Let's not make the mistake of underestimating the Republicans

[Cyrano]

This is the party that got the country to buy eight years of an amiable imbecile named Ronald Reagan who was, at best, a clueless, oblivious man.

They also managed to get a clueless, cruel man named George Jr. into office for eight years. (I refuse to use the term "elected" when referring to him.)

Far too much of the MSM is still endorsing the stale crap the GOP is peddling, and at least 1/3 of Americans are still buying it.

We may have laughed at the incredible ignorance of both Reagan and Bush, and we may have loathed their meanness of spirit. But let's not make the mistake of believing the Republicans can't pull this off again.

Our goal is constructive legislation for the sake of all. Theirs is power for the sake of power. Historically, those whose only goal was power tended to succeed, more often than not, over people like us.

If Bush/Cheney et al are dragged before the bar of justice to answer for their countless crimes, perhaps it would help to stave off a Republican return to power for decades. If not, who's to say they can't win the 2012 election (through any means necessary)?

We can never again allow ourselves to underestimate them.

[grannie4peace]

1. they are dangerous!

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Yep. Dems have brains, ideas and decency. Republics have no conscience - so will do anything

to get back in power. They care only about power and themselves - so they are indeed not to be underestimated (or is it misunderestimated??)

[DFW]

3. They have an advantage we dare not overlook

They have a well-paid bunch of people who have no scruples, zero, about using any means
necessary to take, and hold, power. They didn't manage this time because of internal
squabbling, and the fact that there was just too much overwhelming popular sentiment
against them. But in a close race, like 1980, 2000, or 2004, yes, they'll ignore the
law, the rule of democracy, and any other rule standing in their way. Rachel Maddow
may make brilliant commentary, but Frank Luntz goes behind the scenes and does stuff.
Both are brilliant, but one preaches to an appreciative choir on TV, and the other trains
an American right-wing political version of the Khmer Rouge.

Damage prevention is always preferable to damage control.

[zbdent]

4. They convinced enough of the American voting population that

it wasn't Clinton's policies, it was the Republican House and Senate that gave us the good economic times of the late 90s (ignoring the fact that when they took full control, we had the first recession since the previous Bush), and things were good enough that a guy who failed in every business venture he was involved in would be good at running the country ... and that, despite hiring every person who was used in his Daddy's administration, he was his "own man" ...

[mwb970]

5. OK, but I would say at *most* 30% are buying the GOP crap.

82% now have confidence in Obama's economic plan. That doesn't leave many on the nay-saying side. There are fewer now than there were an hour ago, and there will be fewer still after another hour. Drip, drip, drip.

[Believing Is Art]

6. Who makes up that 1/3?

The anti-abortion types are a lost cause. They are one-issue voters that would rather see millions of people die from war, famine, disease, and natural disaster than lose a single fetus to abortion. These types don't even bother to educate themselves on any other issue. Some may be informed enough to spout off the right-wing crap on taxes and national security, but when probed can't give anything other than talking points. Many, however, don't even bother with that much.

Then there are the hardcore libertarians. They'll vote Republican as the "lesser of two evils," but they don't really like them all that much. If the libertarian party were to grow significantly, it could fracture the right-wing enough to ensure democratic victories for some time to come.

The best and most obvious solution is to actually fix the economy under a democratic government and improve education to the point that most Americans are well-informed on current events. But that's not going to happen before 2010 or 2012.

Maybe Democrats should donate to Ron Paul for a 2012 run as a libertarian. With enough money, he could pull a Perot.

[HughBeaumont]

7. Well, they already have a few things going against them.

One, their ace-in-the-hole name brand "Bush" is MUD. See, Repukes like brand names. They like actors. They like oilmen. They like the familiar. Someone asked the question "Name the last Republican to win an election without the names Bush or Nixon on the ticket". The answer would be Herbert Hoover. Just like any drug, even brand names are hard to wean yourself off of. America made 2000 and 2004 close enough to steal because they were trained to hate anything associated with the name "Clinton", they like folksiness and the fact that it was packaged in a familiar name was good enough for some of them.

Thanks to Bewsh's Know-nothing antics and whiskey-addled steering, the brand went sour and lost its flavor. Now the notion of putting another Bewsh in the White House is unthinkable. It's akin to putting the Grim Reaper or Mussolini in high office.

Which leads to point 2 and that would be the cavalcade of clowns on their side, peddling the same old bullshit which didn't work the first, second or 23rd time it was attempted. I mean, who do they got? Witness the Jindal speech: not even the corporate-controlled media wanted anything to do with this shitbomb. It tanked like a sumbitch even in the confines of their own party. And then there's the Half-Baked Alaskan, who's becoming more of a Tonya Harding-level tabloid comedy act than a serious candidate to challenge what could be one of the greatest leaders this century has seen. The remainder of their white male candidates are a whole lotta oldster loons, racists, fundamentalpatients, turncoats and flat-out whackjobs.

There ain't no Eisenhowers among the modern conservative party. In the last election they were forced to run a 72-year-old Bewsh asskisser grouch and Sarah Palin. But then again, 57 million people voted for them.

Point Three is their message. The only reason they're getting away with spewing the Friedman economic quackery is because they, by and large, still control the airwaves. That isn't changing. America has seen this plan in action and it smells. At this point, they're relying on the Rovian strategery of "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth". As I look behind me at the CNBC, there's their favorite Kay Bailey Hutchison. The next hour it will be John Ensign or Steve Forbes or Rich Shelby. It's a parade of bullshit artists being given the keys to the idiot box kingdom.

I'd like to think that the new generation isn't as dumb or as easily led by the nose as we were. At least many of the more easily duped young'uns are so disillusioned with the modern Republican that they're becoming Libertarians, which will only help our side.

[Cyrano]

9. The fact that 57 million people voted for McCain and against Obama is terrifying

Fifty seven million is a hell of a lot of people by any standard.

Many of them are driven by greed, many are ideologues who aren't inclined to reason out their destructive beliefs, and many are just out and out bigots or morons.

But 57 million???

If ever there was a warning flag being waved in our faces, it's those 57 million people.

[Orsino]

8. They are the errand-runners for the uber-wealthy in the age-old class war.

They actively work against us.

[SpiralHawk]

10. They actively work against America

to put it plainly. As their record of hypocrisy shows, they hate democracy, freedom, and honesty.