Yeah, that headline is not exactly a shocker. The same could be said for the Democrats. Independents don’t like either. Each party’s fringe is in control. When will we ever get back to politicians that actually represent the middle of the road views of the majority? At this point that seems like asking when will politicians stop being corrupt.

The Republican rank and file is largely in sync with GOP lawmakers in their staunch opposition to efforts by President Obama and Democrats to enact major health-care legislation, but a new Washington Post poll also reveals deep dissatisfaction among GOP voters with the party’s leadership as well as ideological and generational differences that may prove big obstacles to the party’s plans for reclaiming power.
[…]
But for all the talk among Republican elected officials about a nascent comeback after gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey this month, there is also broad frustration among Republican voters about the party’s direction, detachment from its congressional representatives and a schism over its priorities.

Fewer than half of the Republicans and Republican-leaners surveyed by The Washington Post see the party’s leadership as taking the GOP in the “right direction,” down sharply from this time four years ago. About four in 10 are dissatisfied with the policy proposals being offered by congressional Republicans, and similar numbers see the current crop of GOP legislators as out of touch with their problems and personal values. Nearly a third say the Republicans in Congress are not standing up for the party’s core values.




  1. Phydeau says:

    #30 Well that’s the problem… we hire our elected representatives to write the regulations fairly, but since they’re beholden to the big money boys to get the money for their next campaign (paid back to the big money boys for TV ads, clever scam) we get regulations that favor the people paying the bills, rather then the people who elected them.

    I say go to a completely publicly financed campaign system. Let the candidates come to us for their campaign funds and when they get into office, they will listen to us.

    Politicians whoring for money has gotten us into this mess.

  2. Phydeau says:

    … but can you blame them for whoring? That’s how the system works: you need big bucks for expensive TV ads nowadays to get elected. We need to change the system so they don’t have to compromise themselves for money to pay for their campaigns.

  3. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    Fido – Pure fantasy. I wish it were so too but in the real world when money flows corruption floats. No matter where the money seems to come from.

  4. Phydeau says:

    #33 I agree, there will always be corruption where there is money, but I don’t think we should give up the fight. We’ll never get rid of corruption, but we can fight to minimize it.

  5. LibertyLover says:

    #31, I say go to a completely publicly financed campaign system.

    I am not sure that is the answer as it removes a person’s “freedom to associate.” I’ve given quite a bit thought to this idea and it always comes back to that.

    Plus, it would get way too expensive. Image 5000 people running for a single seat in congress. How many seats are there? We could reduce that number by 100 by putting the state legislatures back in charge of appointing senators, though (another discussion for another day).

    Removing a corporation’s “personhood” would go a LONG way toward what we are wanting, though. This means only individuals can donate.

    We currently have caps on how much an individual can donate but we have no legal means to verify that “person” exists. There is evidence presidential candidates received money from fictional individuals like XEUGAETJ from 2d4AGJT in the last election.

    If we had a law that said if you can’t verify the donor, the money goes into the general fund, it might stop that. But, who would do the verifying? Another conundrum.

    I agree with you on the advertising issues. It costs too much to reach 300,000,000 people.

    So, we have to ask ourselves — where is the incentive to WANT to hold office? These guys are getting rich after they are there. Where is this money coming from? Lobbyists. And you can’t outlaw them either (see my first paragraph above).

    Sigh. Where does that leave us? Corporate Personhood.

  6. tcc3 says:

    Phydeau and LL – I want to congratulate you both. Its been a long time since I saw a real discussion here that didn’t devolve into name calling bullshit.

    Good points both.

  7. Phydeau says:

    #35 I agree that we should get rid of corporate personhood. That was bogus from the start anyway, from what I’ve read.

    And there are indeed problems with a 100% public financing system. Some solutions: support for candidates who show “viability” (however that is defined) along with contributions from real people only, and meaningful public disclosure of who’s contributing to whom (not just a huge spreadsheet, it has to be interpreted so people can understand it).

    Free and fair elections are the very heart of our system of politics. That might overrule “freedom to associate”. Rich people have enough of an advantage, why should they be able to buy politicians?

  8. LibertyLover says:

    #37, meaningful public disclosure of who’s contributing to whom (not just a huge spreadsheet, it has to be interpreted so people can understand it).

    What do we do when we find a name that makes no sense? What happens to that money?

    That might overrule “freedom to associate”.

    And that’s a slippery slope I don’t want to be on.

    Rich people have enough of an advantage, why should they be able to buy politicians?

    Hence the cap. Those rich people do it through corporate “donations” in the form of lobbyist groups. Once the personhood/free speech aspect is taken from the corporation (charities, lobbyist groups, etc.), that only leaves a real, live person. You can put a person in jail for breaking the law. You can’t put a corporation in jail — only take a percentage of what they were bribed with. In the end, the corporation wins.

  9. LibertyLover says:

    #36, That’s because we aren’t talking about health care :-)

  10. Mr. Fusion says:

    The tea bagger tail is wagging the Republican elephant.

  11. qb says:

    Zombie Reagan raised from the dead to lead GOP.

  12. RSweeney says:

    Yeah… right.

    The Post reporting on Republicans is like David Duke reviewing a Bar Mitzvah.

    Notice that the kind of weasel leader the Post loves, McCain, couldn’t get his own party to vote for him

  13. JimD says:

    Not to worry !!! Repukes and their “Party” are only 22% of the electorate – a tempest in a teacup !!! And they get publicity way out of proportion to their cumulative IQs – Palin being a good example !!!

  14. pedro says:

    Uncle Dave said: “When will we ever get back to politicians that actually represent the middle of the road views of the majority?”

    How old are you? Over 10? Then you won’t be able to see that coming back.

    #19 Actually, you’re the one doing some kind of drug (not precisely crack, mind you)

  15. Mr. Fusion says:

    #44, pedro,

    How’s that goat thing working for you?

  16. Phydeau says:

    #45 Actually Mr Fusion I think he’s practicing his twitter skills here… what he writes is short, irrelevant, and inane. Explains a lot, doesn’t it? :)

  17. Mr. Fusion says:

    #45, snicker, snort, snicker, snicker

    Nothing explains pedro.

    ;)

  18. Rick Cain says:

    To put it quite bluntly, money has contaminated both parties.

    The result is a government that only is concerned about the promotion of business, with healthy kickbacks to the politicians as a result. No wonder the voter is disillusioned.

  19. Angry says:

    #15 Apparently you secretly love bears….don’t deny it tiger!

  20. Angry says:

    #45 That goat, known as your Mom, apparently is doing well. And your Dad, who likes to watch, has nothing to complain about either. HAR!

  21. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    Pedro, are you Angry now?