

I wasn't lauding the northern Whigs so much as I was pointing out that I disagreed with the notion (as written by a former Oregon Sec of State) that it would have somehow been admirable for the Whigs to have remained a big tent party (i.e. agreed to disagree on slavery) so they could win elections. In other words, was winning was more important? Not to me, on that issue. (By the way, the northern Whigs did not join the Republican Party so much as the Republican Party was formed about that time by many ex-Whigs -- the Repubs were also never a third party, but were a major party from the first time they ran candidates because they essentially replaced the Whigs).

If I made no connection between the Whigs and the Republicans of today, that's because I didn't. But since you brought it up, I don't compare drawing a line with slavery with drawing a line regarding abortion, so the Repubs in not tolerating more than a few pro-choice members (actually, in having a glass ceiling above their pro-choice candidates) is not exactly doing something commendable. Their lack of free enterprise principles is a more serious problem because at one time they could at least convincingly offer that to pro-choice voters. But they haven't been able to offer that in some time, which leaves them very little.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Chris Lowe:

Another possibility is that Mike Huckabee types and some updated version of Jack Kemp emerge as...

Bob T:

I was about to point out that the current problems with the Repubs can be traced (as I see it) to Reagan choosing George H. W. Bush as his running mate instead of Kemp. Bush following Reagan (thanks to the advantage of being VP) started the slide because he was interested in being president and nothing else, and in fact both Bush presidents have been terrible for the Republican Party.

I used to see Kemp giving talks and speeches on self-help and economic opportunities for all, explaining how we had too many good old boy rules still in place that kept people down. A guy named Jim Pinkerton was the same way, and when he was in the Bush 41 White House he tried often to see Bush to talk about these matters and Charlie Black keot him away, telling him once that "this is about power", not about actually doing anything. The best thing about McCain losing is that it kept Charlie Black from getting back in the White House.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Chris Lowe:

It is popular these days among Republicans, and apparently judging from your comments some libertarians too, to focus on the fact that when Johnson got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed in Congress he did so with more Republican votes than Democratic ones

Bob T:

I don't focus on that all that much because as you pointed out, "opponents also included Barry Goldwater". That was a huge mistake by Goldwater (who opposed it for very different reasons the southern Dems opposed it, let's be clear about that), because it got the party labeled as being disinterested despite the numerous Repub legislators supporting it. That was too bad, because I see those two bills as proper in the state vs. national government competition over protecting rights, i.e. the state protecting your rights when the Feds won't and the Feds protecting you when the state cannot or will not. I think that's real Federalism, as opposed to those who think that if the Constitution says nothing about X, then the states are free to do things like criminalize sodomy or abortion, forgetting all about the 9th amendment.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Jason writes, "Oh, and Steve, speak for yourself. Your definition of what a Republican is totally way off base:

If you really think most conservatives have that mindset you're head is in the sand. Maybe it fits for some in the party, but it sure as hell doesn't for me (and speaking from the conservative perspective, I can tell you that most of my friends and other conservatives I know don't take that stance either)."

I stand corrected, because I forgot to include the "social" issues that Republicants have beat the drum on these last 28 years.

1. Abortion - The Republicants have married their party to the position that Abortion is wrong and should be banned. However, in that 28 year period, the Republicants had control of either the Presidency, the House, or the Senate, or all or parts of those three ALL of those 28 years except 2. If the Republicants were in fact serious about ending Abortion, it would be done. So, I have to conclude that the party never finished on this issue because it was one of the few things that united the right wing of the Party.

2. Gay Rights. Same argument as abortion.

3. Gun Rights. Interestingly, the Democrats have backed way off on this issue (I'm a member of the Gun Caucas of the Democratic Party), and while some Democrats (and some Republicants) are still for strict laws about owning guns, its pretty much an empty issue now.

4. Religious Freedom in the public forum

Some far-right people, including some in my family, have convinced themselves that our Government is anti-religious. There is no real basis to this argument unless you throw in that schools teach fact based materials and not religious materials. This was never a real argument, but rather one that was invented out of whole cloth, a "creation" of something that never was or is. Separation of Church and State was and is always to the benefit of Church, not State.

So, I totally left out the "social" issues of the Republicant Party, as the evidence is that the Party is in fact not serious at all about these issues or that these are crazy issues only with appeals to a "fringe" of our society. With the polls showing that only 21% of our population now identify themselves as "Republicans", the Republicants have lost traction with every major issue, whether "social" or "economic".

So, Jason, you were right (and still are over on the right) and wrong.

Chris, you miss my point.

What you are talking about is a Republican primary electorate which votes entirely the way it has voted in the past, and no one is either new to the process or has changed their mind after multiple losses.

Your scenario is plausible except for the part about where the moderate R gubernatorial candidate comes from. Ask Ron Saxton. When he ran that way, they trashed him. So then he ran to right of Kevin Mannix in order to get the nomination, and lost the general. <<

What I was talking about was finding someone (not sure who) who attracts new people in the way Obama in 2008, Howard Dean and the Oregon Bus Project attracted new people to the Democratic Party earlier in this decade.

I was so sorry to read tonight that Kemp has died. Much as I disagreed with his politics, he had a more common sense approach than many of the current GOP. And not all of Huckabee's ideas were crazy--what he said on Charlie Rose about how he dealt with education as a Governor, and dealing with needy people as both a pastor and a Gov. made a lot more sense than many Oregon Republicans in recent years. If he chooses to be that intelligent in front of a general audience, he could win over people on those issues if not into voting for him for office.

I didn't say it would be easy. And the 70s moderate Republicans would probably be as out of place in the 21st century as the Democrats from those days. A few legislators from those days went on to bigger things and some are well known today. But as politicians, not as party people.

Right wingers first starting taking over the Republican Party back when Atiyeh first ran for office. There was a time when Oregon had 2 Republican Senators, Republican statewide elected officials, and other well known Republicans. But the right wing Republicans starting with Walter Huss in the days of Atiyeh, then the likes of Marilyn Shannon and Kevin Mannix, down to the present day. And gradually, whether it was the primary electorate determining the nominees, or other factors, voters decided to elect Democrats instead.

That is an older generation. If a new generation moves into party politics, things could change. Or as a fairly young man told me in 1996, "the fastest growing party is no party at all" and party participation in either party may wither.

Too many of the earlier moderates have retired or died. The question is whether a new generation decides problem solving and candor (if you say "we must prioritize" and then go off into ideological verbiage rather than stating your top priorities, how many people will believe you?), or continue in the old ways.

It doesn't take that many people to change a party at reorganization time. In most counties, a group of 30 people wanting to change things could become elected pct. people, show up at the reorganization meeting and get themselves elected to county office, district and state delegate, alternate, standing committee positions and that could change the direction of a party. I have seen it happen.

Steve Bucknum:

1. Abortion - The Republicants have married their party to the position that Abortion is wrong and should be banned. However, in that 28 year period, the Republicants had control of either the Presidency, the House, or the Senate, or all or parts of those three ALL of those 28 years except 2. If the Republicants were in fact serious about ending Abortion, it would be done. So, I have to conclude that the party never finished on this issue because it was one of the few things that united the right wing of the Party.

Bob T:

The Repubs were able to get millions of extra votes from pro-choice people who either felt that a few other issues were far more important, or that Roe v. Wade was here to stay.

There is no doubt that as time went on there were more people who might otherwise agree with the Repub views on economy (or at least the rhetoric), foreign policy etc, who claimed they could bever vote for a pro-life or religious-centric candidate.

Lately, the Repubs started losing votes of people who no longer believed they were any good at pushing free enterprise policies. That doesn't leave much.

Jeff Alworth:

I've been reading Bob T's comments for years--I have yet to read a single one which invited actual dialogue.

Bob T:

In many cases that you might be thinking of, I'm merely pointing out historical errors or the myths that constantly get repeated over and over by progressives, usually relating to the not-quite laissez-faire era, much of it still misinterpreted (i.e. the railroads "fought" regulation tooth and nail; the meat packers fought regulations tooth and nail; Ma Bell obtained its monopoly using cut-throat tactics, without government regulations helping it, etc etc). After all, facts are inconvenient sometimes, but I like basing current policies on accurate lessons from the past.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob writes:

"Lately, the Repubs started losing votes of people who no longer believed they were any good at pushing free enterprise policies."

If by this you mean that for the first time since the Coolidge Administration that the GOP held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, their utter cynicism, corruption and hypocracy was so glaringly obvious that even the most dense among the rank and file could now recognize that their commitment to less government and free enterprise finally exposed as complete bullshit...then I agree.

On a separate note, the more I read your posts, the more you come across as knowledgeable, sensible and even principled. I'm sitting here sincerely wondering why many people don't seem to like you...

What is being misdiagnosed is that more people are becoming independents not because the GOP has governed as conservatives but exactly because they had not. The left is misleading itself again. The people who are identifying themselves as independents are looking for things like smaller government, real leaders, citizen oriented government. Also even as more identify themselves as independents because of dissatisfaction with the GOP the GOP's generic congressional numbers have been rising in contrast to this misguided analysis. Those are jaded Republicans and they didn't vote for Obama the vast majority of voters either did not vote or voted for John McCain. Obama won largely because McCain didn't get the turnout even as much as GW Bush and turned off a lot of independents by making it seem he was no different than Obama.

I love the comments about how the GOP is not really a conservative party. They remind me of the folks who insisted pre-1991 that the Soviet Union's experiment with "actually existing socialism" didn't count.

Old Ducker:

Bob writes:

"Lately, the Repubs started losing votes of people who no longer believed they were any good at pushing free enterprise policies."

If by this you mean that for the first time since the Coolidge Administration that the GOP held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, their utter cynicism, corruption and hypocracy was so glaringly obvious that even the most dense among the rank and file could now recognize that their commitment to less government and free enterprise finally exposed as complete bullshit...then I agree

Bob T:

Essentially, that's what I meant. As a free enterprise believer, I can say that for decades the Republicans haven't been a party dedicated to basing policies on sound, basic economics and that the difference between recent years and most of the 20th Century has been just what you pointed out: that the Repubs were no longer able to merely appear to be such a party.

Lots of people stopped voting Republican because of the religious obsession, but also many others stopped because they became disillusioned when they realized the Repubs were spending like drunken sailors and were porkers like everyone else, not mention corporate welfare champions like the other guys as well. For years many pundits have pointed out that indie voters (or even moderate or conservative Dems), when given the choice of a Democrat and a Me-Too Republican, will choose the Democrat because at least that one is not pretending to be something else.

Bob Tiernan Portland

LT:

There was a time when Oregon had 2 Republican Senators

Bob T:

Yeah, but remember that they received lots of votes each re-election time because of the clout they and editorial boards reminded us about. That's why I hate the idea of the national government as a bagman for states and cities--too many people then start supporting them over and over because of their ability to send $$$$ back home (where it was in the first place), rather than where they actually stand on issues that are national in scope.

When Hatfield defeated Lonsdale (I voted for Lonsdale, by the way), the margin of victory may well have been due to the bring-home-the-bacon issue. I was opposed to Lonsdale's policies more, but I thought it was important to get rid of dinosaurs who used taxpayer dollars to buy votes, and their clout to squash reform.

Bob Tiernan Portland

I think the Republican party will purge itself of the the worst fanatics because the corporate elites need a party that can win. But to remake it they first have to destroy it. The more strident social conservatives were useful idiots for a while, but they are now a liability. The party will be remade by people like Huckabee with social conservative credentials but with a gentle, populist presentation. They will appear to be independent of corporate influence while serving corporate interests. Never underestimate the ability of corporate America to find a way to get people to vote the way they want.

"When Hatfield defeated Lonsdale (I voted for Lonsdale, by the way), the margin of victory may well have been due to the bring-home-the-bacon issue. I was opposed to Lonsdale's policies more, but I thought it was important to get rid of dinosaurs who used taxpayer dollars to buy votes, and their clout to squash reform."

Bob T, I voted for Lonsdale in 1990 and wrote him in for the 1992 general election after having been one of his recount observers (final result 330 vote loss for Lonsdale in a statewide election).

More importantly, perhaps, for the sake of this discussion were the votes of an old friend very active in a Republican women's group.

She voted for Lonsdale in 1990 and wrote him in for the 19992 general because she thought Hatfield and Packwood had been there too long.

It may come as a shock to some Republicans, but there are young parents today who were barely learning to walk when Thatcher was elected Prime Minister and Reagan was elected President. Somehow I don't see Republicans rebuilding their party by talking about those elections roughly 30 years ago.