Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

"Theres Hope for Republicans Yet" ----- by Robert Scheer (Good Read)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-12 01:37 PM
Original message
Theres Hope for Republicans Yet
by Robert Scheer

What has changed in American politics is that the growing army of disenfranchised stakeholders now fit as comfortably within what has been thought of as the plutocratic Republican Party as within its faux-populist rival. In an attempt to exploit the palpable populist anger in the Republican base, Romneys opponents, as The Wall Street Journal reported, opened a Pandoras box of bitter attacks claiming in his business career he was a corporate predator, a heartless shredder of companies and jobs and the personification of all that is wrong with capitalism. ...

It is a line of attack that has worked because, as the Journals Gerald F. Seib points out, Todays Republican Party has become steadily more blue-collar, more populist and more influenced by voters who act as much like independents as Republicans. All of that makes the idea of attacks on capitalist behavior arising from the traditional party of capitalists a little less bizarre.

The stats to back up that assertion are compelling; according to exit polls, 75 percent of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire had family incomes of below $100,000, and almost half did not have a college degree. It was from their ranks and among the nearly half of voters who identified as independents that Paul and third-place finisher Jon Huntsman pulled much of their support.

National polls support the notion of a more populist Republican base, and as the combined results of WSJ/NBC News polls over the last year show, blue-collar voters were slightly more likely to identify as Republicans than Democrats. Most startling was the finding from those same national polls when respondents were asked which party was responsible for the economic crisis: Republicans were precisely as likely as Democrats to blame Wall Street bankers.

But as the presidential election is now shaping up, voters will not be given a choice to rebuke Wall Street by either major party. Expect razor-thin differences between Romney and Obama on the key issues at the heart of our economic crisisthe ravages of predatory multinational corporate capitalism that turns the nation state into a vehicle for ill-gotten gain, mocking both Adam Smiths claims for the invisible hand in a truly free market and the assumptions of Jeffersonian democracy in which governance is in the hands of the common folk who are also stakeholders.


This whole article is an excellent read....He makes much sense of what we are dealing with...
Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-12 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. If both Republicans and Democrats who are polled blame Wall Street bankers for their problems, we
Edited on Fri Jan-13-12 03:05 PM by No Elephants
can expect a lot of bs during the campaigns about Wall Street.

Whether anything will actually be done after the campaigns end is another story entirely.

My advice: Be leery--and keep both your hands on your wallet.

However, as I posted in GD a day or so ago, I am encouraged that we are hearing Republicans criticizing Republicans who have been very successful in business for being too greedy for America's own good.

Hearing them suggest that maybe making 90 million and leaving some Americans with jobs is morally superior to making 180 million destroying American lives and the American economy.

I can't recall ever hearing that before from Republicans.

I'm sure that OWS had nothing at all to do with any of the above, only with ruining lawns. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-12 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. Had she waited a few more months to announce she was running Bachmann might be leading now
But I guess she felt she had to cut off Palin

As much as I shudder to think about her getting the nomination -- she should have waited
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 21st 2017, 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC