I came of age during the George W. Bush presidency. I never realized that the Republicans were fallible until the botched Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. After that, of course, Katrina and the 2006 election slowly began to chip away at the Republican fortress. I look back now and realized that the Harriet Miers nomination was the opening the Democrats needed to finally grow some balls.
What other moments helped us get from 2000 to the Democratic hegemony of today?
A lot of people don't think about it now, but at the time the Terrie Schiavo case was a big blow to Bush and Republicans. Polls showed the vast majority of Americans disapproved of the government's interference in what was a private person's medical care. Bush's approval ratings tanked and he never fully recovered from the debacle.
Bush spending his political capital trying to privatize social security.
If you think the Republicans won't eventually come back into power, you're being very naive. The pendulum always swings back in American politics and the Republicans are very good at playing on the electorate's fears and prejudices.
Democratic hegemony will be fleeting.
Bush appointed an old Texan friend Alberto Gonzales as his Attorney General after the resignation of John Ashcroft. Mr Gonzales oversaw questionable US attorney dismissals and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping before eventually resigning.
The demographics are against the Republicans, R3. They'll have minor comebacks, but they'll eventually give way to a new political party.
The Iraq war kept grinding on, costing a fortune with no victory in sight just as nay-sayers had warned.
Scandals also wore on way too long: Valerie Plame, attorneys general, others. No single great blow but a sense of bungling and coverup.
Terri Schiavo was important too. The lazy laggard Bush made a huge show of flying in at midnight and signing a bill to "save her life." Theatrical, stupid, and meddling.
People were sick as hell of the Bush gang by the end and I hope for Obama's sake he will not earn this level of enmity.
There's all the under-the-radar ones, e.g. Marvin Bush, Bertha Champagne, Mike Connell, Debra Palfrey's 'suicide' ...
[quote]The demographics are against the Republicans, [R3]. They'll have minor comebacks, but they'll eventually give way to a new political party.
You are REALLY naive. They are masters at getting people to vote against their interests and they have massive amounts of money at their disposal.
You have to be concern trolling, R9. The Republicans can't make a true comeback unless they abandon conservatism.
I'm not concern trolling; I'm just fighting against political naifs who "came of age" in the last 6 years and have no understanding of American political history. This kind of shit is why Democrats can't stay in power for long stretches of time and haven't been able to enact real, true liberal reform for the last 40+ years.
"There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: bring 'em on."
-George W. Bush, July 2, 2003, referring to attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.
[quote]They are masters at getting people to vote against their interests and they have massive amounts of money at their disposal.
Massive amounts of money didn't help them last week, and those votes they are allegedly masters at getting never materialized.
Whatever happened to Harriett anyway? Shouldn't she have gotten a Judge Judy-type TV show?
You're wrong, R12. Passion puts people in power, and yours is totally misdirected.
Admit it - you're just concern trolling. Young people, women, and minorities have broken decisively for the Democrats. Your cynicism is just too much.
[quote]Massive amounts of money didn't help them last week, and those votes they are allegedly masters at getting never materialized.
It got them 47% of the vote and allowed them to retain control of the house. It's not a good idea for Dems to get cocky now. Everyone in 2008 said Bush ruined the Republican brand for a generation. Then we got the Tea Party and the 2010 sweep of the elections.
[quote]Passion puts people in power
Good Lord, I'm debating with children.
"This has worked out well for them."
I knew Miers a bit professionally. She was the most introverted lawyer I ever met. She was on our corporate advisory board before going to DC with Bush and in tow years she barely uttered a word. I could never understand how she got where she did in life. Safe to say she was no performer like judge Judy.
You're not debating with yourself at the moment, R19. Join us again when you float back down to Earth.
[quote]Join us again when you float back down to Earth.
This, from the moron who writes things like "Passion puts people in power" when, oh...say, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY indicates otherwise.
Newsflash, Tinkerbell: POWER puts people in power.
r17 you are incredibly naive.
There is always a Lee Atwater lurking somewhere with black magic to work on the American electorate, which by and large is very dumb, no matter what color it is.
It's called reality. Voting in a movement does not bring on immediate change, people get disillusioned and vote in another wave. Happens all the time.
People are ungrateful too, as Winston Churchill discovered when the UK turfed him out after he led them out of WWII.
Back to Bush...you could argue that Obama does not have enough good surrogates. Bush had too much of a good thing: very aggressive spokespeople like Rumsfeld and Cheney who were pushing his agenda all the time. The American went sour on them. The Bush people politicized EVERYTHING and it wore thin.
[quote]I knew Miers a bit professionally. She was the most introverted lawyer I ever met. She was on our corporate advisory board before going to DC with Bush and in tow years she barely uttered a word. I could never understand how she got where she did in life. Safe to say she was no performer like judge Judy.
Sounds like the second coming of Clarence Thomas.
Vous êtes très bête, R23.
The French Revolution
You're flailing, R23/R24. You need to brush up on your history and political science. Read Carles Boix's "Democracy and Redistribution", and then talk about people, power, and regime change.
R18 47% doesn't win elections. Obama won by a larger percentage than George W ever got. The Republicans actually lost seats in the in the house.
I'm not saying your main point isn't valid, but you should try to back them up with facts and not with what sounds like Republican talking points.
Yes, r27, your clever citation of an 18th Century political movement in France is a very salient point in this discussion of modern American politics, dear.
[quote]47% doesn't win elections.
Not necessarily, but it's also not evidence that the Republicans are finished for good. To think so is the height of naivete.
Yeah, because human nature is so different now than it was then, R30.
You are truly retarded.
R24 - Passion and voter interest trumps whatever the Atwaters try to do.
Don't get mad, vote!
I'm not talking about something so airy as "human nature," Tinkerbell. I'm talking about the current political landscape in America, something of which you don't seem to have the slightest understanding.
I am not r23. You are the one who is flailing, my dear. Just because you are fresh out of poli sci 101 doesn't mean you have a grasp on Americans or their voting history.
r33 please. We are not in college, and we know better.
The overall shadiness of the Halliburton/Blackwater/Gitmo/Abu Ghraib military industrial complex was very influential in turning so many people off. The Bush years was like one big fucking Neocon jerkoff fantasy. Disgusting when you think of it in all it's totality.
You're not fooling anyone with your false 'erudition', R34/R35. Hide behind the 'Tinkerbell', but your precious Republicans have lost.
Oh, and please bump this thread when your heroes capture the Senate, the House, and the Presidency again, R34/R35.
Who is the President, though, despite millions of Republican dollars spent? That's right - Obama.
You are truly an idiot, r37. I'm r34. r35 is someone else who also thinks you're naive. And I've been voting straight Democrat since 1984, you child. I've seen the same idiotic pie-in-the-sky thinking you're exhibiting here from my fellow Dems over and over and over again. And each time it happens, the Tinkerbells are shocked when the Republicans come back in power.
R31 no one here is saying the Republicans are finished for good. Again, you would be well served to cite facts, and pay less attention to the voices in your head.
And yet somehow, the Democrats keep on coming back, R39. What gets them there?
You're a cynical, old moron, R39, and not long for this world.
r41, please allow me to introduce you to r5 and r11.
You sound like a fat, white fart, R39. You'll be dead eventually, and the world will continue to change without you.
[quote]And yet somehow, the Democrats keep on coming back,
And yet, we're one of the most conservative countries in the developed world, lagging behind most of Europe in liberal politics. And yet, the Republicans have dominated American politics for most of the last 40+ years.
We're still debating whether women are allowed to have birth control, for Christ's sake. Grow the fuck up and read some recent history.
You sound like a petulant, fat child who can't bear to have reality intrude on their fantasies, r44. You'll grow up eventually. Hopefully.
What's interesting about Harriet Miers is that a lot of powerful Democrats actually liked her. Harry Reid reportedly found her very charming, and told George W. Bush that the Dems would work with him on her appointment.
It was the Republicans that wrecked her campaign. Her judicial philosophies were unknown, and Repubs no longer trusted everything the Bush Administration told them. They were afraid she might turn out to be another David Souter. Because there are so few neocon female judges (and the ones that do exist, like Priscilla Owen, are super controversial), Alito ultimately replaced O'Connor.
It was such a cynical move. It was like: Yeah, we tried to appoint a woman, but here's another white Catholic man.
You live in a distorted fantasy world, R45, bereft of actual history and facts. If the Republicans have dominated politics for so long, then why did Democrats control Congress for so much of the past 40+ years?
It must be sad to be so afraid all the time, thinking that Republicans will control everything for all time. If things are so hopeless, why do you even bother?
You're old and palsied, R46. It's 2012. Try to live in it once in a while.
R43 in neither of the posts you cited did the authors say the Republican party is finished for good. Changed from it's present form? Yes. But not finished for good as you claimed. Again, it's those pesky facts that seem to be your undoing.
WTF are you talking about, r50? One post said they'll give way to a new party and the other one said they "can't make a true comeback." Should we add poor reading comprehension to your overwhelming naivete?
[quote]If the Republicans have dominated politics for so long, then why did Democrats control Congress for so much of the past 40+ years?
Why did the Republicans control the White House and the judicial branch for much of that time? Why are Americans working more and earning less than their counterparts in the rest of the western world? Why do we not have universal healthcare? Why are we debating whether women can have birth control or whether the middle class can afford higher education?
You're young and stupid, r49. 2012 didn't just spring up out of nowhere. History happened. Patterns repeat. Power accrues to the powerful.
Nice try, R52. It just isn't as bleak as you paint it. Chicken Little it up some more, though - it's becoming amusing.
The Progress of the Nation
That's right, R53... Change happened. History is the chronicle of change. You're blinded to change because you've spent so long living in your pessimistic bubble. How did you get to be so old and still remain so patently foolish?
R52, I'll give you post R5 implies they may evolve into another party, but R11 clearly says they will have to change in order to survive. Neither one said they are finished for good as you claim.
You can try to insult me all you like, but your lack of employing any facts to back up your point makes such insults the stuff of desperation.
Keep ignoring reality, r54. I'd say it's amusing, but, really, it's just sad. I live in a country that still debates whether to teach children about evolution, whether old people should get pensions and whether black people get too much money from the government. I wish I lived in the fantasy world you've created for yourself, but I'm here in the real world, with the grownups. Come join us when you're ready.
r56, r11 argued that Republicans would have to "abandon conservativism" to survive. You're splitting hairs because you have no other point to make.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," r55. But please, keep calling me old, if it makes you feel better.
R58 you do realize that there was a time when the Republican party was considered the more progressive of the two, right? Conservatism and the republicans are not permanently linked. It is not beyond the realm of impossibility the Republicans could morph into something they currently don't resemble. It's happened before, it will probably happen again.
And if pointing out your posts are lacking in any real facts is called splitting hairs, then call me Mr Hair Splitter. I am honored with such a title.
Less Americans believe in evolution now than they did 40 years ago.
And I hate to break it to you college kiddies, but boards of education and school boards are teeming with uber Republicunts who are literally re-writing history and science books because they have too many facts in them. Kids coming up now are going to be even DUMBER than adults already are now. Wanna guess what party that bodes well for?
Oh, for God's sake, r60. Wear the title with pride. I'll continue debating the actual points people are making in this conversation.
Prepare to be called old and fat because you live in the real world, r61.
[quote]Less Americans believe in evolution now than they did 40 years ago.
You should have Oh Dear'd me, r64!
r63 It's okay; I'm 28 and just rolling my eyes at the teenager hurling them.
r64= Old Dear Troll
Democratic hegemony? I see your skills as a political analyst haven't improved much since you came of age and thought GWB was infallible.
[quote]The demographics are against the Republicans, [R3]. They'll have minor comebacks, but they'll eventually give way to a new political party.
They can get their share of minority voters if they drop the anti-immigrant policies and racist overtones. Until the 1968 Southern Strategy, the white south was Democratic. Until 1980, the religious right pretty much stayed out of politics. As long as corporate interests can be served, the Republican establishment doesn't really care about the character of the party. They have changed course to stay in power. They can do it again.
Exactly, r68. All they have to do is make some overtures to Hispanic voters and stop calling women sluts, and that supposedly massive 3% electoral differential will disappear. Dems need to stay on their toes and not assume that the battle is won after one good election.
Also, thanks to extreme gerrymandering by Republican state legislatures, the Republicans retained control of the House despite losing the popular vote for House races. They will have that advantage for four more elections.
The only way the Republicans can survive is if they totally sever themselves from the religious right. The god gang is never going to change their mind about abortion and birth control, and as much as everyone is saying Romney lost because of non-whites, it was women that did him in. In every swing state, in every battleground state, he lost the women vote by a bigger margin than he lost in all votes. The GOP can make nice with non-whites all they like, but if they keep up their attacks on women they will still lose over half of those votes because more women vote than men.
I think the adulteries of so many 'family values' Republicans destroyed their credibility on the social issues topic.
For a long time they had been able to pull off the facade that they were of a superior sexual morality compared to mere mortals.
But then came:
Sen. Larry Craig (arrested at the Minneapolis airport for gay sex)
Sen. David Vitter (involved with the Washington Madam)
Gov. Mark Sanford (cheated on his wife with an Argentinian mistress)
Sen. John Ensign (had an affair with the wife of a staff member)
Speaker Newt Gingrich (admitted that he cheated on both of his first two wives)
And many more . . .
This thread is hilariously wrong in so many ways.
...yet this thread exposes the lies and hypocrisy of the drowning republican party.