ONE OF MY EARLIEST POLITICAL memories as a kid growing up in Iowa was standing in a rally for Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential run. I still have the photo: my hair cut in a terrible pixie style popular at the time and wearing a loud geometric print shirt, I am holding a "Nixon's the One" sign and looking quite pleased about it.
I was raised in a Republican family with long-held Midwestern Methodist traditions of fiscal responsibility and honesty coupled with a strong social conscience. My grandfather, a respectable commercial real estate businessman who never drank and counted a U.S. Supreme Court Justice among his friends, walked in the voting booth every other November, pulled the Republican lever to vote a straight party-line ticket, and walked out.
We visited the White House when I was a teen-ager and attended a reception for the Shah of Iran, oblivious to the Watergate hearings going on at the same time. In college I worked on George H.W. Bush's first presidential campaign. It never occurred to me to be anything other than a Republican.
And then, three years later, I moved to California. Surrounded by liberal Democrats in my second newspaper job, I remember wearing an elephant-nose disguise one election night just to annoy my fellow reporters. Snorting with disgust, my desk mate stalked off and complained to our editor. But I was given a reprieve by the advertising manager, a stalwart GOP fan who used to give me free Lakers tickets.
I was a rebel! The only Republican reporter in this little California newsroom.
AND THEN THE WORLD began to change around me. President Ronald Reagan ran up huge deficits. Iran-Contra happened. Oliver North and his pals were indicted. The stock market dropped precipitously, blamed partially on rising deficits. Newt Gringrich came into power and criticized Reagan for compromising with Democrats. The poison pen of William Kristol began to influence public policy. Tom DeLay exacted political vengeance. And the 1994 election handed Republicans a heady victory of control of both houses and no reason to ever compromise again.
The tone and hypocrisy disgusted me. I found that I had very little in common with this new wing of the GOP. By the time my grandfather died in 1994, I was a Democrat.
Eight years of rule under Project for a New American Century-inspired neoconservatism left me even more certain I had made the right decision.
I THOUGHT OF THIS TODAY as I learned Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania left the Republican Party to become a Democrat. Part of a triumvirate of Northeastern Republican senators which included Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, they were the last holdouts of the "Rockefeller Republican" era.
While my progressive friends sometimes mock my stuffy Midwestern values, I have found that differences of opinion are far more accepted within the Democratic Party, allowing moderates like Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia to thrive, while the Specters of the world are becoming politically extinct on the other side of the aisle.
We didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left us.
Good riddance to the GOP and their negative, selfish viewpoints! All you have to do is watch O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity back to back to see how completely out of touch and hysterical the GOP has become. They deny global warming is a concern because they "pass the buck" and feel God is controlling the world. Their "leaders", like Bush/Cheney want to get rich now and do not care about future generations. It is also a joke how you now see Gingrich talking about the Repubs being the party concerned about big deficits. Yeah, right. Reagan and the Bush's are the ones who ring up incredible debts, and say nothing about it while they are in power. Many of them even were recently saying "debts don't matter". Now, with Dems in power, they are suddenly anti-deficit. They are a generation that needs to fade away. Hopefully, another party forms that is not so extreme and full of bigotry and hate!
Marie, thanks for the Forrest Gump style self-awakening blog. I want to see that photo! You know Iowa is a purple state and just made gay marriage legal. They were the first to affirm Obama.
I'm a conservative Republican and it isn't even as if the moderates have left the party. It is everyone who isn't a religious evanglical Christian fanatic that has been much maligned. As we have seen on Marie's other threads, being Jewish isn't good enough. I wonder if my orthodox Catholic friends will be attacked next.
A lot of people are registering as DTS as the implosion continues. I'm attacked all the time by members of the Republican party on this blog, but always by fake names. In fact, I have not received one deregatory comment - ever - by a real Republican who is not afraid to be identified. They are grateful that I am not afraid to speak out.
Moderate republicans are liberal democrats. I for one am a CONSERVATIVE.
There's nothing I as a Democrat would like better than to see Republicans run the likes of Dick Cheney and Pat Toomey all across the country.
There's this false belief in conservative circles in a "silent majority" of conservatives.
Fact is, this country is center-left, and the GOP is nothing at this point but a rump party of Southern secessionists, religious fundamentalists, whacko libertarians, racists, and ultra-rich people afraid of losing even a small part their ill-gotten wealth.
Self-identified Republicans are down to a historic low of 21%.
If they get any more "conservative", the GOP will be as extinct as the Whigs. Fun times!
The republican politician have become so lideral you can't tell them from democrats anymore.
Vote for REAL conservatives, vote 3rd party.
Check out the Constitution Party
Check out the American Independent party.
Today both republicans and democrats in office stand for only 2 things; Lining their own pockets and getting re-elected so they can continue lining their own pockets.
ALL politicians are lying cheating stealing traitorous scum and need to be thrown out of office.
In 2010 vote against all incumbents.
To keep from putting more of the same in office look at 3rd-party candidates. Liberal or conservative 3rd-party candidates are better than the trash the major parties run.
Everyone knows Spector is a political opportunist to the core, though he did support the great Clarence Thomas. On March 17 he spoke on tape to the fact that he would never leave the Republican Party. That was one month ago. He, the ladies from Maine etc. and all other RINO's should join the Democrat Party and stop falsely claiming they are conservatives, which is what Republicans are supposed to be. He is down 20 points in the Penna. Republican primary - Pennsylvanians hate him - you all take him - if he perchance wins.
Re. Ahmanson ( see Ron Dreher on Beliefnet.com - 03/24 )
Ahmanson:" ...The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big snd diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPALS WHATSOEVER - the Hollywood and San Francisco establishments --- hold to some pretty detestable principals...." Ahmanson is not changing his Christian values and is supporting Bobby Jindal for president in 2012.
Why would a Ahmanson need to change his Christian values to become a Democrat?
I'm happy that the Democratic Party is big and diverse and inclusive. But of course I disagree with the "lack of principals" statement.
Pennsylvania has had a dramatic surge in Democratic registration. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. Maybe the far-out wing doesn't like Specter, but I bet the Dems vote for him. He is down 20 points in one primary poll running against the Club for Growth lackey.
The party left me when they became neo-cons and now they are the party of "no". Being an accountant I was conservative on the economy, but social issues got in the way and the party got more and more crazy - soon I was a Dem and that works better for me. - The real Republicans are either Independents or Democrats now and what is left is the dregs.
The "dregs" are the ones leaving the Republican Party. Republicans stand for principles - Democrats stand for whatever is the flavor of the day - Spector leaving has no negative effect on the Republican Party. I hope McCain and his daughter leave with him - more "dregs". Spector is leaving because he was one of only 3 Republicans to vote for the un-read stimulus package - and his constituents are kicking his butt for it - that's why he's leaving - if you want to read real conservative principals go to AskHeritage.org. Reagan won two landslides being PRO-LIFE not pro choice. Spector was ticked because Lincoln Chafee got beat and it prevented Spector from becoming a committee chairman. The economy has shrunk 6.2% since D'Ohbama took over - not the 4.7% projected. P.S. - Katie Teague's comments above bear little resemblance to reality. Is she o.k.?
What's the beef? Obviously anyone with brains has bolted from the Elephant Party or secretly wants to. Curly, Moe and Larry is all that's left.
Juan,
Katie Teague is a prolife activist that supports George W. Bush. She was his local volunteer in 2004 for this area.
But unlike you she isn't cheering the Republican Party losing more and more seats. Yes he was upset that your party threw away the control of the senate. Is that surprising?
Please kick McCain out. I would be very pleased to have the man support the Democratic Party. He is a top war hero, a patriot, and a true conservative. His daughter represents the future of your party, if they want to compete.
Juan Fake Name,
What I said earlier in this thread bears repeating.....
"I'm attacked all the time by members of the Republican party on this blog, but always by fake names. In fact, I have not received one deregatory comment - ever - by a real Republican who is not afraid to be identified."
You just proved my point with your ad-hominem attack on me.
Reader - thanks for your assessment - it is completely accurate.
Marie, your commenter juandeveras is insulting and anti-semitic on this blog. Do you have a process for removing posts or banning certain people?
All the moderate and conservative Republicans are adrift. The Republicans that are still out their are more liberal than half the democrats.
Conservatives and liberals will find their views better represented by the 3rd partys than the big two wh0res on the political scene.
Conservatives I suggest you check out these two;
American Independent Party - www.aipca.org
Constitution Party - www.constitutionparty.com
And remember
VOTE NO ON MAY 19th
They've all re-registered as DTS.
"Marie, your commenter is insulting and anti-semitic on this blog. Do you have a process for removing posts or banning certain people ?"
Caroline: You wrote the same comment elsewhere on this blog and I responded as I will here [ this is not Politicalcorrectnessville, Caroline. Kindly make your case by making a factual observation rather than by making two false claims ]: At no time have I ever made a statement that any thinking person could/would regard as "anti-semitic" on this site. If you can find one please point it out to me. In addition, if I have "insulted" [ that requires intent - not the politically correct ruse of saying " I feel insulted " ] anyone intentionally please present your evidence. Otherwise, let's move on.
Katie Teague:
Thanks for your many efforts on behalf of Republicans and the pro-life movement. I was heartened when Planned Parenthood's clinic disappeared from Thompson Blvd. I'm sure you are a very capable individual. I do not "attack" people. Sorry you feel "attacked".
A. Who and how have I "attacked" you? Please be specific.
B. What "ad hominum" attack did I institute ?
C. What is your definition of a "real Republican"?
D. Do you consider yourself a more evolved individual because you happen to use your real name here ? Last time I checked people are free to use whatever identity they so choose in such a forum. Their true names are on record and if the paper felt what you were saying had merit, I'm sure it would be addressed. Above you suggested " religious evangelic Christian fanatics" ( now that's what I call a real "attack" ) were the only acceptable members of the Republican Party: that everyone else ( including you, presumably ) had been "maligned" - That "being Jewish isn't good enough". Katie, Republicans need to become acquainted with the principles of conservatism for the Republican Party to be effective. Reagan was elected twice on a pro-life conservative platform. The bipartisan "stupid partisan tea parties" you dislike suggest Americans across the board are already fed up with Obama liberalism. Wheras "W" had 50 consecutive months of economic growth in this country, Obama is DELIBERATELY torpedoing any chance for continued economic growth. He is the political Hack from Hell. The saving grace for Repubs will be because the Dems will / are so overreaching they are / will implode. The trick for Repubs is to prolong as much legislation as possible as Obama's popularity falls, causing his own party to turn on him. Being a country club "moderate" conservative will not cut it. McCain is a war hero, is not a conservative, and is simply taking up space where a true conservative could do much more for the Republican Party. Palin saved his bacon and prevented a much greater loss than he sustained. His disrespect for her subsequently has hurt him even more. The Dems are going to be hoisted on their collective petards - a la the John and Ken " politician-head-on-a-stick " campaign currently being waged in California.
It always amazes me how the conservatives ignore history.
What was the economic situation of the masses before government regulation? SERFDOM.
We now have the presentation of eight years of Bush and conservative non-regulation before us.
The free market is a hypothesis that in reality does not balance economic forces. As our present situation proves an abandonement of law and regulation to the notion of the free market simply leads to a market run by a few at the expense of the many.
Juan,
Are you seriously denying that you call people names here?
Juandevera I don't have a lot of time to deal with this now, but I went back and looked and I thought this was insulting:
Marie - So you and Hillary have something in common - started out as Republicans and became 'rats. It is clear the thinking process in both cases has become somewhat muddled. Reader - Go to law school and learn how to think clearly - if you are old enough.
P.S. - Katie Teague's comments above bear little resemblance to reality. Is she o.k.?
Neither of you has a clue about what you are saying.
Gee, I wasn't aware you knew that much about any one subject.
I find it amusing yet pathetic that none of you seem to have much inaginative input beyond asking a continual series of simplistic questions ( they say the dumbest 52% voted for D'Ohbama ).
He might think you are a nut.
Hilda looks great in pink and has a smarmy smile - like the cat who swallowed the canary.
++Your constant references to the Jewish faith of those you do not agree with strike me as anti-semitic.
Thanks Caroline - for bothering to post - I thought about it but decided that it wasn't worth the effort. He is hiding behind a fake name and will continue to justify his behavior despite of all evidence to the contrary. Makes you wonder how he deals with real life using a real name.
Katie and Caroline,
A bit thin-skinned are we ? My commenta are all in response to comments made and I stand by them. I have noted throughout this blog that the graetest bias seems to be from left toward right.
You are trapped in a web of deceit of your own making. Keep on floundering around. And when all else fails, go on the offense. That is the best defense.
Katie FaTeague: Change the subject, do not engage in meaningful discussion, make personal comments - I repeat - a bit thin-skinned.
Juan,
Sure there are many liberals on this blog and sure we might disagree with you on many policies. That doesn't make any of us "right" when we are dealing with preferences for policies. But it is a fact that you both deny calling names and you call people names. I have disagreed with you many times, yet I try to restrain my urge to call names. You should either do the same or stop pretending that you don't call names.
Can we get back on topic here?
I urge everyone to read this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-souter4-2009may04,0,4695798.story
This is exactly what my blog is about. Souter is a Republican in the tradition of my family's values. Yet now he's being called a liberal judge. The shift in perception here is remarkable.
Re. Souter: Read the Kelo case on eminent domain and then tell me how wonderful and what a great thinker Souter is. He voted to take private property away from private citizens, give it to the local city so they could re-sell it to a developer that city was in bed with. Kelo was the woman who didn't want to give up her house and was kicked out. Now her empty house sits there with no redevelopment underway - a real testament to Souter et al. So many people were angry with Souter, they were threatening to have the town where he lives purchase his own house and build a hotel on it - just to get even & get rid of him. Obviously Blackmun would not vote against Roe v. Wade - he wrote the original decision, known to Blackmun's clerks' as "Blackmun's Abortion", not because of the subject matter but because of how poorly it was reasoned. It will eventually be overturned not because of it's subject matter but because it was weakly reasoned. Blackmun was a wimp whose wife talked him into the Roe v. Wade decision primarily because she wanted to be on good terms with liberal ladies around D.C. with whom she had lunch. If the measuring stick on Souter is "tradition" as in separation of church and state, that whole tradition within the history of the Supreme Court derives from the initial letter to the Providence Preachers from Jefferson; relied on as foundational in a subsequent series of Supreme Court cases, but was not based on any legal precedent - if you read those cases ( and I have ) Jefferson's letter should never have been referenced in any of those cases for purposes of precedent, because it was strictly anecdotal and not of any legal purpose. Respectfully, Marie, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Mr. Souter. I'm sure he is a fine fellow. Though the Supreme Court has a majority of Republican appointees, at least five of them "engage in liberal judicial activism" ( Ed Whelan NR ) and the court is viewed by many as being to the "left of the American public on a broad range of issues". All of us should agree that " policy positions are to be addressed and decided through the processes of representative government , not by judicial usurpation" (Whelan).
OK, so now you've just insulted my grandfather's friend. I am wondering if it is possible for anonymous bloggers to make their points without being insulting.
When I began this blog, I was hoping for positive, constructive dialogue. I set my sights lower every day.
Marie, You raised the subject of Souter. In your inability to respond "positively and constructively" to my comments you attempt to make what I said derogatory. That is below the belt. I have insulted nobody - saying so does not make it so - I went to great lengths in my comment ( as I always do ) to generate " positive, constructive dialogue". I think you will find that, over time, my comments have been some of the most "positive, constructive" and thoughtful on this site. It is astounding that you would say something so disconnected as: " Ok, so now you've insulted my grandfather's friend". What are you thinking ? Marie, if one is going to have a "blog", one needs a level of maturity. Your comment did not reach that level.
Marie, I note you casually mentioned in your opening dialogue that your grandfather had a friend who was a Supreme Court justice. Are you suggesting that my remarks "insulted" a Supreme Court justice. Since you do not mention the justice's name and since it usually requires a certain specific intent to insult a specific individual, your comment becomes concerning. Please explain the connection between your grandfather's friend and my comments about Souter.
Well, let's see now: You've called a wonderful, respectable Republican man, Justice Blackmun, who is now deceased, a "wimp." You called his well-reasoned decision (like it or not) an "abortion." You posted that his wife told him to make it to impress her luncheon friends.
So yeah, that's pretty insulting. You can make your case logically without resorting to this sort of stuff.
It is well-documented that Justice Blackmun's reasoning in Roe v. Wade was a weak decision legally, irrespective of what the decision was. It is well-documented that he wanted a particular result. It is well-documented that he reasoned backward from the result he wanted, which created a very clouded situation unlike the reasoned result one would expect, had the matter been handled in a normal fashion, particularly on such a momentous case and, to most legal minds, it was not wel-reasoned, given the facts. It was his own law clerks, Marie, who referred to it as "Blackmun's Abortion", not me. Byron White, in a dissenting opinion in Roe referred to Blackmun's reasoning as the exercise of "raw judicial power". Potter Stewart asked whether a fetus was a person within the current meaning of constitutional thought and Blackmun agreed it was. Rhenquist stated in the opinion " the court is not holding for abortion on demand". According to Bob Woodward's book "The Brethren", Blsckmun suffered from a profound sense of insecurity. "Blackmun knew that his colleagues were concerned about what they preceived as his indecisiveness". "Nixon had been quite prescient about the effect of Blackmun's wife on his judicial role. While Blackmun was dithering over the (Roe) opinion, Dorothy Blackmun told one of her pro-abortion rights clerks "that she was doing everything she could to encourage her husband in that direction. "You and I are working on the same thing " she said. " Me at home and you at work". Blackmun later claimed that she never tried to influence his position. Blackmun wrote primarily about the history of abortion, but there was nothing he wrote about its constitutionality. Blackmun "felt" the right of privacy included the right to an abortion - but nowhere in the constitution is there a "right of privacy".