The Economist Magazine: Republicans In Big, Big Trouble

[Hissyspit]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/9/171725/8087

The Economist: Republicans in Big, Big Trouble
by thereisnospoon
Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 04:28:12 PM PDT

After a long six and a half years of watching almost helplessly as the Republican Party loots, rapes and pillages everything from the Constitution to the middle class to non-threatening countries overseas, it's always satisfying to see rats call a spade a spade and jump off the pirate ship known as the modern GOP. But rarely has the sense of schadenfreude been more poignant to me than when reading the latest Economist article today about the woes of the Republican Party and American conservative movement in general.

The article, titled The American Right Under the Weather, is but one piece in the new overall issue covering the leftward shift of American politics in recent months. As anyone who has read the magazine knows, the editorial staff of The Economist is certainly no friend to Democrats, favoring a decidedly corporatist agenda valuing "free trade over "fair trade" and a foreign policy usually at odds with progressive values. As a result, however, they find themselves increasingly at odds with the social conservatives who have all but taken over the Republican party's activist base: in fact, they say so directly in the cover article:

- snip -

The sheer numbers are staggering. Some key statistical points from the article include:

• 40% of Republicans think that Democrats will win the next presidential election, compared with only 12% of Democrats who think the reverse
  
• Q2 money to the Democratic presidential contenders nearly doubled that given to the Republican contenders
  
• As has been frequently mentioned by Markos, the DSCC and D-Trip are vastly outraising the NRSC and NRCC
  
• 61% of Democrats are happy with our choices of candidates, while only 36% of Republicans can say the same
  
• Young voters and Hispanic voters are trending overwhelmingly Democratic
  Registered Democrats and Democratic-leaners are now 50% of the population, while registered Republicans and Republican-leaners only comprise 35%--a strong swing from an equal 43%-43% tie in 2002.

And the list goes on and on....

- snip -

Most intriguing, however, is the article's nearly ferocious rejection of the idea that GOP woes are entirely the fault of Bush, the occupation of Iraq, or the corruption of specific Republican party officials. Instead, the Economist is unafraid to lay the blame squarely where it belongs: the embrace of a hyper-conservative agenda of social moralizing, beyond-the-pale cronyism, an unhealthy dose of nativism and racism, corruption so blatant it has become institutionalized, a borrow-and-spend budgetary philosophy, and redistribution of wealth to the very rich that has appalled all but the Christianist right and some very wealthy allies...

MORE

[babylonsister]

1. Bookmarking this baby-thanks! nt

[AlCzervik]

2. i actually get The Economist--i like to think it cancels out my "Glamour" subscription.

i need to go through my copies that i had on mail hold when i was on vacation.

[TalkingDog]

8. Nice. Very Nice.

In the cosmic scheme of things I'll guarantee you are 100% correct.

[burythehatchet]

3. I read the Economist for 20 years

Its a very conservative but intelligent read. The type of conservatism one can respect and debate.

[NewJeffCT]

35. Very conservative in the UK, however

is more like middle-of-the-road here in the US.

[dickbearton]

47. Get over it, America is not conservative...

What America is: is duped. Duped by the corporate, fascist
oligarchy running this country.

[SpiralHawk]

4. "hyper-conservative" agenda? WTF ???

The magazine should avoid using republicon propaganda words to describe republicons. They are anything but conservative.

The republcion Homelanders have spent the USA into deep debt with the Godless Red Commie Chinese so they could line their own republcion pockets, and they have eaten the seed corn. Likewise, they have trashed the environment like the true radicals they are, so that the planet is close to mass extiction.

Republicon Homelanders are diaper-wearing closet freak radical ripoff artists, and not "hyper conservatives."

[peacetalksforall]

9. They are the BIGspenders.

Mega-spenders. Mega-juveniles. Mega-reckless. Visionless. Specialties include hate, fear, revenge. Utterly gullible. An insult to elephants.

[tex-wyo-dem]

13. I think the article was using "hyper-conservative"

In the context of "social moralizing," which is an apt description of the effect the radical Christan right has had on the rethug party. They sold their soal to get the votes from this block and now we are all paying for it.

The rest if your post is spot on, however :thumbsup: the modern republicon party is anything but fiscally conservative.

[SpiralHawk]

15. The so-called Christian Right - is a cabal of diaper-wearing closet cases

They can go preach their peculiar, twisted brand of "republicon family values" to themselves.

[Jacobin]

22. Very true. They are Extreme Right Wing...NOT conservative

[dickbearton]

46. Jacobin you are right, they are not conservative...

They are reactionary. If by extreme right wing, you mean
neofascism, you are quite right. Right wing (so called)
Christians would be better described as Fascio-Christians.

[libodem]

53. I just like

your kind of thinking..."eaten the seed corn" indeed. You put it well.

[JNelson6563]

5. Wow!

K&R! :toast:

[salin]

6. k & r

[jazzjunkysue]

7. The essence is always "Who drives down to vote." These #'s say:

Next time, most of the GOP base will stay home. And that's what matters.

1. Alot of the past GOP support was people who want to vote for the winner. So, if it's a choice between voting for a black-loving librul, voting and losing, or staying home, it's a no-brainer. They'll stay home.

2. The money's not coming in: They don't have it anymore.

3. They don't feel like supporting their candidates.

4. People have slipped left. Period.

This is ours to lose.

[Hissyspit]

10. .

[struggle4progress]

11. 2008 is ours to lose! Unfortunately, we Democrats might be up to that challenge.

Frankly, I am getting somewhat bored with our habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

[BearSquirrel2]

50. So was 2004 and 2000

The way was clear for both John Kerry and Al Gore. Through a combination of Republican shenanigans, media complicity and poor communication by our own candidates the Democrats lost.

2008 is NOT in the bag for Democrats. This is especially so if Hillary is the nominee.

[Stardust]

52. Gotta admit, sadly, you made me chuckle there.

[proud patriot]

12. just got to love the headline

:)

[Joanne98]

14. Murdoch is trying to buy the FT.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. I don't think so - there was an article saying he's trying to take their market share

in The Guardian, posted here; but there's nothing about him trying to buy the paper. He might run up against monopoly rules, both in the newspaper arena, and book publishing (Pearson, the parent company, owns Penguin).

[progressoid]

16. Oooh, that might be a good one to send to the RW relatives!!

:evilgrin:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. The Climate For Republicans Wasn't Much Better In 1976

And they came within 30,000 votes in Hawaii and Ohio from winning the White House...

[karynnj]

18. and that was when we had a pretty decent media

with far more independent voices. and we had Walter Cronkite.

[nxylas]

27. And free and fair elections

Back when Diebold was a brand name (if it even existed) rather than a verb.

[RedEarth]

19. Here are some interesting graphs from the article..........

[Demeter]

20. Better Late Than Never, I Suppose. Truth in Journalism, What a Concept!

Did they by any chance take on some of the blame for supporting these fascists in the first place?


I didn't think so.


Oh, and how about that stunning use of euphemism? "Intellectually inventive" sounds like "better at distorting the truth, spin and outright lying" to me!

[marions ghost]

21. Look how demoralized Dems are....

Only 12% think we can win in 08, when the Bushbutts have utterly failed the country?

I wonder if that reflects the widespread belief in stolen elections now....

[myrna minx]

23. I read that differently.

I read the figure to be that 12% of Dems believe that a Republican will win. :shrug: While I know that we've been demoralized for so long now, most of the people I know believe that we *will* have a Dem president in '08.

[marions ghost]

25. It's confusing if you read quickly... but I do see what you mean

The quote is:

"40% of Republicans think that Democrats will win the next presidential election, compared with only 12% of Democrats who think the reverse."

--They should spell it out == ie, "...compared with only 12% of Democrats who think the Republicans will win."

thanx myrna

[Patriot Abroad]

26. It's been amusing over the years . . .

to see the Economist try hard to like Bush just because he's a Republican. Delightful to see that they've given up.

[zehnkatzen]

28. Great insights...

...which I agree with.

The problem isn't an inept, morally and ethically bankrupt leadership–that leadership got there because of a morally corrupt political party that worships the rich and values style over substance.

Really, I don't at all get how anyone with any amount of working gray matter willingly supports the Republicans–with no sense of irony or shame.

[glitch]

29. The ones I know remain willfully ignorant because they believe repukes will protect them

they're operating entirely in fear, their reptilian brain's are making all their decisions. Some of them are coming out of it now though so I am worrying about the repukes offering up another dose of terror to bring them back into line.

[Clark2008]

30. Interesting article, but I don't buy some of it.

First, I think it will be a particularly close presidential race and, dependent upon the personalities chosen, has a better chance to go Republican. (It's sad it comes down to personalities instead of policies, but it will - as it has since JFK debated Nixon).

Secondly, 61 percent of Dems are happy with their choices? Really? Most Dems I know think they're "OK," but no one really makes them pop their buttons with pride.

In any case, the points it makes about the Republicans are accurate.

[JDPriestly]

42. Democrats have not been really happy with their choice since I was began voting.

Some even disliked JFK. Actually, Johnson had more support than most, but he lost the country over Viet Nam -- deservedly. Carter was pretty popular, and people were proud of him, but Iran did him in.

[creeksneakers2]

31. Wingerism failed

The central tenet of wingerism used to be that tax cuts would stimulate the economy so much that benefits would trickle down to the lower classes. That never happened. Wingerism failed.

I never hear a Republican mention supply side economics or trickle down anymore. The press gave no eulogies. Its like the whole idea never happened.

OTHER POINTS OF WINGERISM THAT FAILED

(1) We don't have to do anything about energy. The market will take care of it.

(2)We don't need government involvement in the health care system.

(3)A big military will prevent our nation from being attacked.

(4) Big stick diplomacy succeeds

(5) Preachy political leaders will improve the nation's morality. Preachy political leaders are vice free.

[Alcibiades]

41. They don't mention "supply side" "economics"

because it's become such a part of their "thinking" that they take it as a given. For example, when President Bush was asked yesterday whether the US Congress should consider raising taxes to repair infrastructure in light of the Minnesota bridge collapse, he said something along the lines that tax increases would hurt economic growth, as though this were always a given.

You're absolutely right about the failure of the Rupublicons to govern. Democrats have been pragmatic to a fault when in government. For Republicons, ideology trumps all, even reality. We're seeing the castles in the sky fall now.

[redqueen]

oops... double post

:hi:

[redqueen]

32. That is encouraging...

I have to hope this crop of young Dem voters is willing to take chances and support candidates who will push for the most significant change, and end this nibbling around the edges nonsense.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. Good article.

[BonnieJW]

34. I find this concerning:

"And the conservative movement is at its most deadly as an insurgency. The movement was born during the 1964 Goldwater campaign as a revolt against the liberal establishment. It enjoyed its glory days when it was battling Hillarycare and trying to impeach Bill Clinton. A Clinton presidential nomination would undoubtedly reunite and re-energise the movement."

Repubs want nothing more than a Clinton nomination which will get every repug to the polls to vote AGAINST her.

[thereismore]

36. Music to my ears. nt

[ramapo]

37. Take no comfort

The election is a very long way off. Republicans have shown the amazing ability to convince voters to elect the most incompetent candidates imaginable. Don't kid yourself that it can't happen again.

[ProudDad]

40. The difference is

that the corporate capitalist masters have chosen to spend their money on the B-Team...

Just as they abandoned G.H.W.Bush back in '91-'92, they've abandoned the christianist, free spending Greedy Old Pricks in '07-'08


I hope the Dems dont' f*ck it up again...but I'm not too hopeful...

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely...

[DFW]

38. As long as they own the executive branch and have over 40 Senators:

Then the USA is still in big big trouble. There is still plenty of damage left to be done, we have no business gloating.

As for the ABH crowd, I wouldn't use this as a reason to think
that the right wing will be energized by a HRC nomination. Indeed,
the Democratic candidate closest to a conservative position is
none other than HRC. The arguments against her on this board are
almost contradictory. Column A says she is too right wing, so we
can't nominate her. Column B says the right wing will unite against
her, so we can't nominate her. Instead of using up the gray matter
to think of why we shouldn't nominate her, if someone feels strongly
enough about the subject, why not utilize some energy to say why you
DO like someone else.

I have some Europeans that work under me, and my biggest beef with
some of them is that whenever we are confronted with a difficult
misson, they always come up with reasons why it WON'T work. This drives
me bats. It's always easy to tell my why something WON'T work. I want
to work with people who are willing to figure out how it WILL work.

It really gets old to always hear over and over again why we should NOT
nominate Hillary, even if I agree with some of it. Tell me why we should
be for your preference. Especially as an undecided, I find these posts far
more interesting. If I want a steady stream of negative stuff, there are
pleanty of sites that offer it.

[JDPriestly]

44. You are talking about the reality of Hillary.

It's the commonly accepted myths that count. The myth is that Hillary is an extremely liberal person.

[ramapo]

45. Hillary has been bought and paid

As a recent poster pointed out, the big money has gone to the "B" team, especially to Hillary.

Not good news. You can hear the result already in her new approach to healthcare.

She might have a good chance to win because it looks like much of the money is going her way. I think she'd be Bush Lite.

[JDPriestly]

51. How right you are. That is why I am for Edwards.

Hillary wants to retain residual troops in Iraq. Enough said.

[ProudDad]

39. Warning at the end

"In the end, though, The Economist makes the excellent point that Democrats have yet to convince the American public that we are anything more than the lesser of two evils. Certainly, failing to stand up for progressive values such as we saw recently the with FISA capitulation won't do much to help that. Further, Republicans have always been more at home and more comfortable as a minority party than they have been in the position of actual governance. Like the moral and intellectual children they are, it's far easier to complain and snipe at those attempting to actually govern, than to attempt to put a failing ideology in place that gets the job done. Still, I would rather be in our shoes than in theirs. As the article correctly points out:

But even when you enter all the qualifications the right's situation is dire. It is a sign of weakness that the conservatives are retreating to their old posture as insurgents, and need a bogeywoman like Mrs Clinton to hold them together.

The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose."


Even the Economist realized that the Democrats MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT of Progressive Values -- they do so at their peril!!

[dragon82a]

43. Hunting Illegal Immigrants Fun New Game For College Republicans

Hunting Illegal Immigrants Fun New Game For College Republicans

New York, New York - At New York University enterprising Young Republicans are whiling away their college years playing "Find the Illegal Immigrant." According to the rules of the game, students are divided into the hunters and the hunted, with those students posing as illegal immigrants sporting an identification tag (It is unknown if the tag is a six-pointed yellow star, an identification used previously in other historical "find the undesirable" games). The first student playing the part of an all-American border enforcement agent who "captures" a tagged "illegal" wins a prize.

The game is primarily played indoors in comfortable, temperature-controlled conditions, as opposed to under the blazing sun in an arid desert where real border crossings occur. Much like grownup Republican hunting parties, such as those favored by Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, which take place at controlled game farms where large numbers of domestic quail are released at the same time in the right direction allowing for maximum kill with minimal effort, discomfort or disappointment, those wacky what-will-they-think-of-next Republican kids playing the "hunt the human" are guaranteed good, clean fun without having to work too hard or sacrifice their creature comforts.

It is unknown at this time if all the "illegal immigrants" are Republican college students or if adult menial labor on campus is paid under the table to ensure a steadily supply for this unglamorous role.

The prize for the first "agent" to capture an "illegal" was not specified in reports from campus, however it can be stated with assurance that the prize is not a trip to a combat zone where real "hunting" happens and real people get wounded, suffer, die, or in any way have their "other priorities" affected.

[nick303]

48. I'd like to point out that the Economist supported Kerry over Bush in 2004

I'm kind of sick of how they are being mischaracterized. I wouldn't exactly call them "progressive" but they give a pretty fair depiction of most issues and are pretty liberal on social issues.

[BearSquirrel2]

49. "borrow and spend" is an unfair description ...

It's borrow and SQUANDER!!!!

Democrats by contrast are Tax and INVEST.

[libodem]

54. This has been one interesting read

and the subthreads are educational too. My brain is full.