They [moonbats] are the reason the Democrats are in such dire straights.

Well... agreed, but I wouldn't call them the most proximate cause.

We've got wingnuts on the right, too. I would argue not as many-- youth and all, you know.

But more important than even how many (or how obnoxiously loud) is the question of how much influence they have.

We on the right have suffered years of withering scrutiny under the left-leaning media. In D.C, hyper-left.

PAT ROBERTSON SAID SOMETHING STUPID!!!

Over and over and over again, we heard this "news report" just last week.

Meanwhile, the lunatics on the left get a free pass from the legacy media. Not to mention glowing praise, deliberate stifling of news which discredits them, et cetera ad nauseum.

We on the right disowned our extremists years ago because we had to, or else. The left hasn't, since they never felt any downside to their association.

Daily KOS is not really a problem. John Kerry (who served in vietnam) posting on Daily KOS is a problem.

What I want to know is, what would happen to the Howard Deans and the DailyKossers? Going even more towards the fringe, what would happen to the America-haters? What would become of the loony left? Where would the shrill shouters go?

They're the ones who will drive the Respectable Democrats out of the party.

They're as aware of the value and history of the 'Democrat' name as anyone else, and will not give it up willingly- and there isn't anyone in the Democratic party who has both the willingness and the clout to do to them what the Republicans did to Pat Buchanan.

The country is split 51/49 or so, and the Democrats are on the losing side. They need every vote they can get, and so far, the calculation is that pandering to the Kossacks and Deaniacs gains them more votes than it costs.

Clinton was a master at telling the Democratic fringe what it wanted to hear and then governing more-or-less from the center (in no small part because of Newt&Co), but I don't see anyone with that talent on the horizon.

Bob: Because you _need_ me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king. That's why I did this: to protect you from yourselves. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a city to run.
Judge: Bailiffs, place the mayor under arrest.
Bob: What? Oh yes, all that stuff I did.

The Democratic Party is distilling itself down to its true essence: statism. Abortion rights, freedom of speech, populist concern for the little guy: these were all incidentals to the main theme of government control. They were anomalies caused by the temporary adoption of certain political positions as a strategic maneuver. In this, the Democrats are exactly analogous to the Communist Party in China. Their ideology, which was never more than a rationalization anyway, has been thrown aside in favor of their lust for power. The Republicans are about twenty years behind them.

The thing to remember, though, is that we elect these people into office. Their power lust is a reflection of the power lust of the American people. If Congress enacts a massive prescription drug benefit supported by confiscatory taxation, it is only because the American people think they can gain such a benefit at no cost to themselves by taking it from the drug companies or the rich.

Freedom and power-lust are mutually exclusive. If we won't renounce the latter, we're going to lose the former. There is no political party devoted to freedom, though, and there won't be until enough freedom-loving people band together and make one.

I voted for Bush twice. Beyond that I think I might have voted for one other republican. And I did that only because last election I was so disgusted with democrats that I voted against everyone.

In the dem primary I wrote in George W. Bush because Kerry was a lock in my state, so there was no point in voting for Lieberman and I thought that made a stronger statement.

Alas, I officially left the Democratic party just last week and registered as a Republican, despite being moderately pro-choice and wholly pro-gay marriage. I just can't stand to listen to John Kerry, Howard Dean, or Nancy Pelosi for one more second and have to admit to myself that I belong to the same club as them.

Let's see...a mental furrball like Kerry comes within 2% of Bush and you think the Dems are dead?

As long as they have the MSM and the educational system, they'll live forever.

This is what will keep them alive:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ToddManzi/2006/01/11/181852.html

For some time now, I've been predicting that our two-party system will consist of the Republican Party and a Libertarian Party.

But then, I am an optimist. I would like those choices.

With Dems on the ballot, there is no choice. I will not quixotically choose some third-party candidate, because we cannot afford to let Democrats get into office.

Stephen, you asked:
"What I want to know is, what would happen to the Howard Deans and the DailyKossers? Going even more towards the fringe, what would happen to the America-haters? What would become of the loony left? Where would the shrill shouters go?"

They would become part of a rump Democratic Party which would collapse in on itself in much the same way that the Reform Party did after Patprick Buchanan staged his stupid little takeover in 1996.

See, what I want to see happen is this: The moderates from both parties join together to form a new 'centrist' party, one devoted to really doing all the things that the Republicrats have claimed to support -- reduce corruption, reduce and reform government spending, tort reform, border control, support for individual freedoms, etc. The idiot fringes on both ends of the spectrum get left out in the cold. The religious-right, the purist laissez-faire businessmen, the Buchanan-type paleocons, the few remaining dixiecrats, they would all be just as marginalized as the Kos Kidz.

I think that if such a thing ever happened, we would rapidly resolve into a new two-party system, with the religious right forming the core of a revised Republican Party, which would go back to being a minority party (which is where they belong). The remnants of the Democratic Party would simply vanish from the halls of power. They might merge with the Green Party. (Lest anyone think this is only wishful thinking, it's not far off what happened the last time a major party collapsed, in 1850. The Whig Party disintegrated over the issue of slavery; half of it joined with the Free-Soilers to create the Republican Party, and the other half simply dissolved and was never heard from again.)

How do you think the Democrats feel? Fed up with Bush’s administration abandonment of the targets of their bleeding hearts and especially the Neocon’s foreign policy bumbling, and yet no one to turn to within their own party.

Look at who has been elected President in the previous century. Most came from governorships. Once they get the DC taint, they are no longer electable. The only exceptions I know are John Kennedy and Warren G. Harding. The best position to run for President is as a President (now only one more term), then Vice President, and then governor. A party should never, ever nominate a Senator. Which does not bode well for John McCain (whom I will probably vote for – if he gets his party’s nomination).

I’m certainly not voting for the Democrats I see waiting in the wings – that’s is until I see who the Republicans nominate. I may not vote.

Eventually, some fair-haired boy (or girl) will rise up from out in the sticks, with the right plan, not make too many mistakes, be liked by reporters, and win the presidency and change the whole political scene.

For a statistical breakdown of who ran from what position since 1948.

For something a bit more fabled.

If a couple of prominent, well respected Democrats (Lieberman, Miller), and a couple of prominent, well respected Republicans (Condi, Arnold and McCain) broke and formed a third party that was pro-choice with strict limits after 24 weeks, pro GWOT, tax cut supporting, small government, gay right supporting - as a general platform - both the Republican and Democratic parties would see significant defections.

I've been a Democrat almost all of my life. I worked for Vice President Gore when he ran for the US Senate. My family supported his father for years.

I started to switch when President Carter ran for office a second time. [Worst. President. Ever.] I couldn't vote for President Reagan, so I stayed home. I switched to independent back in 1994, after watching the party that I loved and supported all those years drop all moral, ethical, and legal principles. Some members of my family refuse to talk to me about politics because they view anyone who doesn't vote for Democrats to be little less than evil.

My mother, who barely talks to me about politics, told me when I was little, "You don't vote for the man; you vote for the party. A political party is what it stands for." Today, the guiding principles of the Democrats is: "We are against everything the Republicans want to do." So even when Republicans are right, the Democrats are fighting them -- even if it hurts the country.

I've had to vote for Republicans or leave blanks on the ballot time and time again because Democrats won't put forward principles or an agenda that I can support. All of the good ideas (and a few of bad ones, too) are coming out of the GOP.

The country would benefit from two political parties debating their ideas and working together whenever possible. It ain't happening, and the Democrats don't seem to be gaining any maturity anytime in the foreseeable future. Too bad for us.

Guilt by association or rather, guilt by who you vote for.

When you don't vote the cry is "every vote counts". When you do vote, the cry is "you are responsible for who you voted for".

A number of years back I went back to the positive/negative list. Too many negatives, you're out no matter the party.

I haven't voted in awhile.

I think Tracy is on to something. I would love to see South Park Republicans organize, but we'll probably oversleep.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100702A

Of course, Stephen, you are only half the problem. The other half is the voters who disagree with you 100% on social and economic issues, the people who are anti-abortion, ant-same-sex marriage, etc., who are culturally very much Nashville, but who believe in a lot of the Dems' anti-business message. They're not just losing you, they're losing them too, and the more the Dems go after one group the more they lose the other.

Of course, the core problem is that both groups tend to favor a strong national defense and an aggressive battle against terrorism. Fail to solve that failing, and both the libertarian and the "Reagan Democrat" factions will keep holding their noses to vote Republican.

I've been thinking a lot about this and I think that, while starting new parties is always a long shot, the current historic moment is probably more favorable to the possibility than any other moment in our lifetime thus far.

Besides the huge problems with the Democrats, another reason I think it's more favorable is that Internet technology could make forming a sort of "virtual party" possible very quickly. It would take a long time to describe what I mean by that, and I don't want to spend that time right now. However, think of fantasy baseball leagues...

My attitude is that any of these three outcomes from some sort of new organized political movement would be a huge success for us:

(1) The Democrats learn from it and get there heads screwed on straight again

(2) The movement influences the GOP to be much more to our liking, leaving the social conservatives in the dust

(3) The movement causes the GOP to split, giving us a new party more to our liking

(4) The movement actually becomes a real political party that actually wins elections and supplants the Democrats.

Given that outcomes (1) and (2) aren't THAT insanely difficult, I think it could be very worthwhile.

I even have a proposed name for the movement: the New Libertarians. When people ask what the "New" means, we would answer "It means we're not freaking insane like the Old Libertarians".

The "libertarian" philosophy of the New Libertarians would be that, if we were in power, we would not immediately radically transform laws in ways that people would find scary (suddenly making all drugs legal), but would support a gradual trend in American society towards greater and greater individual freedom through small experimental steps (like for example making only marijuana legal.)

Another stated goal would be to hold the line against tax raises and make a serious effort to get the total percentage of American's income taken away as taxes down to some number lower than it is now, like 30% or something.

Anyway, for this to happen, bloggers need to get on board...

The sad thing is, as long as the Dems target Kossaks, the Republicans will do nothing to target the center right. Which means more BIG GOVERNMENT, waste of taxpayers money, and multilateralism. Elections will be decided by the "say no to war" crowd, going against the "say no to faggots" crowd. Meanwhile, the islamofascists and Chinese communists will celebrate.

"But with the exceptions of maybe Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, there's not a Democrat today I'd vote for without first chewing through my own forehead."

Could Zell and Joe man up and just switch parties already? It's patently obvious those two are Reps in Dem clothing (Although my heartfelt sympathies go out to any party that has to deal with an utter lunatic like Miller).

Some on the far left might actually act out on their beliefs. They are rabid. SF might secede? Join up w/ALF? Can't we just pay them to move to Cuba to keep the Revolution going in their image after el barbudo dies?

Didn't someone post at 1 of those sites she was crying for 2 days over Alito? Criminey, turn off the TV like I did for 8 years.
Go have fun.
----

24 weeks on abortion? No way. 12 weeks. Ample time to make a decision.

Exactly. Something profound is going on that could lead to a split in the Democratic Party, the same way the the Social Democrats split with Labour in England, after Labour became a stronghold of thuggish trade unionists & Trotskyites (the Militant Tendency). When you have people like Kerry commenting on the Daily Kos, a site that traffics in the loopiest conspiracy theories, it's a sign the whold party is going over a cliff.

In England, the Labour split had the long term effect of forcing Labour to swing back towards the center (or the centre, if you will). This week's plummeting poll ratings for Hildebeast mean she'll need Dramamine for the whiplash roller coaster ride of playing to the Sheehanites and the moderates. Good luck

Boy and Howdy! Let me add my contribution to the me too list. I am an atheist. I support experimentation into human cloning. Hell, I think we should be looking at ways to use stem cells as a food additive. Ok, I'm kidding abou that last one, but you get the point. I have almost nothing in common with the Republican party except a desire for some fiscal responsibility, and *they* are only kidding about that part of their principles.

I had never voted for a Republican for president before this election, but I pulled the lever for Bush so we would have SOME chance of not cutting and running from Iraq and so that we would do something agressive about Iran. And so far Bush is failing to do anything about the most important part of that equation, Iran.

I, too, ought to be part of the democrats target audience but everyday they do something to raise my level of contempt for them. Kerry is a pompous boring ex communist tool. Al Gore is, well, an angry old man sitting on a porch ranting at the neighbor kids a good thirty years ahead of schedule. There is something very Reptilian about Hilary. I keep trying to tell myself I could vote for her if only she were hawkish enough. She seems smart enough to get that, but not strong enough to stand up the the evil radical wing of her party.

There is little hope. I am hoping Condi does run since then I could at least vote for someone I admire.

I admired Bush a lot at the end of his first term, but it is beginning to tarnish. I think he really doesn't have a grand strategy to win the war agains the axis of evil (and yes David Frum was absolutely right to coint that term). The axis needs another six countries, but the ones he named were as good as any.

The democrats are a lost cause.

doug

"I don't like the Democrats, therefore nobody else does either." This is a really keen insight, supported by rigorous argumentation. Bravo, bravo.

I have noticed an interesting thing about virtually all polling results.

Whatever the question there seems to be a fixed percentage of the population that tends to rather interesting conclusions. I could alternatively describe them as subject to moonbatism, but I am trying to be inclusive here.

That percentage appears to be roughly 33%. That percentage is the real heart of today's Democratic Party. Now that's scary. They can never win, but there are too many of them to just simply fade away. Nor does losing seem to deter them. It just makes them more interesting.

I have long argued that the Dems as constituted are doomed, and they are. What I no longer feel so confident about is their complete collapse and rebuilding. Perhaps like those movie zombies they will lumber around indefinately breaking all the furniture, and annoying the townspeople.

There would still be 2 Parties, but one of them would be primarily for the interesting segment of the population. It would never WIN of course, but there would always be all sorts of good 'reasons' why that was. Sort of like a shiny object placed in front of a crow. Endlessly fascinating and irresistable.

First off there is no deep second and third string to either party, nor depth of representation to the current Federal Government. This is a two line change to the Constitution unfortunately as the current House is unlikely to *ever* vote to make itself more representative. But two-thirds of the states and the Senate would make them knuckle under. There needs to be *diversity* of opinion in the Federal Government that is directly accountable to a small number of voters. By entrenching ideologies the House does not give an accurate reflection of The People.

Second, I fit most of Stephen's list... additionally I am small government oriented, anti-socialist and believe that the States should follow the actual *logic* behind Roe v Wade. Beyond that don't bother me about what consenting adults do behind closed doors, get the idea that civility is the *grease* that makes society run, and anyone who wants to change society 'for the good of the children' forgets that this is a society of adults and that parents are around for a *reason*.

Third, and finally, I actually *do* give a damn about protecting this country and the current Parties are flirting with becoming irrelevant on the one hand (Democrats), corrupted by a system of indulgences (both Parties), and forgetting that small business drives this economy (Republicans) which will weaken it in this area on the other hand. Pro-defense, pro-small business, lower taxes, smaller Federal Government and robust military. Are these things so hard to find in a single party? In an era of Big Government Republicans *and* Democrats, apparently so.

The wingnuts on the Right were pretty much shut up by Reagan and are not much of a worry. The moonbats on the Left forgot that socialism just does not work and the US electorate will not be looking favorably on that idea. Their shrillness is an inverse-square proportion to their ability to sway the electorate.

The US Constitution is a wonderful document. Perhaps we could be Governed by it, no?

Just some disjointed thoughts, excuse the rambling.

As long as they have the MSM and the educational system, [the Democrats will] live forever.

This is what will keep them alive:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ToddManzi/2006/01/11/181852.html

Three factors mitigate against the effects of media bias:

1) Even among the "casual electorate" alluded to in the Townhall piece, there is a growing awareness that the MSM is less than trustworthy in news delivery (witness, for example, how the New York Times is losing subscribers hand over fist, and how recent polls indicating all-time low trust levels in the MSM).

2) It's well-documented that Americans tend to be "values voters" first, "issues voters" second (or even third behind "character voters"). The MSM can spin their news coverage of the issues leftward until the cows come home, but unless a Democratic candidate in any given race can also win on values and character, it just won't mattter.

3) In our two-party system, all of American politics tends to get funneled into one of two streams - "liberal" and "conservative" - meaning that guilt by association is pretty much inevitable. So, in addition to the aforementioned factors of values, character and issues, it seems to me that a fourth voting factor is also emerging: bedfellows. Since I will be getting into bed with some manner of hardline ideologues no matter which party's candidate I vote for, which collection do I find less unpalatable than the other? Given the choice between the likes of Pat Robertson on the right, or the likes of Kos, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan on the left, I'd hazard that most people in the "target audience" mentioned in the Townhall piece find the latter camp to be a much greater turnoff than the former.

I'm a professional Scientist, let me give you my view. In 15 years the only issue will be energy. All industrialized nations need it to function, and no one in the political leadership of the western world (so far as I can tell) is addressing alternatives to digging up rocks that we can burn. Global Warming is probably real (so burning coal for the next 50 years is a bad choice). Peak oil is real (so forego the durango). Nuclear power won't supply more than 10 years of world energy demand, so in practice we'll all be living in caves in 100 years if someone isn't pragmatic and forward thinking about our energy needs.

Please Please, give me a candidate that talks cogently about this problem (so that my daughter can live her life in peace).

(for context, I voted Bush-Bush-Dole for the last few cycles, and I wince every time I heard the Green Party speaking)

The current platform of the Democratic Party will merely adjust, but I think they'll still have that heavy leftist element in their rhetoric. After all, the Clintons basically co-opted the Dems toward a more European platform. Honestly, I think its hard to level a Fukuyama-like prophecy and say that end of leftism is in sight and the Neocons are bound to triumph...who knows?

I heard someone speak a few weeks ago about "Israeli politics after Sharon." He said that the Kadima party was so popular because there was an invisible center in the Israeli electorate that wasn't satisfied. They would be to the right of Labour but just couldn't bear to vote Likud. Or they would be on the left of Likud, but just couldn't stand to vote Labour. Now they have a place to go.

The Shinui party tried to be this new center party, but it defined itself as against the ultra-orthodox, instead of for anything.

This made me think that we have exactly the same situation here, but because we don't have a parliamentary system, we can't create new viable political parties that easily. It takes decades for a new party to become established in our system.

But we have a large center, probably a majority, that isn't being satisfied, or even seen.

This discussion needs a little grounding. For a (new)two-party system that is effective, their needs to be stability. Right now may not be the most opportune time to split this political system into unknown factions.

Yes, I know, it has to be done sometime. But, while we're at war? Can't you hear the mullah's going "ka-ching!"?

For 30 years, there has been talk of moving parties to the left and right, but only momentary gains have been seen. Power corrupts ideals - is that hard to believe?

What on earth has the dispicable rethuglican party done for America. You guys yell "libs are commies".
Good lord. there would be no middle class if it weren't for liberal ideas. so nice of you to pull the ladder up after yourselves.
Selfish and antiamerican. thanks for running the country into the ground.

"Nuclear power won't supply more than 10 years of world energy demand"

You're a scientist and you say this? Astonishing. We have enough uranium to last at least hundreds of thousands of years, and if we used breeder reactors, we could keep going indefinitely.

Sarah,
Today's Democrats are illiberal in the extreme.

I no longer recognize the party I voted for for twenty years. All that remains is a bunch of Marxists with no understanding at all of the world.

Wanna see something funny?

Read the comments.

If I were to pick one single issue that has had the biggest affect on those of us who use to be Democrats, it is our countries security. Yes, there are other issues. But, I believe that the gut level "we need protection" ideal may have been the clincher.

At least this is my opinion and a huge part of why I am not a Democrat any longer.

Oh, come on.

Our political choices amount to a quick pick between being raped with a switchblade and being beaten into a pulp with stun batons. Neither party is really a viable, functional governing entity that is going to have a positive effect.

I seriously laugh at anyone who votes Republican - you support a party of law-breaking, scandal-ridden, executive power, deficit inflating, warmongering, court stackers. I seriously laugh at anyone who votes Democrat - you support a party of inconsistent, weak, scandal-ridden, deficit inflating, hypocritical, large government proponents. The problem, really, is that there's nobody else to vote for.

I mean, get real. Neither of these are good options. The fact that we don't yet have a third party already is a sign that it might be too late to stop the slide. Read up on the history of the Roman Republic and then the switch to Empire. It's frighteningly similar to what is going on now. We have a government obsessed with itself and growing idealogical boundaries when what we really need is constructive and legitimate debate about real solutions.

Washington, apparently, was right about this whole political party thing. I dropped my Republican registration in 2000, and I've been an independent for a while. I cannot see that changing in the near future.

I'm a gay man who has voted Republican almost my whole life, in fact most of my gay friends are Republicans. We are here and the liberal media does not want our opinions because we don't fit there agenda. Well, we know what is right and what is wrong. Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, don't have a clue. Bush is flawed but he is all we have.

--The moonbats on the Left forgot that socialism just does not work--

No, it's just that the "right" people haven't been in place. They just didn't give up when the Wall fell and showed all, they won't when Castro goes. They weren't the "right" people.

Hugo's said he's developing socialism for the 21st century.

Of course there's shortages of coffee, flour, milk and sugar, but this time it'll work. Really it will.

Sarah is just like her leaders. Here many of us are sayinge we WANT to vote for democrats and her response is to insult us.

doug

A different perspective, but one that may be helpful, is that the Democrat Party already split, shedding its moderates as Reagan Republicans. Unfortunately, the remnant just is not credible on defense or patriotism, remaining mired in its 9/10 thinking and ignoring the growing menace of unappeasable Islamism. Libertarianism will never be a majority party and will never be taken seriously if it insists on floating deeply unserious ideas such as so-called "same-sex marriage" (analogous to the legendary "XY female" or the "three-sided quadrilateral"). It is an excellent example of a 9/10 policy in a 9/12 world.

Before we write off the political Left as represented by America's Democrats, let's keep in mind that there are a LARGE number of people who think that powerful forces beyond their control are running their lives and that they need and want a nanny-state to wipe their runny nose. So long as you have a contigent of people within the American empire who think that government has the ability to make their lives better, there will always be Democrats.

I left the Democratic Party this week and re-registered as an Independent. I'm disgusted. The Republicans are crazy, loony wingnuts and the Dems are spineless, gutless wimps. Both parties have been taken over by the radicals on their respective sides of the aisle. That leaves moderates like me politically homeless.

I voted for Clinton twice and wrote in McCain in '00 and '04. I will vote for Giuiliani, McCain, or Gov. Mark Warner for President in 2008. I will NOT vote for Hillary, Kerry, Frist, Brownback, or any other extreme right or extreme left candidate.

I'm tired of the supposed "culture war" cooked up by politicians and radio talk show hosts. These degenerates have a lot of nerve calling themselves Americans, when their sole purpose in life is to generate ratings or votes by pitting Americans against each other. This is true of both sides. O'Reilly's phony "War on Christmas" stories and Al Franken's repeated insistence that almost all Republicans are liars. Puke.

America is a nation at war and Bush, Dean, and almost every other "leader" seems determined to keep us at each other's throats at a time when we most need to be united. BOTH parties need to clean up their act and restore Americans' respect for one another.

I'm with you Steve. The rate things are going, the world is going to start wagering bets on when the "Civil War in America" will start.

A Side note here. I'm fed up with being called a "Bushie" simply because I support the WOT.

Anybody else?

The advantage the Republican party currently has over the Democrat party is that one single faction within the Republican party has complete control over it.

Let me try to illustrate this point by trying to define right-winger.

Is a right-winger someone who wants to eliminate or privatize nearly all social programs and government regulations?

Or is a right-winger someone who wants to maintain civil marriage as a union between one man and one woman and wants to ban abortion?

Or is a right-winger someone who wants to topple Iran's theocracy and plant more democracy in the Middle East, extend the Patriot act and continue te NSA wiretaps on suspected terrorists?

The answer is that many self-described right-wingers would accept one or more of these definitions.

But there are some anti-abortion folks who don't want to see Medicaid reformed.

There are some who support toppling Iran's theorcracy who don't support making abortion illegal and making Bush's tax cuts permanent.

The Democrat party has a single left wing; The Republican party has three right wings.

This is why the Republican party has had a difficult time restraining the growth in government spending: The base of the party isn't unified in support of the objective.

So, you could argue that the Republican's three right-wings represents a disadvantage, not an advantage.

Politics works. People like things done for them and for their kids and friends. That's why the two-party system doesn't go away. They give people want they want even when they say they want something else. Republicans can't overturn Roe v. Wade even if 50%+ don't think abortion is right. Most people want that option available even if they don't use it and they'll vote against someone who may make it vulnerable. Both parties spend like drunken sailors because that's what people want them to do even as they bitch and moan about taxes. It's human nature to want stuff for free or lie to yourself and say you're just trying to help out people less fortunate than yourself. Politicians who don't spend a lot of money are voted out. Bush understands that and tries to use that policy to keep himself in power instead of being lame-ducked for the rest of his term. Arnold Sw. just found out that people don't want what they say they want. Plus they'll believe anything they see on TV. So, the person with the most commercials (aka advertising money) wins. There are exceptions, but that's mainly the way it works. Now it's a race to see who can open the spigot the widest. I like the virtual third party, though. That's just spin-doctoring and anybody can do that. Maybe people will believe it, too.

The Democrats will never go away; they will simply eventually become one of about 3 "minor parties" in the US challenging the "dominant party", the Republicans.

See, right now we are split in the 2-party system pretty cleanly between the "sane" and the "insane". The "sane" are defined as those who do not wish to see the US go the way of Europe, who believe in a strong military, who value the lives and rights of even the unborn. These people want American to survive and grow. The "insane" are the, "screw it all - I just want my fix legalized" - whatever that "fix" is - recreational drugs, homosexuality, pediphilia, Anti-Americanism, etc. They don't care if the country goes to hell in a handbasket, they just want their petty, personal "ism" to be satisfied.

Howard Dean, Kerry, Kennedy et al kowtow to the "insane" because for whatever reason these people have money and will write them checks to make them act insane. Many Democrat politicians are themselves insane, yes. Didn't used to be that way: They were just playing a part, now some have crossed over into Moonbatism.

They can't win elections because there are more "sane" people than "insane" and it's become increasingly difficult to steal elections since we went to computerized ballots. Eventually the nutcases backing them will catch on and start splitting off into factions, each faction calling itself a political party. The Democrat Party will shrink but never quite go away; it will always exist at least in name but be unable to compete in national elections w/o aligning with some faction of moonbats locally powerful enough to seat a representative or Senator for that state. I see 2008 as the last serious threat to Republican control of the White House for decades: Hillary, Gore, or Kerry could create a strong enough coalition to challenge the Republican candidate but they'll only get the one shot. If they don't make it, the party will shatter into factions and never be a threat to Republican control of the White House again (barring some disaster like Watergate, anyway).

Orion, I think you're just a little bit too optimistic about the coming Democratic fracture. They are going to be the minority party in this country, yes, perhaps for decades but I see no reason to think that the Democratic Party is going to split into a bunch of factions.

Fracture didn't happen to the Republicans during their long sojourn as the minority party in this country, nor did it occur to the Democrats the last time they became a long-term minority party following the failure of their secession project of the early 1860's.

No, I think we'll have the Democratic Party to kick around for many, many years to come...and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Not sure if this has already been mentioned in the comments above, as i'm to lazy to read them....but i don't buy into the nothion that the democractic party is screwed. Couple points. Kerry, an idiot, still managed to garnish 48% of the foot. In the congress the democrats control about 44% of the voting power. Minority yes.....party about to be extinguished...no. If you want to talk about a party that was almost destroyed....look at the Republicans in the 1930's. If the republicans can survive that, in which they were in worse position than the democrats are currently in, then i'm sure democrats can survive this misadventure.

"still managed to garnish 48% of the foot."

please forgive the above typo...i meant "vote" not "foot"

I'm currently in Podiatry school, so all i have on my mind is "feet, feet, feet"...its a sickness really

Foot?

Feet??

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

They have names for people like you, Kenny.

Visit The Manolo much?

Problems with this "third centrist party" idea:

1) No activist base (moderate activist seems like an oxymoron)

2) No experienced candidates (who would bolt the established party system)

Basically, a third party would have to start at the local level and build from there. Once the party gained enough townships and cities it could possibly win state representation, then governorship, and even then a viable governor-candidate would be at severe disadvantage when for fund-raising.

If they could form a moderate base, how would they win an election? By appealing to the fringe in the general election? Perhaps new voters would be attracted to this party, but of course these voters would be the most difficult to get to come to the polls.

The only way to get the base needed would be to form a coalition of issue voters- gay marriage supporters, marijuana legalizers, anti-censorship, anti-gun control, pro-choice etc etc. I have my doubts that such a coalition could hold.

From Gore and Kerry to Zargawi, Bush has been blessed in his opponents. It's almost creepy. I mean, Bush is basically a normal, middle of the road guy, not any sort of activist or great leader, and all these weirdos and creeps rise out of the earth to challenge him. It could almost be a Hollywood movie... almost.

In my eyes, the Democrat Party stopped being the party of Liberalism when the Democratic Party base:

-began it's restriction upon free speech by imposing speech codes,

-advocated slavery and human ownership when it enforced abortion,

-when it stopped looking out for the little guy by stealing from the little guy to make rich socialists wealthier,

-when it altered both historical events and definition of words and their meaning in order to politically manipulate the unwashed masses,

-when it embraced notorious propagandist Michael Moore as spokesperson for Hate America.

It's not much of a scientist (or thinker) who believes that government can solve an economic problem such as future energy supplies.

I never voted for a Republican candidate for president in my life until the 2004 election. (I've generally voted Libertarian, but being from Massachusetts, mine was always merely a protest vote anyways). But to echo something I read online the other day (might have been Instapundit, but I'm not sure): George Bush is a lot like Wal-Mart - the sheer viciousness and utter stupidity of his opponents causes me to look at him a lot more favorably than I would have otherwise.

The Democratic Party I joined died in 1976.

You know what? They know it too.

Here in California I received a party mailing just before the special election. It called for us to remember the values our beloved party stands for. Its covered featured photos of... FDR, Truman and Kennedy.

No LBJ.
No Carter.
For DAMN sure No BillybedamnedClinton

The Party won't even acknowledge its own leadership of the last forty years.

The Party expects me to believe that Harry Truman of Missouri would endorse the likes of Kerry, Dean and Pelosi.

The Party is a walking corpse.

voting is so very cute.......it is a novelty. The two party system is a scam and it doesn't matter who we vote for, when we vote we vote for corruption and corporations.

wake up, dems attack republicans for being corrupt and republicans attack dems for being corrupt.

To speak in a nonpartisan way the GOVERNMENT is CORRUPT.

we live in a coporatocracy.

I think that a third political party is a great idea and long overdue. I want to address the people who supported Perot, Buchanan, Nader et al for president. Please excuse the caps.
YOU ARE GOING ABOUT IT BACKWARDS!
Do you really believe that
a "grassroots" movement can or should elect a president in the U.S? A president without a single loyal congressman would be the most pathetic individual in the whole country. You don't start out being the head of a huge company unless your father owns it.
A grassroots movement by definition starts at the local level with local elections. Have "Moderate" or even "Progressive" candidates run and get elected to the local school boards and county offices. Move them on up to state positions. State Attorney. State Senate. Governor.
This is not a plan for instant gratification, it would take years, even decades. If such a movement started today, I doubt that I would live to see any of these people elected to national office, but I sure would like to see my grandchildren be able to vote for a candidate for his(or her) beliefs, not just choose the lesser of the evils.
Pretty far fetched I know but if we could find a someone with the wealth of George Soros but with moral convictions it could happen. It is a pleasant dream.

The Democrats dwindling away would cause a split in the Republican party.

Why? Because sure as sunshine the lady or gent who *doesn't* win the Republican primary election will decide that they have a chance if they run Independant.

I'm sorta hoping that Rudy runs as an independant anyway.

Way up in the comments someone mentioned same-sex marriage as the reason Libertarians can't produce a realistic "third party" option. Friend, I do have to say that if that is your only objection to Libertarians (and I say this as one) then you're missing the point.

It amazes me that with an unpopular war, a growing deficit fuled by insane tax cuts, a horrid health care system and the overall arrogance with the way the Rest of The World Works, that an opposing voice (Read: democrat) can't get through. A single line: "Folks we're in a real mess and here's why" followed by a different way to handle things would even hit the wingnuts.

I just watched Chris Shayes blame the looming (To him, obviously) implosion of the Republican Party on George Bush not showing up in New Orleans the next day, walking into the Superdome and saying he wasn't leaving until this was under control. Really. I love Chris Shayes, he's soft. Now Katrina Vanden Heuvel is re-affirming every single disgusting thing I think about the democratic party. Yeah, the republicans suck. But they don't hate my fucking guts, believe that there is a role for the federal government in national defense (Really), and believe that I should keep my money first.

"insane tax cuts"?

Sounds like somebody was asleep through all those Economics 101 lectures.

It amazes me that with an unpopular war, a growing deficit fuled by insane tax cuts, a horrid health care system and the overall arrogance with the way the Rest of The World Works, that an opposing voice (Read: democrat) can't get through. A single line: "Folks we're in a real mess and here's why" followed by a different way to handle things would even hit the wingnuts.

Why are you amazed? The solution to your bewilderment is in your own statement above. The Dems have been hammering the "Folks we're in a mess" part for years, but the "different way to handle things" part has not been forthcoming. That's the problem - or one of them, anyway.

'Insane tax cuts'? Hey.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/154151.php

...but the "different way to handle things" part has not been forthcoming. That's the problem - or one of them, anyway.

No, the Democrats have been quite forthcoming on the 'different way to handle things' side of the issue. Appeasement, isolationism, foreign aid, and open borders for foreign policy, and welfare, subsidies, and higher taxes (on rich people, not you) at home.

The same stuff they've been pushing since the 70s, pretty much.

The problem for the Democrats is that people listen to their ideas, and then a majority votes Republican.

Tracy wrote:
"If a couple of prominent, well respected Democrats (Lieberman, Miller), and a couple of prominent, well respected Republicans (Condi, Arnold and McCain) broke and formed a third party that was pro-choice with strict limits after 24 weeks, pro GWOT, tax cut supporting, small government, gay right supporting - as a general platform - both the Republican and Democratic parties would see significant defections."

The problem, Tracy, and the reason this will never happen, is that NONE of those people who are pro-abortion, pro-gay, believe in smaller government or tort reform, because THOSE people see big government and activist ambulance-chasers as their means of advancing an agenda that has failed time and time again in the legislatures around the country.

The Democrats' Pet Shop
(with apologies to Monty Python)
By Robert B. Reich
Issue Date: 3.12.01

""I wish to register a complaint about the Democratic Party: It's dead."

"No, no, it's resting."

"Look, I know a dead party when I see one, and I'm looking at a dead party right now. ..."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/5/reich-r.html

Somehow, the Party has abandoned common sense in favor of interest-group politics. They're also inextricably tied to Good Government types with no personality. Which one of these chaps would you like to have a beer with? Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Carter, McGovern? I don't think so. Clinton's the only one who might get crazy. (In fairness, Bush 41, Nixon and Dole weren't much better but Reagan and Bush 43 were definitely party material in their prime.) The Dems are populated by too many nice people who could get punched in the face and apologize. That's not going to sell with most of us.

Political parties in modern democracies are means of expressing attitudinal blocs that exist quite separately from the parties themselves. If the Democrats explode, then very rapidly a new party or parties will form to fill the vacuum. The effect of this isn't explicitly political but psephological. Apart from the fact that the US system strongly militates against multi-party politics from an organisational standpoint, electoral boundaries have been drawn with the assumption that the status quo is roughly stationary. Any deviation from that assumption is likely to create lopsided, landslide victories. Gerrymandering only works in a narrow region around 50/50 support. An adroit employment of that newly-drawn landscape could fundamentally alter the mechanisms by which the defunct party's constituency claw themselves back. Labour used the immolation of the Conservatives in the UK to build themselves an election-winning machine that will probably have enjoyed 15 years of economic mismagement and corruption by the time of its eviction. The purpose of New Labour's tenancy was not to govern but to rule. The creation of a huge client electorate was quite deliberate—turkeys do not vote for Christmas. If the Tories can spin things around in the likely window they will be given then it will be a miracle. Any US political party faced with the wreckage of its opponent has a similar opportunity to rig the system.

Of course, given the profound mental retardation of the GOP at a national level, it's entirely possible they'll blow this chance, too.