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. gobstopper says:

    Bingo….I’ve often said that I’d either be a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican, but there’s room for me in neither party.

  2. Sea Lawyer says:

    Independent voters are not Republican or Democratic voters, as they are by definition independent. Your commentary doesn’t make too much sense when taken with the headline you chose. If we are to assume that the two parties legitimately represent largely different points of view about how the government should be run (or else why have two parties?), then it should be expected that pursuing the median voter will cause the base of the party (Republican or Democratic voters) to become dissatisfied.

  3. dusanmal says:

    Problem is, they didn’t ask “what direction voters want leadership to go” as I bet most of negativism is rooted in Bush administration & houses at the time spending like a drunken sailors, not being forgiven. Exactly what Dem’s are doing now. Great moment for independents and populists (and independent populists) to run.

  4. amodedoma says:

    Party politics, they give you a choice between two unattractive extremes. Two sides to the same argument, two sides of the same coin. False democracy, most people who participate vote for one side out of fear of the other.

  5. Improbus says:

    If there was a time for new political parties this is it. The current Republican party should go the way of the Whigs.

  6. Uncle Dave says:

    #2: What are you talking about? The headline is about the article. My commentary is that the Democrat voters feel the same about their party, while independents don’t like either party.

    Rather than win over “median voters,” many have stopped voting or vote for the lessor of two evils without enthusiasm.

    What’s needed is a moderate, middle road third party rather than the two fringe parties we now have that don’t appeal to the majority.

  7. Father says:

    The Base.

    Term meaning the foundation of the party.

    What we have here is an example of what is currently driving the country into ruin. We have political parties that are driven by the squeeky, power hungry, selfish, minorities that have no practical nor phylisophical interest in improving the economical, moral, nor psychological condition of the country.

    Our political foundations are crumbling and corrupted, and our loudest saviors are most self-promoting selfish citizens.

    It reminds me of the self-serving white supremisists who claimed in the 1960s that segregation benifited society as a whole. That we are stronger divided than united.

    Any party that identifies itself by, and hold up as examples of, its most extreme members, is a party dedicated to the destruction of a united society.

  8. Chriswsm says:

    If the republic doesnt get its act in order the Imperial army will get the upper hand and the Sith will invade the US. That is of course assuming the Sith do not already run the US

  9. GigG says:

    There is no new information in TFA and certainly in the comment added. As much as I didn’t like him Bill Clinton understood this quite well. You must pander to the fringes of your party in order to win the primaries. They are the only people that are going to get out there and beat the bushes for votes. They are the people that man the phone lines and hand out the campaign buttons.

    But when it is time for the general election you have to move to the towards the center in order to win and stay there to get reelected.

    Bill was a master at playing both ends of the field. It helped that he didn’t really care one way or other and would give two diametrically opposed speeches back to back and be able to pull off that both were how he really felt in his soul.

  10. FRAGaLOT says:

    The comments “Yeah, that headline is not exactly a shocker. The same could be said for the Democrats.” Was EXACTLY what I was thinking after reading the headline to this post. Uncle Dave is in my HEAD!

    It seems all organizations are controlled, and lead by the extremists. Feminists organizations, environmental organizations, animal rights, the list goes on and on. I guess this is due to the logic that “middle of the road” type people just aren’t meant to lead.

    But didn’t they say the same thing about George Washington being the 1st president? Hmmm….

  11. Glass Half Full says:

    Both parties, probably the Republicans a “little” more so, have turned into bad cliches of political sound bites and not actual thinking institutions. While both parties do this to some extend, the Republicans seem to be making a virtue out of being stupid. I mean they had an election in 2008 where not ONE SINGLE adult college educated Presidential candidate thought evolution was real. And they want to be President, control our nuclear arsenal and our science budgets (NASA, NSF, etc). Oh hell no. The Republicans used to have William F. Buckley and other intellectuals at their core, now it’s Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and these hosts of anti-intellectuals are who proud of being angry and dumb and make fun of anyone with smarts.

    I understand the ‘politics’ of attacking the educated smart people…they’re playing to a rural base that ‘might’ have high school education and trying to created an us/them mentality. But the reality of both trying to hold the far religious right and least educated is going to create a party that does not represent the best of America. I’m NOT saying the Democratic party automatically does either, but just that the Republicans are making a conscious choice to try to destroy their party it seems.

  12. Greg Allen says:

    The Republicans have long had this irrational disconnect between their satisfaction with politicians and actual public policy.

    Reagan proved that you can go as far as illegally arming our sworn enemy and the conservatives will still love love love you — as long as you say things that make them feel safe and warm inside.

  13. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    Vat 69 Scotch and celery. Like peas and carrots.

  14. Cephus says:

    The problem is, both parties are courting the fringe because they know that the moderate voters will have no choice but to vote for one of the parties or the other. So long as they keep the fringe vote, and appear less evil than the other party, they’ve got a good shot at winning. Any attempt to court the middle-ground is going to piss off the fringe and those people tend to be the most politically active and vocal. Not catering to them is going to get you a lot more bad publicity than not catering to the much larger, but ultimately unrepresented moderates.

  15. Dallas says:

    GOP needs to find a new leader other than Rush. Who would want to associate to a sweaty, foaming, fat pig?

  16. Benjamin says:

    I’m a conservative. I am not going to be voting for Republicans that spend as if they are Democrats or advance liberal policies. I’ll vote for a conservative Democrat over a liberal Republican. Besides, when the Democrats hold the majority of both houses and the White House then who gets the blame when things go wrong. The Democrats can’t keep blaming Snowball for not being able to build the windmill.

    If we got rid of all corrupt Senators and Congressmen, we would have maybe one incumbent and that is an optimistic estimate.

  17. soundwash says:

    Its called “time for a do over”

    our government (if not all) need a major reset. they’re all corrupt beyond repair.

    two party systems are designed to fail, if not to just keep an “illusion” alive.

    Sad to say, it is time for a planetary reset. nothing of what we do “works” in the grand scheme of things.

    I only hope lessons are learned and corrections carried over to the next iteration.. Earth 5.0 (or is it 6.0?)

    -we blew this one big time.


    (Turn off your TV

  18. LotsaLuck says:

    When will we ever get back to politicians that actually represent the middle of the road views to the majority?

    When the primary system, which favors those who cater to the politically active fringe-dwellers, is changed.

  19. Phydeau says:

    Anyone who thinks the Democratic party is controlled by its “fringes” is smoking crack.

    Obama’s throwing money at big bankers, continuing Cheney’s civil rights violations, sending people out of the country to be tortured (well at least not at Gitmo, that’s a start I guess), continuing Cheney’s fruitless war in Afghanistan, and has completely bent over for the big insurance interests on the health care issue.

    If the Democratic party had been taken over by the liberals, it would be pushing for: single payer health care, getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, ending torture once and for all, given us back our civil rights, and strong regulation of lawless bankers.

    Money talks, and Democrats as well as Republicans listen to it more than they listen to us.

  20. LibertyLover says:

    #19, Obama’s throwing money at big bankers, continuing Cheney’s civil rights violations, sending people out of the country to be tortured (well at least not at Gitmo, that’s a start I guess), continuing Cheney’s fruitless war in Afghanistan, and has completely bent over for the big insurance interests on the health care issue.


    Now do you believe there is no difference between the two parties?

  21. Phydeau says:

    #20 McCain would have given even more money to the bankers, kept Gitmo open and tortured more, sent more soldiers and money to Iraq and Afghanistan, hacked away even more at our civil liberties, and health care would not have even been brought up as a concern.

    What we have is one party completely owned by big money, and one party only mostly owned by big money. At least the Democrats are slightly more sensible on social issues.

  22. Phydeau says:

    I think Paul Krugman had it right when he said that the Republican party is being taken over by the nutballs it has exploited all these years, since they implemented the Southern Strategy. And nutballs are a powerful political force. As they used to say in Texas, if you took all the idiots out of the Lege (the Texas State Legislature) it wouldn’t be a representative body.

  23. LibertyLover says:

    #21, It’s the Democrats’ hairball now. No need to bash what might have happened. Personally, I don’t see a difference between “mostly owned” and “totally owned”.

    Perhaps you should start thinking Libertarian/Constitutionalist Party now that you’ve seen what the Republicrats have done and will continue to do for the next three years.

    One thing I am really happy about, though, and that is the Democrats’ decision to let the Patriot Act expire. I mean, that was a serious blow to our civil rights.

  24. Angus says:

    Yup, the only reason I’m not an independent is so I can vote in the Primaries.

  25. Named says:

    23 LibertyLover
    “One thing I am really happy about, though, and that is the Democrats’ decision to let the Patriot Act expire. I mean, that was a serious blow to our civil rights.”

    But… doesn’t that mean the terrorist win?

    I have to say that politics in the US is the most divisive, most corrupt and most depressing spectacle in the industrialized / Western world…

    And what’s really depressing about it, is that the Conservative party in Canada is using the same props and strategies as the Repulitards… and it’s worked. Stupid is as stupid does…

    Not big on “libertarian” parties though. They’re an anachronism.

  26. Phydeau says:

    #23 If the sheriff in town is corrupt and does the bidding of the big ranchers instead of honestly keeping order, the solution is not to get rid of the sheriff’s office. The solution is to get rid of the corruption.

    Big business and big money have thoroughly corrupted our government. The solution is not to get rid of government. If we did, the big business and big money interests would have free rein to do whatever they want. We had that situation during the late 1800s in the days of Robber Baron Capitalism. It was ugly then; it would be ugly now.

    No, the solution is to get rid of the corrupting influence of the big money interests so the government can do the job it’s meant for: to ensure a fair playing field so capitalism can flourish.

    Since the big money interests own the media, this will be a very difficult thing to do. Freedom of the press only applies to those who own one.

  27. LibertyLover says:

    #26, I agree with you in principle. However, I am not sure you can get rid of the corruption without removing the incentive.

    The incentive is the money. And where does all the money come from? As long as politicians have access to an unlimited amount of money, they will never be sane nor honorable.

    And I would argue the Robber Barons history. That term wasn’t used until the middle of the Great Depression as a way to “show how capitalism is bad.” Those Robber Barons helped turn America into the industrial powerhouse it was at the turn of the century.

    That being said, they did get out of hand by buying off politicians to pass legislation in their favor, effectively making them untouchable by upstarts.

  28. Phydeau says:

    #27 It all comes back to the people. We get the government we deserve, for better or for worse. People don’t pay attention until things get really bad. And if they don’t get told the truth because the crooks own the media, then things look really bad for the people.

    The money has to be there for the various regulatory structures that (try to) keep the playing field level. If we’re going to get rid of anything, I say the huge military — let’s stop trying to be the world’s policeman. Or if we’re paying trillions to keep Arab dictators and our oil supplies safe, let’s apply that cost fairly, at the gas pump.

  29. Phydeau says:

    Not fairly per se, but if we’re paying trillions to keep the gas flowing, it should be reflected at the gas pump, and in our heating bills. Might give us more incentive to reduce our energy usage.

  30. LibertyLover says:

    #28, The money has to be there for the various regulatory structures that (try to) keep the playing field level.

    And this is where a lot of people think things can be fixed. I asked you at one time who you would hire to write the regulations “fairly” but I think the post rolled off to the next page because I never got a response.

    Who would we hire?


Bad Behavior has blocked 5520 access attempts in the last 7 days.