For an excellent article defining the current situation: “For the first time in American history, a major political party wants America to run from a war we are winning.”
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
It ain’t the first time….
Though it is the same “major” political party.
Barbara is right. In the 1864 election, the Democratic Party platform was to end the Civil War and to cease attempting to reincorporate the CSA states into the Union.
And “return all stolen property”.
Aka slaves.
Need we say more??
The leftists dominate the national agenda of the Democratic Party. They care only about pleasing blue state voters. The purple and red state ones can essentially go to hell. I was one of the very few (the only one?) who declared the Democrats dead as a national party after the 2004 elections. Numerous voters may not be pleased about the situation in Iraq. Nonetheless, the polling data consistently shows that these same individuals do not want our forces to lose in Iraq. The Democrats are cruising for a bruising regarding the elections in November. Their message will sell well only in areas like San Francisco and Vermont.
As usual the Democrats completely miss the boat. There are plenty of reasons that Mr. Bush’s poll numbers are low and that many Americans’ are dissatisfied with the people currently running the show in DC. Conservatives see the government growing at an nearly insane pace and Congress spending without much thought.
There are obvious corruption issues, there are issues with pandering (Terri Schavio, etc), there are problems with “wiretapping” (be it legal and unethical or illegal and ethical or something else entirely). There are lots of reasons that many Americans are unhappy with the current administration. However, instead of coming up with useful solutions to these problems, instead of actually using their brains to do something creative, the Dems simply hop on the easy option. It doesn’t take brains to be anti-war. It doesn’t take creative solutions to demand we pull out.
I can only hope that the Democrats as a party die out soon… and that the Republicans follow shortly after. They’re both outdated, they’re both corrrupt and they’re both far more interested in party power than serving the people.
What dclydew said. I can’t help but think that if there were a party that was fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and strong on foreign policy, it would sweep the nation. Unfortunately, neither party we have seems interested in being the complete package.
The Republicans are willing to do just enough to win in an election year and not much more. The Democrats are…I have no idea.
One well-run, strong party and one poorly-run, weak party–is not a stable environment for American politics. The only reason we have it as much as we do is because the press/academia propping of the Democrats. Absent that, our choices are typically two lousy parties or two pretty decent ones. Fix the Dems (or replace them with something worth having), and the GOP will get better. Or vice versa.
“I can’t help but think that if there were a party that was fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and strong on foreign policy, it would sweep the nation.”
There is a strong correlation between likely voter, socially conservative, and fiscally conservative. It’s not absolute, or causation, of course, as any number of vocal libertarians will readily attest. However, ignore that inconvenient fact and assume that no such correlation exists. It is still true that such an imagined party is not stable. It will drive all competition from the field for a few election cycles, and *then* it will quite rapidly become “corrupt” (in the sense discussed in this topic) in the absence of that competition.
If one wants to change this from within, then the structural/cultural impediments are the “root causes” deserving of attack. Pound the MSM. Fight gerrymandering. Be vocal about pervasive invasion of judges into every aspect of American life. The Congress we get is a product of the America that we live in. You want a different product, then we have to change the source.
“fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and strong on foreign policy”
A lot of people reading Roger’s blog, probably define their ideal political party or candidate along these lines. (Not me, I’m more Social Democratic, socially moderate, and pragmatic on foreign policy.)
What is interesting is that the Democratic Party, much maligned in Roger’s comment sections as well, is THE party for 2 out of the above three. The Democratic Party is both fiscally conserative (namecheck: Bob Rubin and Larry Summers), and socially liberal.
The Republican Party gives you one out of the three, on foreign policy, provided that you consider the Bush doctrine to be WISE, in addition to bold and strong.