RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Pierce writes: "In Friday's New York Times, the former director of the CIA wrote something that's going to leave a mark even through nine layers of spray-on tan."

Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)
Donald Trump. (photo: Nigel Parry/CNN)


Are You Ready for the End of the Republican Party?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

07 August 16

 

It's been a long, a long time coming...

n Friday's New York Times, the former director of the CIA wrote something that's going to leave a mark even through nine layers of spray-on tan.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests—endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States. In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.

The polls have gone so utterly sour on the Republican presidential nominee over the past week that many Very Serious People inside the Beltway have developed an even more devastating night-terror than El Caudillo de Mar-A-Lago with a nuclear arsenal at his beck and call—namely, that Hillary Rodham Clinton will get elected and then try to govern according to the progressive platform that was hashed out with so much sturm und drang with the Democratic primary process. This likely is also true of the many billionaires who have rushed to her side as the GOP nominee cratered.

There already is a strong undertow pulling HRC toward "reaching out" to the GOP, toward governing from "the middle," and toward not accelerating the now-rapid descent of the Republican Party into the final madness of the prion disease it has welcomed so warmly into itself ever since the late 1970s. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker even posited that, as a gesture of good faith, HRC should allow the Republicans to pick a Supreme Court justice, a stratagem that has been proven to work only on The West Wing, which was not a documentary series.

Professor Krugman has knocked down most of the arguments in favor of this rainbows-and-unicorns idea. First of all, it's insane politics. It will divide the Democratic Party just as the Republicans are engaging in what is bound to be an entertaining interlude of public fratricide.

Second, it would be an act of astonishing bad faith that would set in concrete all of the most unflattering opinions held about HRC by the people who trust her the least.

Third, it assumes Democratic control of the Congress, which remains a long shot. As long as the Republicans still hold the House of Representatives, where all the bills involving federal spending are born, and assuming that the Democrats aren't gifted with a supermajority in the Senate, it's logical to expect that the GOP won't be any more willing to cooperate with a President Clinton II in governing the country than they were with either President Clinton I or Barack Obama.

And, finally, and this is something Professor Krugman touches on only briefly, there is a more important reason for a President HRC to press her advantages on all fronts to put in place the policies she committed herself to run on: For the good of the nation, the Republican Party as it is presently constituted has to die.

Ever since the late 1970s, when it determined to ally itself with a politicized splinter of American evangelical Protestantism, having previously allied itself with the detritus of American apartheid, the Republican Party has been reeling toward catastrophe even as it succeeded at the ballot box, and taking the country along with it. Crackpot economic theories were mainstreamed in the 1980s. Crackpot conspiracy theories and god-drunk fantasies were mainstreamed in the 1990s. Crackpot imperial adventures abroad were mainstreamed in the 2000s. And all of these were mainstreamed at once in opposition to the country's first African American president over the past eight years.

Modern conservatism has proven to be not a philosophy, but a huge dose of badly manufactured absinthe. It squats in an intellectual hovel now, waiting for its next fix, while a public madman filches its tattered banner and runs around wiping his ass with it. It always was coming to this.

There have been three chances since 2000 for the Democratic Party to beat the crazy out of the Republicans. The first was after the thumping that the Avignon Presidency received in the 2006 midterms. The second was immediately after the election of Barack Obama. Both of those went a'glimmering because the Democrats listened to people who convinced them that, because they were the grown-up governing party, they had to make nice with the pack of vandals on the other side of the aisle. Even this president bought this line of argument, until it became obvious to him that the prion disease was too far gone.

Ever since he looked deeply into that big back of fcks and discovered that it had been empty for a while, the president obviously determined to keep proposing sensible measures even though he knows the Congressional majorities will decline to do even the minimal work required of them by the Constitution. My god, they won't even come back into session to address the Zika epidemic that is now breaking out in Florida. Merrick Garland is sipping a cool one on the veranda somewhere, waiting for someone to tell him where he'll be working come winter. The president is not budging. Why should he? He's not the crazy one. He doesn't belong to the party that, with its eyes wide open, nominated a vulgar talking yam for president.

It long has been the duty of the Democratic Party to the nation to beat the crazy out of the Republican Party until it no longer behaves like a lunatic asylum. The opportunity to do this, to act unilaterally in returning sanity to the Republic, never has been as wide and gleaming as it is right now. To argue that responsible government requires that you treat sensibly a party that has gone as mad as the Republicans have is to argue for government by delirium.

Trump doesn't need an intervention. His party does.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+26 # MainStreetMentor 2016-08-07 11:24
The Republican Party will never “go away”. The Democrats will see to that, in the personage of Hillary R. Clinton and her cancerous political machine. She’s up to her neck in campaign donations over the years from Wall Street financial, (read “Republican” here), rapists; She’s swimming in a sea of contributions from the military/indust rial complex, (read “Republican” here); She’s rubbed elbows with way too many high ranking conservatives in both government and commercial enterprises to ever allow the Republican Party to “sink”; Her “leaked” emails prove she even “rigged” the primary voting processes within her own party – such actions prove she’s embraced Republican tactics. Should she become president, and should she NOT fight for a liberal Supreme Court Justice replacement – then not only will the Republicans survive as a national party, but America will become the “Titanic”.
 
 
+45 # wantrealdemocracy 2016-08-07 13:32
I am ready to get rid of both the Democrats and the Republicans. They are one party with two ugly heads---an elephant and a donkey. and I want them both to be put out to pasture to die in peace.

Check out Dr. Jill Stein the Green Party candidate. Forget trying to figure our which of the evil pair is the worst. You don't have to vote for the lesser evil. You can vote for the common GOOD!
 
 
-11 # mmc 2016-08-07 15:20
I checked her out. She's a waste of time, better suited to living in a small commune in the deep woods.
 
 
+23 # jdd 2016-08-07 17:03
Where does she come down on Glass-Steagall?
On confrontation with Russia? On "regime change" in Syria?
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-08-07 20:33
Why don't you read "her" (their) platform?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-09 10:56
Stein has the strongest position on bank regulation, pushing a new Glass-Steagall. She is non-interventionist.

For specifics and further good news, you should check out the platform itself.
 
 
+9 # Charles3000 2016-08-07 22:03
I read that platform too and everything in it can be done with ease; it is totally doable.
 
 
+13 # Lloyd Wagner 2016-08-07 22:39
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:


Check out Dr. Jill Stein the Green Party candidate. Forget trying to figure our which of the evil pair is the worst. You don't have to vote for the lesser evil. You can vote for the common GOOD!


Sure, and you can buy a lottery ticket, too, and win a million dollars.
In fact you have MORE of a chance of winning with the lottery ticket, than you do with voting for a 3rd Party candidate in the controlled and corrupt U.S. election system.
But go ahead and vote, and vote hard. Your vote will bring real democracy. :)
 
 
+2 # wrknight 2016-08-08 08:56
Quoting Lloyd Wagner:
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:


Check out Dr. Jill Stein the Green Party candidate. Forget trying to figure our which of the evil pair is the worst. You don't have to vote for the lesser evil. You can vote for the common GOOD!


Sure, and you can buy a lottery ticket, too, and win a million dollars.
In fact you have MORE of a chance of winning with the lottery ticket, than you do with voting for a 3rd Party candidate in the controlled and corrupt U.S. election system.
But go ahead and vote, and vote hard. Your vote will bring real democracy. :)


It people like you who give up the fight before it has begun that ensure we will all lose.
 
 
+3 # Robbee 2016-08-08 09:48
Quoting wrknight:
Quoting Lloyd Wagner:
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:


Check out Dr. Jill Stein the Green Party candidate. Forget trying to figure our which of the evil pair is the worst. You don't have to vote for the lesser evil. You can vote for the common GOOD!


Sure, and you can buy a lottery ticket, too, and win a million dollars.
In fact you have MORE of a chance of winning with the lottery ticket, than you do with voting for a 3rd Party candidate in the controlled and corrupt U.S. election system.
But go ahead and vote, and vote hard. Your vote will bring real democracy. :)


It people like you who give up the fight before it has begun that ensure we will all lose.

- woah! stein lost in 2014 - nader lost in 2000 - perot lost in 1992! - TR lost in 1916 - what fight only just began? - how long does it take to realize that 3rd parties don't win? before the lesson begins to sink in? how long?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-09 10:57
@ Lloyd Wagner

And your chances of getting hit by lightning are a thousand times less than that there was no election rigging in the Democratic primary.

Now what?
 
 
-21 # Saberoff 2016-08-07 14:04
Get rid of Trump, and the Republican Party? I don't think so...

The only thing Hillary and the Democratic Party have going for them is Donald Trump and the Republican Party!

He da boogeyman.
 
 
+51 # norman markowitz 2016-08-07 14:20
The Republicans are not finished. The control both houses of Congress' and with their Democratic Party appeasers have been the major force in U.S. politics since Reagan's election. Both parties moved to the right when the Cold War consensus buried the New Deal, which meant no full employment national,Bridge t, no TVA's for the Missouri and Columbia Rivers, no social security based National Health Insurance and military Keynesianism. The Civil Rights movement's heroism and Johnson's seizing the opportunity made Medicare , environmental legislation,and the war on poverty policy and almost took racism the fraternal twin of anti-communism off the table of U. S. Politics. But the Vietnam War which was about racism and anti-Communism, killed that. At the end of WWII, Jim Carey, an anti-Communist labor leader said prophetically, "in this war we fought with the Communists against the fascists. In the next war we fight with the fascists against the Communists". That war was the Cold War
Now we live wirth the consequences of that "victory," the export of jobs from rich to poor countries to produce goods with cheap labor, NATO as a global military police force and the old fascism of Hitler and Mussolini creeping back into European politics as Trump imports it here as his brand, only to be attacked as an agent of the anti-Commmunist ant-Soviet Russian President, Putin. Now we must defeat Trump and as athe second front, force Clinton to move toward social justice policies
 
 
+86 # Vardoz 2016-08-07 14:49
469 seats are up for grabs soon so lets make sure we vote in reps who support Bernie Sanders agenda. That's how we beat the horrific Republican party and the same goes for the establishment DNC reps who endorsed HRC.
 
 
+11 # Doll 2016-08-07 17:06
Too many seats are uncontested. We get a "choice" of one.
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-07 22:29
Quoting Doll:
Too many seats are uncontested. We get a "choice" of one.
So join Bernie's Revolution. Sitting at a computer and whining about not having more than one candidate doesn't cut it.
 
 
+14 # Doll 2016-08-08 05:46
There is not much this old lady can do except vote. I have mobility issues.
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-08-07 20:35
# MainStreetMento r 2016-08-07 11:24

For the same reason the US had to create new enemies after the collapse of The Former Soviet Union.
 
 
+48 # Billy Bob 2016-08-07 12:24
Makes perfect sense. The Democratic Party is making the Republican Party redundant.

The one thing the Republican Party could do to survive this would be to go back to its roots as the liberal/progres sive party.

Of course, if it did this, it would be a few election cycles before it fixed anything:

1. Republican conservatives are already planning to vote for Clinton. So that switch would be pretty easy.

2. Democrats, on the other hand, would continue supporting the "Democratic" Party, no matter how far it shifted to the right of the Republicans. Why? Simple. Cowardice.

As it stands, the only thing causing the Republicans' further shift into insanity, is the fact that they've been outflanked by the DNC. The DNC has swiped many conservative voters out from under them, and the only ones left are their looney base.
 
 
-2 # ericlipps 2016-08-07 17:42
Quote:
Republican conservatives are already planning to vote for Clinton. So that switch would be pretty easy.
Snicker.

There is no chance any significant number of Republican conservatives will vote for HRC, whom they have hated like poison for two decades. If anything, in the primaries, conservative columnists like David Brooks touted Bernie Sanders, hoping to help a candidate they regarded as easier to beat in November. ("EEEK! He's a socialist! Run for your lives!")

Of course, they pulled something similar in 2008, pushing Obama in the hope that if nominated he could be race-baited into oblivion. THAT sure worked out well for them--but then, the present-day Republican Party doesn't seem to learn from its mistakes.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-08-07 20:26
Actually, had you been READING the news (rather than just trolling web sites) you'd be well aware of the YUUUGE and EVER GROWING list of prominent Republicans who've ALREADY endorsed Clinton.
 
 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-08-09 11:08
Now guys! You're BOTH right.

The GOP establishment can't cozy up fast enough to HRC's Her-GOP party.

Oh didn't she tell you? There's a name change coming in mid-November!

But the GOP voters (and some Independents (anybody have a number?)) are loving Trump in droves. They are sick of PC-nazis and Trump disruptors and their own leadership. They're tense and desperate and willing to take a gamble on someone who promises to even CARE about their problems.

THEY are not dissuaded by Trump's behavior and particularly not by MSM including Fox.

This is going to be a fascinating election -- maybe centered around the third parties. We'll see what develops in the next few months. Wikileaks? Transcripts? Tax returns?

I only wish we could have confidence in the results because I'd love to know what the electorate is thinking.

What a mess.

You know the only thing that I find promising is that these problems are not unique to the US. Other countries are facing austerity and its buddy nationalism, corrupt government and rapacious oligarchs.

Maybe America doesn't lead anymore but perhaps others (inspired by Sanders?) will correct their system and we can follow.

I don't really care as long as the revolution takes place.

Regards to you both.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-08-07 20:28
Here: I'll help you out.

Here's an article all about it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/

Troll that site for a while, and get back to us when you're bored.
 
 
+2 # ReconFire 2016-08-07 12:57
Sorry Mr. Pierce, but the Dem. party is not up to the task. That's why some like me, endorse true Dem's. to abandon the rotting carcass they call their party. If all of us came together on this we would make history, and Ms. Stein would inhibit the W.H.
 
 
0 # Patriot 2016-08-07 14:06
Uh, inhibit? The little gizmo in the lower left of your comment will enable you to correct types, ReconFire.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Stein and the Greens will have my vote, too.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-08-07 20:40
"The little gizmo in the lower left of your comment will enable you to correct types"

How true; how true! (By all means use spell-check, but PROOFREAD! Aincher english teacher teach you nuthin'?) ;-)
 
 
+2 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-07 22:34
Quoting Patriot:
Uh, inhibit? The little gizmo in the lower left of your comment will enable you to correct types, ReconFire.
Think of the little change/edit icon as an electronic pencil eraser. Don't know about everyone else here, but I NEVER used up my pencil before its eraser.
 
 
-1 # WYThomas 2016-08-08 22:50
Quoting Patriot:
Uh, inhibit? The little gizmo in the lower left of your comment will enable you to correct types, ReconFire.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Stein and the Greens will have my vote, too.


Ms. Stein would "inhibit" a functioning government. She wouldn't have any seats in the House or Senate. With her lack of judicial insight, whom would she nominate for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Stein and the Greens will never have my vote!
 
 
+13 # jimmyjames 2016-08-07 13:18
It is past time that both the Democratic and Republican parties eat dust. Neither one has represented the the majority of the people who elected them, save a principled few. Jill Stein and the Green Party are true progressives that have a record of representing the people. The Reps and Dems have had a choke hold on American politics for way too long and it's time for them to vanish from the political scene.

Vote for Jill - vote for the people!
 
 
-14 # lights 2016-08-07 15:37
In a clear moment: BILLY BOB SAID:

"The Green Party IS "reinventing the wheel". We need to occupy the Democratic Party.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/36646-focus-jane-sanders-qif-bernie-loses-well-form-a-new-organizationq
 
 
-16 # lights 2016-08-07 15:40
BILLY BOB: BETTER YET

"I want to make the Clinton trolls choke on their own words.

They'd like nothing better than seeing people like Sanders, safely tucked away, in a 3rd party, where they can be safely ignored."

BILLY BOB goes on: "The Green Party IS "reinventing the wheel". We need to occupy the Democratic Party.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/36646-focus-jane-sanders-qif-bernie-loses-well-form-a-new-organizationq
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2016-08-07 20:30
Good thing I came around, huh!

I was all in favor of plugging noses and voting for Clinton at one point too!

LOOK THAT UP!

================

Guess what?

I

"EVOLVED"

ON

THE

ISSUE

!!!!!!!

(sound familiar?)
 
 
0 # Tigre1 2016-08-08 09:02
My answer to the question in the title of the article?

YES YES YES YES...I'm SO FAR PAST READY!
 
 
+37 # dbrize 2016-08-07 13:24
For the GOP the long marriage of neoconservatism and the eschatology of the religious right is over. Good riddance.

Clearly Bush I, Baker, Scowcraft and Co were able to control its worst impulses, yet Bush II with his curious reluctance to engage in serious thought, preferring whatever fed his preconceptions, enabled the worst in this marriage of convenience.

Lest it all be blamed on Bush/Cheney it must be allowed as how easily and willing were the majority of Democrats including most of its present leadership, to "go long and get along".

And now as Billy Bob has pointed out, the break up of the GOP is made relatively easy because the neocon shape-shifters have already found a new bride in the Dems and their current nominee and her advisers.

It is interesting to take a break from Trump bashing, (deserved though it is) and look at why he has been successful in gaining the GOP nomination. For all his bad mannered bombast, flip flops and insults he has ridden three main issues to the nomination:
1. An end to wars of choice and regime change.
2. No more "free trade" agreements that aren't free and send jobs elsewhere.
3. A populist, man in the street universal dissatisfaction with current leadership.

Progressives need not applaud the messenger to appreciate the message. It is in tune with their own.
No more wars. Check
No more TPP's. Check
No more Wall Street over Main Street. Check.

Progressives may find help on the right. If they can acknowledge it.
 
 
+19 # Floridatexan 2016-08-07 15:20
Wrong. Trump is lying, just like he lies about everything else. And Mr. Pierce is right about the implosion of the GOP. They did it to themselves.
 
 
+13 # dbrize 2016-08-07 15:32
Quoting Floridatexan:
Wrong. Trump is lying, just like he lies about everything else. And Mr. Pierce is right about the implosion of the GOP. They did it to themselves.


And this makes wrong what I said because...?
 
 
+2 # JCM 2016-08-07 16:59
dbrize: Because Trump has no idea what he is saying and will not stand up to the things he has said. No more wars. Check. You can't be serious! From Joe Scarborough, Trump had a meeting with a foreign policy expert. Trump kept asking why we can't use nukes. No more war. Really
 
 
+14 # Texas Aggie 2016-08-07 18:05
Whether or not Drumpf means what he said is irrelevant. The question was where his support came from, and it came from him saying no more wars, no more TPPs, no more Wall St. over Main St.

If the Democratic party were able to wrap its little mind around that, it would be able to be the dominant party for a long time until the repubs manage to have a born again event. But with a foreign policy neocon and domestic policy neolib running for president, the Democratic party isn't about to change.
 
 
+8 # JCM 2016-08-07 18:53
Texas Aggie: Yes the message is compelling, and I realize I attached Trump's inability to deliver on the message to what dbize was saying. My apologies/
 
 
-2 # ojg 2016-08-08 10:37
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Whether or not Drumpf means what he said is irrelevant. The question was where his support came from, and it came from him saying no more wars, no more TPPs, no more Wall St. over Main St.

If the Democratic party were able to wrap its little mind around that, it would be able to be the dominant party for a long time until the repubs manage to have a born again event. But with a foreign policy neocon and domestic policy neolib running for president, the Democratic party isn't about to change.


you CAN'T be serious! 100% of his support comes from racist white males!
 
 
-3 # Aliazer 2016-08-07 20:38
Everyone is lying, Floridatexan!! Republicans, Democrats, even the author of this article!!

What is enlightening about all of this lying, though, is that the shills who have been supporting the establishment are doing everything in their power to disseminate more lies and misinformation about Trump!!

Whether we like it or not, the establishment, which roots for militarism, globalism, the disappearance of jobs, the downgrading of schools and every other important infrastructure in our country is deadly afraid of Trump.With such people,their is no hope whatever voting for Hillary!

There is one alternative, though, and that is voting for Trump!!! Whether one likes it or not!!!
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-07 22:58
To quote Trump and Ryan and Palin: I am not QUITE there yet but I can see it from my house.

But really, is this evolution .. or descent?
 
 
+1 # JCM 2016-08-08 08:22
Aliazer: No
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2016-08-08 19:44
Quoting Floridatexan:
Wrong. Trump is lying, just like he lies about everything else. And Mr. Pierce is right about the implosion of the GOP. They did it to themselves.

Floridatexan is lying, just like he lies about everything else.
 
 
+3 # wrknight 2016-08-08 09:07
Quoting dbrize:
...Clearly Bush I, Baker, Scowcraft and Co were able to control its worst impulses, yet Bush II with his curious reluctance to engage in serious thought...

Whatever led you to believe he was capable of serious thought?
 
 
+1 # dbrize 2016-08-08 10:13
Quoting wrknight:
Quoting dbrize:
...Clearly Bush I, Baker, Scowcraft and Co were able to control its worst impulses, yet Bush II with his curious reluctance to engage in serious thought...

Whatever led you to believe he was capable of serious thought?


Because he is not stupid. Even a legacy graduate of Yale and Harvard must have a degree of intellectual capability.

He is rather, a lazy thinker that did not want to employ the rigor necessary to understand complicated matters. He merely wanted others to do the hard work and present him with "options".

A lazy thinker, kind of like those who would in fact, excuse him from his errors of judgement by claiming he was too stupid to know what he was doing.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2016-08-08 10:55
dbrize: A “legacy” is someone who is related to an alumnus of a school. So Trump is related to someone who went to these schools and that makes him have a "degree of intellectual capability.". Where do you come up with this stuff.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2016-08-08 12:03
Quoting JCM:
dbrize: A “legacy” is someone who is related to an alumnus of a school. So Trump is related to someone who went to these schools and that makes him have a "degree of intellectual capability.". Where do you come up with this stuff.


I am somewhat embarrassed for you. Your inability to read with a modicum of comprehension is again apparent.

I can only suggest you read the entire piece from wrknight and myself just a bit more carefully and try to keep up with the subject matter.
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-08-08 18:00
dbrize: I've read it and your pretentious intellectual condescending snobbery is what is embarrassing. No mater how many times your comment is read, you equated trumps possible intelligence to being a Legacy alumnus, I don't think we can give him any credit for even that. Get it!
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2016-08-08 18:58
Quoting JCM:
dbrize: I've read it and your pretentious intellectual condescending snobbery is what is embarrassing. No mater how many times your comment is read, you equated trumps possible intelligence to being a Legacy alumnus, I don't think we can give him any credit for even that. Get it!


Where do you find Trumps name in either wrknights post or my reply? We were clearly discussing Bush II. Try again.
 
 
-7 # JCM 2016-08-08 19:29
Bad day for me. If you had said this first I would had realized I connected different posts and replied accordingly. Instead you had to flap your lips.
 
 
-4 # ojg 2016-08-08 10:34
Quoting dbrize:
For the GOP the long marriage of neoconservatism and the eschatology of the religious right is over. Good riddance.

Clearly Bush I, Baker, Scowcraft and Co were able to control its worst impulses, yet Bush II with his curious reluctance to engage in serious thought, preferring whatever fed his preconceptions, enabled the worst in this marriage of convenience.

Lest it all be blamed on Bush/Cheney it must be allowed as how easily and willing were the majority of Democrats including most of its present leadership, to "go long and get along".

It is interesting to take a break from Trump bashing, (deserved though it is) and look at why he has been successful in gaining the GOP nomination. For all his bad mannered bombast, flip flops and insults he has ridden three main issues to the nomination:
1. An end to wars of choice and regime change.
2. No more "free trade" agreements that aren't free and send jobs elsewhere.
3. A populist, man in the street universal dissatisfaction with current leadership.

Progressives need not applaud the messenger to appreciate the message. It is in tune with their own.
No more wars. Check
No more TPP's. Check
No more Wall Street over Main Street. Check.

Progressives may find help on the right. If they can acknowledge it.


go back to trumplandia! i think donnie is calling you.
 
 
+30 # jdd 2016-08-07 13:35
While the demise of the Republican Party may be nothing to lose sleep over, the anointing of Hillary Clinton is. The scurrilous and lying demonization of Vladimir Putin, the most popular leader in Russian history, by Obama and Clinton, has destroyed US-Russian relations, the most important relationship in today's world. The blood curdling pronouncements, made by Panetta and Jeremy Bash, before the convention even ended, portend for a very dangerous future, in which the similar demonization of Presient Assad was accompanied by promises to make the overthrow of Syria, the "first item on the agenda" of a Clinton presidency. Beginning with a bombing campaign to create a "safe haven" zone for the rebel terrorist, it would put us into direct conflict with Russia. The fact that any challenge to this insanity is met with accusations of "being a puppet of Putin," or similar garbage is the Clinton way of shuting down debate in a fashion unheard of on matters of such importance in US history.
 
 
-24 # suzyskier 2016-08-07 13:44
What a lot of BS !
 
 
+6 # Saberoff 2016-08-07 13:57
'fraid not! Why don't you take your ball and go home, #suzyshier
 
 
-2 # Jeff Spurr 2016-08-07 14:59
What fact-free, topsy-turvy world do you live in? Trumpian in its absurdity. Where on earth do you get your disinformation? Putin is popular because he completely controls the Russian media. Ask the muzzled, jailed and murdered journalists. He is a despot only outdone by Bashar al-Asad, a mass-murderer and destroyer of historical proportions whose view of Syria is that his power and well-being are the full measure of what is good for Syria even if every village, town and city is left in ruins due to barrel bombs, artillery and, now, Russian aerial warfare. Pathetic.
 
 
+15 # Saberoff 2016-08-07 15:57
Gov controls the media in da US too, and still, Hill has a 56% unfavorable rating.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-08-08 10:11
Quoting Saberoff:
Gov controls the media in da US too, and still, Hill has a 56% unfavorable rating.

- hill's unfavorables are mostly repug propaganda

besides! as rump's unfavorables go up! hills will go down!
 
 
+1 # guomashi 2016-08-08 16:45
Quoting Jeff Spurr:
What fact-free, topsy-turvy world do you live in? Trumpian in its absurdity. Where on earth do you get your disinformation? Putin is popular because he completely controls the Russian media.


You clearly know nothing about what is happening on the ground in Russia. Putin is popular because he brought the country out of third world status, where people were growing cabbage in their yards, making sauerkraut and trying to sell it on the street.

YOu are clearly FOS.
 
 
+32 # Auteur47 2016-08-07 13:55
The last time something like this happened in our nation was the self destruction of the Whig Party in the 1850's. What resulted was the Party of Lincoln. Maybe history will repeat itself. Most consider that to have been a fortuitous turn of events despite the ironic fact that they have evolved to become today's train wreck of a political party.
 
 
+33 # Blackjack 2016-08-07 13:56
I cannot believe that Dems are being so smug about this! No, I do not think it's the end of the Repuke Party. If HRC gets elected (likely, it seems), they will spend the next four years getting their act together and come back with a vengeance in 2020, just in time for redistricting, where Dems will let themselves be screwed again. We will not take back the House this year because of the vast gerrymandering that has gone on since 2010. Dems, on the other hand, thinking they captured the whole enchilada will rock along their merry way with HRC and her megadonor corporate behemoths, forgetting that it was the grassroots populists who almost ate her lunch, and would have, had she not cheated. Bill will be let loose on the populace again and we will have a double whammy with the two anointed Clintons. Dems never learn and I predict they will not learn this time either. Though I would love to be wrong, I suspect history will repeat itself.
 
 
+1 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-08-07 18:01
[quote name="Blackjack "]I cannot believe that Dems are being so smug about this! "....
I agree that Democrats do learn from their mistakes
They repeat them. We are left with the consequences of their stupidity or the lust for power. I don't believe in voting for less of two evils.
The evil at the Top is Donald Trump. Verified:in a TV interview astutein the way Hitler came to power, how he hypnotized the people etc. He read Hitler's speeches and read Ayn Rand books and had then stacked by his bedside. As a professional psychologist , Trump is a sociopath with an extreme case of narcissism.
 
 
0 # guomashi 2016-08-08 16:47
DEMS are smug because they know the republican party can never die as long as they exist. Both parties have to be detonated into dust so fine it doesn't even offer enough surface area to be picked up by the wind.
 
 
+23 # jdd 2016-08-07 14:05
The Republican Party played a crucial historic role in the preservation of the Union and destruction of slavery, but began its transformation into a tool of Wall Street with the assassination of McKinley and ascension of Morgan puppet and rabid anglophile, Teddy Roosevelt. Its demise and exit as a national party is long overdue.
 
 
+8 # jimb1129 2016-08-07 14:15
Lies repeated loud and long enough will eventually, to the dimmer bulbs, as evidenced here, appear to be true. Republicans have been lying about the Clintons for nearly 25 years. Aside from a private sexual matter, the millions they have spent on investigations have turned up NOTHING! The Green and Libertarian candidates are nonentities with zero chance of ever being elected; they don't even qualify to participate in debates. If you people are too young or senile to remember the disaster of GWB and how he came to be in office, go read a history book. Damn fools wasting their votes on a no-chance candidate gave us 8 years of the worst president in history. Even five minutes of Trump would be worse. Wake up!
 
 
+30 # Willy M. 2016-08-07 14:38
I have to agree; and I'd add that all the hand-wringing about the gerrymandering and cheating Rs is disingenuous at best, since it is largely the fault of the D's who fail to vote in numbers in off-year elections. We voted in Slick Willy and let the entire party move to the center and align with the moneyed interests. We let the Rs get away with the lies about our candidates and our party until it was too late. Bernie has the right idea: organize at the local and state level and begin overturning the teabagger bozos, the fundagelicals, Merica Firsters, and the N.R.A. fanatics to do exactly what the Rs did three decades ago, which is to slowly but surely take over state legislators and local school boards, etc.
 
 
+9 # mmc 2016-08-07 15:27
jimb1129 is exactly correct.
 
 
+7 # jdd 2016-08-07 17:00
Trump is no longer the issue. He will lose, but then what? Do you not think ahead and see the Democrats of Hillary Clinton assembling a nightmare of foreign policy advisors combing the worst of the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations . You will have your victory but it will bring a president committed to regime change, NATO expansion and demonization of the President of a nation which cannot be bullied by America's nuclear arsenal. How will you respond?
 
 
-6 # JCM 2016-08-07 17:03
jimb1129: Finally some sanity
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-08-07 17:47
Quote:
Lies repeated loud and long enough will eventually, to the dimmer bulbs, as evidenced here, appear to be true. Republicans have been lying about the Clintons for nearly 25 years. Aside from a private sexual matter, the millions they have spent on investigations have turned up NOTHING!
Which unfortunately hasn't stopped "progressives" who hate the Clintons as much as the GOP's right-wing wackos do from eating it all up with a spoon and crying for more.
 
 
+14 # Patriot 2016-08-07 14:21
Blackjack, not if all disenchanted voters will stop swallowing the "she can't win" echo that comes back after every reminder that there IS a third candidate in the race, Jill Stein of the Green Party.

The Green ticket already has ballot access in 24 states and DC, and expects to be on the November ballot in 46 states. It also has 134 office-holders now, and 200 plus candidates running for offices.

Rather than vote for the lesser of two very, very distasteful evils, why not vote for your own interests, for the things you want to see happen?

Check out the Green party and its candidates at
www.gp.org
Jill2016.com
 
 
+3 # Liebermania 2016-08-07 15:49
Quoting Patriot:
Blackjack, not if all disenchanted voters will stop swallowing the "she can't win" echo that comes back after every reminder that there IS a third candidate in the race, Jill Stein of the Green Party.
The Green ticket already has ballot access in 24 states and DC, and expects to be on the November ballot in 46 states. It also has 134 office-holders now, and 200 plus candidates running for offices.

Rather than vote for the lesser of two very, very distasteful evils, why not vote for your own interests, for the things you want to see happen?

Check out the Green party and its candidates at
www.gp.org
Jill2016.com


BE CAREFUL, IF IT LOOKS LIKE JILL COULD WIN SHE MIGHT MYSTERIOUSLY DIE.
 
 
-5 # ericlipps 2016-08-07 17:51
Rubbish.

First, it will never look as though Jill Stein could win, except to those hoping for a miracle to avenge Bernie Sanders. And they ALREADY think she could win.

Second, if any candidate is likely to "mysteriously die," it's Hillary Clinton. Except that there's nothing mysterious about a bullet through the head except, sometimes, who fired it.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-08-08 10:12
Quoting Liebermania:
Quoting Patriot:
Blackjack, not if all disenchanted voters will stop swallowing the "she can't win" echo that comes back after every reminder that there IS a third candidate in the race, Jill Stein of the Green Party.
The Green ticket already has ballot access in 24 states and DC, and expects to be on the November ballot in 46 states. It also has 134 office-holders now, and 200 plus candidates running for offices.

Rather than vote for the lesser of two very, very distasteful evils, why not vote for your own interests, for the things you want to see happen?

Check out the Green party and its candidates at
www.gp.org
Jill2016.com


BE CAREFUL, IF IT LOOKS LIKE JILL COULD WIN SHE MIGHT MYSTERIOUSLY DIE.

- then jill who? will live forever!
 
 
+14 # Tigre1 2016-08-07 14:34
For several years it's seemed obvious that the reeps would disappear off in to the far horizon and be stuck in the Wilderness for forty years.

Fine with me. That they would come back at all is a disappointment. But in this human life, evil cannot be completely extirpated and will always return. Like rust.
 
 
+7 # ericlane 2016-08-07 14:37
Sure, if you live in California or New York or any true blue state, sure vote for Jill Stein. You'll feel good about yourself. If you live in a red fking state like Texas, sure, vote for Jill Stein. You'll feel good about yourself. But, if you live in a state that is in play, a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump. Just like a vote for Nader in Florida was a vote for George The Idiot Child Bush. How did that go for ya'll?
 
 
+15 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-07 15:11
Eric, what people like yourself fail to understand is that people who vote for Stein are unlikely to vote for either Clinton or Trump--regardle ss of what state they live in.

Gore lost Florida (well, actually he didn't) because of all the BlueDog Dems who crossed party lines and voted for the shrub.

It's long past time y'all grew up and quit blaming others for your own miserable candidates and neoliberal ideology that resonates with no one outside of the 1%.
 
 
-3 # carytucker 2016-08-07 15:43
Quoting DaveEwoldt:
Eric, what people like yourself fail to understand is that people who vote for Stein are unlikely to vote for either Clinton or Trump--regardless of what state they live in.

Gore lost Florida (well, actually he didn't) because of all the BlueDog Dems who crossed party lines and voted for the shrub.

It's long past time y'all grew up and quit blaming others for your own miserable candidates and neoliberal ideology that resonates with no one outside of the 1%.

A concatenation of events produced VP Gore's 'loss' in FL, including a difficult to read butterfly ballot in Palm Beach, I believe, so I'm disinclined to fault Mr Nader. And no one needs to blame Dr Stein for anything, since despite the best efforts of the Hate-Hillary crowd featured here, her vote total will barely be worth counting.
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2016-08-07 17:56
I'm not disinclined to blame Nader. If even one percent of his voters had switched to Gore, Bush's mythical 538-vote majority would have turned into a 400-vote edge for Gore. If ten percent had, I doubt Bush would have been able to get away with stealing the election in court. But Nader insisted that his people vote for him anyway, and they did.

Nader doesn't deserve ALL the blame, but he does deserve a chunk of it.
 
 
-5 # Aliazer 2016-08-07 21:31
And you think that Gore would have been any different than Obama, Bush and others who have been besmirching our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and given their fingers on numerous other freedoms,origin ally granted????

Gone to perennial wars and bringing a literal holocaust on other countries?????
 
 
+7 # RMF 2016-08-08 09:30
I for one thing Gore would not have invaded Iraq -- he had no father's insult to avenge!
 
 
0 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-08 09:57
True, but he still would have had the Carter Doctrine (what's our oil doing under their sand) to uphold, so another excuse would have been found.
 
 
+5 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-07 23:00
It's the lack of owning responsibility on the Democrats part that I can't stay silent on, Eric. If 1% of the Dems who voted for BushII hadn't done so it wouldn't be an issue either. The fact of the matter is that the Dems couldn't even motivate their own base. Only about 40% of eligible voters nationwide even bothered to cast a ballot. If I remember the figures correctly, Gore got 19.3% and Bush got 18.9%. Sorry, but you can't blame Nader for that.
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2016-08-08 09:25
Quoting DaveEwoldt:
It's the lack of owning responsibility on the Democrats part that I can't stay silent on, Eric. If 1% of the Dems who voted for BushII hadn't done so it wouldn't be an issue either. The fact of the matter is that the Dems couldn't even motivate their own base. Only about 40% of eligible voters nationwide even bothered to cast a ballot. If I remember the figures correctly, Gore got 19.3% and Bush got 18.9%. Sorry, but you can't blame Nader for that.

Actually Dave, according to the U.S. Elections Project (http://www.electproject.org/2000g), about 54% of eligible voters cast ballots for president in 2000. However, the point you make is on target as it is the people who don't vote that decide the outcome of the election as well as the people who do vote.

My own crystal ball tells me that this year, voter turnout will be the worst in recent times as voters in both parties are dissatisfied with their candidates. And that bodes ill for the Democrats as Republicans tend to be more zealous.
 
 
+2 # ericlane 2016-08-07 17:51
DaveEwoldt, I believe I understand quite well what is going on. I am arguing that a Donald Trump presidency would make the Idiot Child presidency look like Camelot. This isn't a game. This is for real. If you don't think there is an enormous difference between Dems and Republicans, you are a walking moron.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-08-07 20:37
Some Dems are very different than Republicans. Hillary Clinton is not one of them.
 
 
+6 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-07 23:13
Eric, I'm well aware that on certain hot-button social issues there is a major difference between today's Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are real good at keeping the distractions going.

But on the issues of importance on a planet melting down, both literally and figuratively, there's no difference--if it impacts profits, it's not gonna happen. If it disrupts dominator control hierarchies, it's not gonna happen. If it in any way threatens the 1%, it's not gonna happen.

I happen to believe science. We need to reverse direction, and we need to do it now. Incremental reform isn't going to do it, and neoliberalism isn't good for people or planet anyway. Our planet and our progeny are screwed regardless of which of the major party candidates wins in November. There is a slight possibility, however, that Hillary might use a little vaseline. Gaddafi might disagree, though.
 
 
0 # ericlane 2016-08-08 06:29
DaveEwoldt, you don't think there is a difference between a party that denies climate change is occurring and one that does? I think there is an enormous difference. Look at California. That's a Democratic governor and it looks like within a short period of time the entire state will get over 50% of its energy from wind and solar.

I will argue till I'm blue in the face that there is an enormous difference between Dems and fk faced Republicans. Climate change denial just being one of them.
 
 
+1 # wrknight 2016-08-08 09:31
Quoting ericlane:
DaveEwoldt, you don't think there is a difference between a party that denies climate change is occurring and one that does? I think there is an enormous difference. Look at California. That's a Democratic governor and it looks like within a short period of time the entire state will get over 50% of its energy from wind and solar.

I will argue till I'm blue in the face that there is an enormous difference between Dems and fk faced Republicans. Climate change denial just being one of them.

The difference is that while the Republicans deny climate change and the Democrats believe it. Neither party will do anything to change it.

Bear in mind, while not discussed openly, the carbon footprint of war is as great as that from any other human activity.
 
 
+1 # DaveEwoldt 2016-08-08 09:53
ericlane, the difference you're mentioning, which I do very much agree with, unfortunately is only superficial. Democrats agree about anthropogenic climate destabilization and then enact policies that do nothing about it.

Well, they do ship our pollution overseas, as if that won't somehow affect us on an interconnected planet. The best we've gotten is that global warming isn't rising quite as fast. So yeah, that is something.

The Democrats also tend to be anti-science in regard to thinking that global warming is only about CO2 levels. They ignore deforestation, topsoil loss, desertification , ocean acidification, other greenhouse gases, and changes in land use patterns (sprawl). The bottom line is that global warming is caused by growth, and the Dems are doing all they can do to get growth back on track, as if the best we can do is greenly consume ourselves into extinction.
 
 
+1 # WYThomas 2016-08-08 23:43
Quoting ericlane:
DaveEwoldt, you don't think there is a difference between a party that denies climate change is occurring and one that does? I think there is an enormous difference. Look at California. That's a Democratic governor and it looks like within a short period of time the entire state will get over 50% of its energy from wind and solar.
[quote name="ericlane"]DaveEwoldt, you don't think there is a difference between a party that denies climate change is occurring and one that does? I think there is an enormous difference. Look at California. That's a Democratic governor and it looks like within a short period of time the entire state will get over 50% of its energy from wind and solar.






I will argue till I'm blue in the face that there is an enormous difference between Dems and fk faced Republicans. Climate change denial just being one of them.


Climate change denial. Repealing Obamacare with nothing, thus denying 22 million Americans health care. More for-profit prisons. Raising the age-eligibility requirement for Medicare recipients. Relaxing EPA environmental regulations. Overturning Roe v. Wade. Trump's original tax policies adding $10 trillion to the national debt. More trickle-down, voodoo economics. Ad infinitum! Make America great again. Vote "R," and die.
 
 
0 # RMF 2016-08-08 09:36
Well said...Hillary may not be a prize, but Trump would be total disaster. I am still a Bernie supporter but will vote Hillary because Trump (and his GOP backers) are much too risky. Some try to portray Trump as the peace candidate, an assertion resembling a construct from the theater of the absurd -- a proven con-man cannot be trusted, and his GOP backers certainly are not peaceniks.
 
 
+25 # Greg Scott 2016-08-07 14:58
"vulgar talking yam"...

Charlie, you do have a way with words.
 
 
+17 # JSRaleigh 2016-08-07 15:07
Why does no one ever call upon the Republicans to make a show of good faith by "reaching out" to the Democrats?

Could it be because time and time again they have acted in BAD faith, and no one trusts them or any of their promises?
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-08-07 23:07
Another way HRC is like the GOP.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-08-08 11:50
Quoting librarian1984:
Another way HRC is like the GOP.

- lib! your core thesis - that hill does not reach out to young voters - is your biased take on anecdotes! - you take every outreach hill does the wrong way! sorry! - you also blame hill personally for everything some "a$$holes" - as you say everyone has them! - do wrong! sorry!

you make me feel relieved that i did not attend the dem convention - i believe i too would feel aggrieved! and outraged!
 
 
+14 # sfbarbee 2016-08-07 15:10
A vote for what you think is right is never a wasted vote. We keep letting ourselves be pigeon-holed into the "only 2 options" doctrine. The political system needs an overhaul and if the current knuckleheads in leadership are too blind or too intrenched to see it then we are doomed to suffer the consequences.

Both parties are responsible for the current state of affairs. Both campaigning on platforms promising to do what the other failed to do only to embrace and enact their opponents positions in the end.

The country is fundamentally divided between the haves and the have-nots, with those in leadership pretending to various degrees to be for the have-nots while all the time sacrificing them for expediency or "bigger" interests. The system is as it is because The wealthy fundamentally don't believe in or agree with democracy. They only want to exist in a system where they remain in controle.
 
 
-2 # ericlane 2016-08-07 17:55
sfbarbee, the system is what it is. I probably would prefer a parliamentary system where your party is represented by the number of votes it gets. But we don't have that type of system. It is what it is. To let Donald Trump become president would be simply insane. I don't care how much you justify voting for Stein. If you are in a state in play, a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Don't sugar coat it. Don't pretend you are on a 'higher' level. You are voting for Trump. Period.
 
 
0 # WYThomas 2016-08-08 23:48
Quoting ericlane:
sfbarbee, the system is what it is. I probably would prefer a parliamentary system where your party is represented by the number of votes it gets. But we don't have that type of system. It is what it is. To let Donald Trump become president would be simply insane. I don't care how much you justify voting for Stein. If you are in a state in play, a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Don't sugar coat it. Don't pretend you are on a 'higher' level. You are voting for Trump. Period.


True! No way around it.
 
 
+5 # Kootenay Coyote 2016-08-07 16:21
re the title question: & the sooner, the better.
 
 
+7 # peterjmck1 2016-08-07 17:37
If you weren't already sold on Charlie Pierce as a first class reporter and percipient political analyst by watching him on "All in with Chris Hayes" or reading these RSN selections, then all you have to do for a roisterous chuckle or a deep belly laugh is to read his contributions for their elegance of expression, and appreciate his truly gifted facility with language. To wit, just one gem from the above:
"Modern conservatism has proven to be not a philosophy, but a huge dose of badly manufactured absinthe. It squats in an intellectual hovel...etc."
Perhaps it's a percipience gained from imbibing huge doses of WELL manufactured absinthe that gives Charlie his wicked insights into whichever human foible catches his eye next. For this capacity, I am indebted to him.
 
 
+5 # nancyw 2016-08-07 17:40
[Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. ]

Well, the USA has suppressed true journalism in our mainstream society; the DNC worked fraudulently against Bernie; and the USA has invaded 3 countries in the middle east and ruined their lives, let alone their economies, and let's take a look at ours... at least for the 99%.

We're a match under the present American regime and Hillary will keep it going. Man we needed Bernie in the White House.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2016-08-07 18:07
Quoting nancyw:
[Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. ]

Well, the USA has suppressed true journalism in our mainstream society; the DNC worked fraudulently against Bernie; and the USA has invaded 3 countries in the middle east and ruined their lives, let alone their economies, and let's take a look at ours... at least for the 99%.

We're a match under the present American regime and Hillary will keep it going. Man we needed Bernie in the White House.


Don't forget, Putin was also the head of the KGB for many years and it's second only to the CIA in brutality and less widespread globally
 
 
+1 # guomashi 2016-08-08 16:53
Quoting reiverpacific:


Don't forget, Putin was also the head of the KGB for many years and it's second only to the CIA in brutality and less widespread globally


And wasn't George HS Bush head of the CIA?
 
 
-1 # WYThomas 2016-08-08 23:53
Quoting nancyw:
[Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. ]

Well, the USA has suppressed true journalism in our mainstream society; the DNC worked fraudulently against Bernie; and the USA has invaded 3 countries in the middle east and ruined their lives, let alone their economies, and let's take a look at ours... at least for the 99%.

We're a match under the present American regime and Hillary will keep it going. Man we needed Bernie in the White House.


But it ain't gonna happen. Get over it, (I did.) and take Bernie's advice: Support and vote for Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+10 # Texas Aggie 2016-08-07 18:08
Second, it would be an act of astonishing bad faith that would set in concrete all of the most unflattering opinions held about HRC by the people who trust her the least.

Duh!!! Did anyone really think that Hillary ever had any intention at all of actually promoting progressive policy? You did??? We need to talk about some vacation property I have to sell off just south of Galveston within sight of the beach.
 
 
+3 # RICHARDKANEpa 2016-08-07 18:12
Elizabeth Snow, Lincoln Chafee, etc. There were fine Republicans that voting straight Democrat helped kick out of office.
 
 
-5 # lfeuille 2016-08-07 20:42
Compared to other Republicans. That is not good enough. We saw Chafee briefly in the debates. He is still a Republican except for foreign policy. Just as progressive domestic policy isn't enough with progressive foreign policy, progressive foreign policy doesn't cut it without progressive domestic policy. Chafee didn't even make it to the primaries. It was obvious he wasn't a real Democrat.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2016-08-07 19:02
Anybody remember Ross "To know me is to love me" Perot?
He did pretty well for a while as an independent billionaire but ended up with most people not taking him seriously.
At least he could laff at himself ("I'm all ears!").
I can't see the narcissistic Drumpf laffing at his own foibles or any part of him not up to snuff like his allegedly small hands.
 
 
+8 # futhark 2016-08-07 20:19
Hillary Clinton is not going to have to "reach out" very far to former Republicans to get their support. Quite a few of the old Project for a New American Century gang that came in with Cheney/Bush in 2001, including Robert Kagan and William Kristol, have already flocked to her cheer squad.
 
 
+6 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-08-07 23:34
Quoting dbrize:
Progressives may find help on the right. If they can acknowledge it.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a reasoned plea. Most Progressives see Conservatives as bat shit crazy, right wing nuts and OF COURSE they exist. But what the troglodytes have accomplished is to tarnish the image and thus the value of conservative principles.

My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose is classic conservatism. Have you read any of the 2016 Rep platform? It’s full of empty tips of the hat to conservative idealism. Why? Because the manipulators want to keep conning the rank and file. WHY CAN’T CONSERVATIVES SEE HOW THE SOCIOPATHS KEEP HIDING BEHIND CONSERVATIVE IDEALS? Because they are, basically, naïve.

Principle can always be manipulated by those who have none. It is up to us who can see to refuse to accommodate such liars. Adhering to principle is NOT the same as blindly following an ideology. The former knows it can be wrong. The latter never acknowledges it is wrong.

The difference between those who hold conservative ideals and those who hold progressive ideals is like the difference between the girl raised in a convent and the girl raised on the streets. One thinks believing and being good is enough. The other knows you have to kick ass if you want to get anywhere.

So Progressives… rip off their rose colored glasses. We’re fighting the same enemy. It’s just that a lot of Conservatives haven’t figured that part out yet.
 
 
+2 # glyde 2016-08-08 10:31
[quote name="ericlipps"
"Nader doesn't deserve ALL the blame, but he does deserve a chunk of it."
If Gore had won his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered. And, the Supreme Court should never have accepted the "case."
Nader doesn't deserve ANY blame at all.
 
 
+1 # willsud23 2016-08-08 10:38
The moderate Republican Party is alive and well, they are what is referred to as the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a bunch of moderate, pro-business capitalists who speak in the the language of liberalism, but serve corporate power.

Both Obama and Clinton are progressive in their rhetoric, but neither has accomplished one liberal thing in their 16 years of combined leadership and please do not cite Obamacare as liberal, as that was written by/for the insurance companies in order to save them from imminent death.

The current Democratic Party serves as the old moderate Republican Party and America does not have a major liberal party. The Dems take their orders from the big corporations and they are run by hedge-fund managers and Silicon Valley technocrats.

Take Gavin Newsome, the new "shining-star" of the left. Gavin owns 14 small businesses, employs over 1,000 employees and is a multi-millionai re, but somehow, the Democrats have convinced their voters that he's liberal because he supports gay marriage. Identity politics at its best
 
 
+4 # willsud23 2016-08-08 11:12
With Democrats like ours, who needs Republicans. Here's a list of "liberal" accomplishments ("wink, wink") that have been passed under Clinton and Obama:

1. Ending the Glass-Stegal Act
2. Deregulation of the FCC, causing a media monopoly.
3. Omnibus crime bills.
4. Ending welfare as we know it.
5. Privatizing prisons
6. NAFTA
7. Obamacare, a literal bailout to the insurance companies.
8. Bailouts to Wall Street, given out as executive bonuses.
9. The TPP
10. Expanded oil drilling and fracking.
11. The disintegration of unions.
12. Votes for invading Iraq, Syria and Libya.
13. Expansion of the war in Afghanistan.
14. Increased surveillance and the NDAA.
15. Drone attacks and double-taps.
16. Expansion of the Patriot Act.
17. Extension of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Again, with Democrats like Obama and Clinton, who needs Republicans?
 
 
-4 # Brice 2016-08-08 12:19
>> There already is a strong undertow pulling HRC toward
>> "reaching out" to the GOP, toward governing from "the
>> middle, ...

Gee, I wonder why? Oh, maybe take a look at the irrational, rabid, clueless and fickle mob that no one would want on their side in any kind of political or any other kind of contest ... the wacky loonie undependable wing of what passes for Liberalism, or Progressivism.

The spend a year listening to Bernie Sanders and then turn on him like a pack of rabid hamsters ... where they hell else would Hillary go ... and it's not even like she is trying, Trump is doing it for her.

Is this supposed to be some kind of political analysis, or just another support the troup of the irrational fringe Left?

Bernie had the message correct, but they don't even listen, they don't understand and they are far too easily influenced by illogic like this.

If the Republican Party imploded, the kind of Liberals here would ensure that the right wing would simply take over the Democratic Party instead of actually working with and supporting the Democratic party. They have no idea what it is, or even has been, or the working and middle classes to lose their representation in the American party system, yet they push for it unconsciously almost every day.

Very bad ideas here.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-08-09 00:36
Hillary Clinton is handing the DP to the GOP. That is why so many conservatives, like Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol, are endorsing her. Her foreign affairs guru is Henry Kissinger, for heaven sake. You consistently look at the facts and come to an illogical conclusion.

You think progressives are handing the DP to conservatives! You think HRC is going to deliver universal health care! You think Trump is going to take us to war!

"Very bad ideas here."

Yeah, mainly coming from your posts. You seem to have little understanding of political history, no comprehension of Clinton's record and an inability to be rational or civil.

Gave you a couple of days. Done with you.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-10 03:40
It's funny that there are the two interpretations of the parties.

1. That Trump is so bizarre that the Republicans are forced to turn to Hillary for stability.

2. That the Democrats are so owned by corporations that they have basically turned into the new Republicans and to change that needs massive new Liberal constituents, like millenials.

Republicans jumping ship first started significantly in 2008 with Obama who had Republican friends in the Senate, and Republican defectors endorsing him instead of John McCain was Bush was the most hated President in history.

I think Hillary holds the possibility to surprise us still, or at the very least hold on Obama's path ... that is clearly what she is about. I think Trump is owned by billionaire banker buddies from ancient scandals like the S&L scandal, and Carl Icahn. Do you know who Carl Icahn is, or any of the names Trump mentions as his advisors.

You go on like you are the measure of all things political, which is a pity. You say over and over I have no understanding of politics ... at a time when no one does. What you are saying is just meaningless because instead of a discussion you are playing mind games ... mostly with yourself.

Why don't you cut it out? Read Listen Liberal to understand the history of the Democratic Party, this trend goes back before Carter, to McGovern.
 
 
0 # Brice 2016-08-08 12:22
Bernie Sanders worked his heart and his ass off the begin to take back the Democratic party ... and all the people here can do it riot to give it to the Republicans ... there are just some people who are too clueless for their own interests.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-08-08 19:26
The GOP can safely die because THEY have taken over the DP in a process started by the Clintons -- who now, apparently, want to finish the job.

Now we've got a Republican Party, formerly known as the Dems, and a neonazi party, formerly known as the GOP and similar to many nationalist parties around the world.

When the Republicans perversely refer to themselves as the 'party of Lincoln' it's true -- but they have changed. They're not the same party. And that's what's happening now. The Dems are becoming the pro-corporate party, the GOP is becoming the social conservative party -- and the progressives must migrate to the Greens and/or build a new party.

The Dems offer no seat at the table for progressives, at least with the Clintons in charge.

The Dems made a clear choice, knowing what the stakes were. Progressives are not, as BB would say, sock puppets.
 
 
0 # chapdrum 2016-08-08 21:26
As if the Republican Party is going to disband.
A perennially metastasizing virus without end.
 
 
+1 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-08-09 11:12
It's not just the Republicans. Diseases spread on it has infected the Democratic Party. They all should be purged from office for thwarting Democracy. Hopefully, their shunning of Bernie Sanders will come back ad bite them in the ass.
 
 
-1 # NAVYVET 2016-08-09 17:08
The NeoCon talking heads--Pierce, Krugman, ad nauseam, would just LOVE to see this happen! It would mean that Hillary could thumb her nose at the Democratic Progressives and, maybe, she could declare herself the nominee of BOTH parties! (Like G. Washington.) Just kidding, but it's no longer all that far fetched.

We should thank Marc Ash for publishing this "Centrist" drivel every so often! Those of us who no longer watch TV or read newspapers might never read these clowns. THANK YOU, MARC.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN