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.
#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.
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.
#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.
Yup, the only reason I’m not an independent is so I can vote in the Primaries.
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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
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.
#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?
#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.
… 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.
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.
#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.
#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.
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.
#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?
#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.
#36, That’s because we aren’t talking about health care
The tea bagger tail is wagging the Republican elephant.