K-Drum:
You are so right. If Dems in Washington grew a spine, they'd be unstoppable as Jordan in his prime.

That can't happen, because the real party in power in DC is the Party of the Fortune 500.

Neither republicans nor democrats represent the will of the American people. How can they? Our elected representatives are no longer one of us...they are capitalist elites who inherit not only fortunes but political dynasties. Who has a better chance of being president in 30 years - Chelsea Clinton or Senator Tester?

Remember why the right to bear arms was enshrined. It wasn't so criminals would fear us. It was so the government would fear us.

Yeah, I can't see Dems pulling off a big win with the way they're playing politics now. Indeed, I see things as ripe for a spoiler, another Nader moment basically. And, what's worse, is that they deserve it.

I was never quite able to figure out why, but Republicans managed to make it look like all these groups were somehow related by a set of core conservative principles...

Good question but the answer is...Reagan. The 1980 Red Ink Ronnie campaign stichted all of the religio-whacko/abortion-crazie/fag-hatin'/gun-nut/supply side/etc constituencies together effectively because of their money/organizational advantages and caught a ride on it. It just ran out of steam.

Up till 1980, I had been a reliable republican voter but the entire party sold its soul in that election.

Why wouldn't the dynamic work the other way. Offhand, it seems like a winning coalition would be more susceptible to these pressures. If you were losing, there might be more pressure to hold fire until you're actually victorious.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with this. It just seems like we should be seeing the reverse. Maybe there's something about power that keeps people in line -- i.e., tom delay kept control while he had the purse strings. but when power goes, there's an internal fight for who gets to control the table scraps

The political demise of Tom Delay-ism is what we are witnessing. The corruption and opportunism and bare knuckeled politics kept that party together. Without Delay, and without his system, the GOP collapses. That's what's going on.

Republicans are a bunch of wealthy, white guys talking about the issues that wealthy white guys talk about. Democrats -- until this year if you exclude Jesse Jackson in '88 -- are a bunch of wealthy white guys who aren't talking about the things wealthy white guys talk about. So the media -- largely a bunch of wealthy white guys -- assume the Dems are pandering, because they themselves don't give a shit about, say,healthcare, and can't imagine anyone who doesn't have a healthcare issue would care about it, either. You can go right down the Dem checklist and you'll see it's the same on virtually every issue. I think it's changing now, in part, because of the candidates involved -- it's hard to say Hillary is faking it about women's issues and still be taken seriously, for example -- but also because of the foreign policy and religious overtones to this year's election on the Republican side. I doubt anyone in the media believes the Republicans (Ghouliani excepted) are as insane on foreign policy as they are pretending to be, so their pandering is more obvious than it has been in the past.

One sidenote is that, as the magnitude of the healthcare problem becomes more manifest -- as it clearly comes to affect even wealthy white guys -- it becomes more possible for Dems to talk about it without looking like they are trying to buy votes.

Republicans interest groups are united by their dislike of government.

Democratic interest groups are divided by their first priorities.

There's another contributing factor in Democratic behavior, I think, and it's desperation. The postwar boom was running out of steam by the '70s and there was a general sense among a lot of folks in the Democratic coalition that they were fighting over pieces of a shrinking pie. But thirty years on, and we've all seen catastrophes that few of us really imagined would hit America, and had them pile up and up and up. There's an elite faction that doesn't take the situation seriously because it doesn't have to, but out in the party at large, I think that a lot of activists and campaigners are thinking, "We are all in this now in a way we weren't back when."

For some reason, though, Republicans never shared this reputation, despite the fact that they had plenty of special interest checkboxes of their own:

Because Americans support the conservative position and oppose the liberal position. The conservative position is not a special interest because it has the support of the American people.

tax cutting groups,

Americans are small government fisal conservatives who support cutting taxes.

the NRA,

Americans support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

pro-life groups,

Americans are pro-family who support the right to life of the unborn.

evangelicals,

Americans are value voters and people of faith who support traditional American family values.

the chamber of commerce

Americans believe in capitalism and are opposed to communism, Marxism, and socialized medicine. Better dead than red.

Crickets. I hear sad, lonely crickets.

A faint buzzing sound which was once a mighty Noise Machine. They should have maintained their infrastructure.

Al.

I am an American.

And I support the position that your are a fucking idiot. A greedy selfish child spoiled ignorant infant. Squalling because your political party can't suck on the public teat anymore.

If your gonna cut taxes, try spending less. That way we don't have pay interest to foreign nationals. Also, if you must cut taxes, try cutting the taxes of those who need it most. That stimulates spending by the masses which increases the economy. It goes without saying that there are far more middle/lower class then upper crust.

If your gonna own guns, which I have no problems with, try not giving them to 12 year olds. Also try not shipping them to foreign countries and handing them out to radical extremists.

For abortion, instead of making it illegal, try not opposing contraception. Also, try fixing the adoption system, and taking away the social stigma of giving a child up for adoption. Also, remember that abortion will kill 1% of what global warming will kill over the next 100 years. So keep a sense of proportion.

For evangelicals, please remember that America was created with the freedom of religion. Our forefathers specifically stated a desire for a separation of church and state, and we should adhere to that. Also, please stop adherents of your party from stating first amendment rights and opposing your party should 'leave the country'.

Americans do support capitalism it's true. We do not, however, support mass wage slavery of the poorest classes. The fruits of our great society do not belong only to the great Magnates of wealth and status. It is not they who did the swinging of the hammer or the reaping of the scythe. Also please have your members read and understand about communism and marxism and why it's failed so far. Except for china... who we borrow money from. Also please provide a link to empirical non-anecdotal evidence that 'socialized medicine' fails.

After doing those things, please, shut your piehole. Thank you.

I think it was easier for them to look more united because they're all basically white married middle-age-or-older Christians.

The Democrats must understand the decisiveness on a policy is more important than the policy itself. If the Democrats are decisive about wiretapping, and don't cave in, they'll actually look stronger than if they do cave in.

And if politicians or pundits tell them that they should vote to sacrifice freedom for security, all they need say is three words: freedom is security.

I think the reason the Republicans have to pander far more obviously in today's environment is not so much that its constituencies are demanding more attention, but that the usual Republican appeals have virtually no pull, and Republicans need something to motivate their base. Years past, a little patch of warmongering would organize many of their many constituencies into an enthusiastic march. A promise to smite gays with a cunningly devised piece legislation would bring the rest into the fold. Now, in the face of the Republican collapse in political credibility, these broad ploys do little or nothing. Very targeted pandering is all Republicans have left.

In general, the Republican field of candidates looks so weak not so much because of personalities, but because Republicans have no basic themes that work for them anymore. If Bush were first running in this election, do you imagine that he would not seem as utterly lame, even the sorriest of the sorry bunch? And yet in 2000 he seemed quite formidable.

There won't be a Republican candidate who can manage to project strength and confidence again until the Republican Party can come up with a political angle that has broad appeal. God only knows if and when that will happen.

Kevin, for years the media--recognizing who's boss--have been pandering to the fortunate (and, by effortless extension, those who think they are fortunate and those who believe that one day they may be fortunate). So they've had a hard time recognizing the same pandering by Republican candidates. While profiting from sycophancy--implicitly and explicitly pushing the story that the rich are our most important citizens--both the media and the Republicans have thoroughly discredited themselves with the majority of citizens of the United States and the World.

Now, as we roll through the exploding, smoldering, pillaged wasteland created by pandering to Republican interests, it is finally becoming difficult to deny what has been obvious since the first Bush "campaigned" for the presidency: the Republicans appeal to a minority, while the Democrats appeal to the majority. The Republican game has been to ensure that the majority is underfunded, undereducated, confused, fragmented, and confounded enough that its votes can be prevented or ignored. Without undemocratic advantages ($$$), the Republicans couldn't have grasped or held power.

Their minority is shrinking, and the media are having difficulty "covering" the Republican candidates' nakedness and emptiness.

But, son of a gun, the rich are still getting richer.

Republicans are cryptofascists.

Democrats are a waste of your vote.

"this year, for the first time, the interest group pandering is looking a lot more obvious on the Republican side and a lot less obvious on the Democratic side."

It looks that way because the Dems are pandering to Republican interest groups.

bipartisan hack at 8:28: While I disagree that firmness is more important than the policy itself (this is one of the places where your party lost its moral center), the rest of it is right on. This may be the first time I've ever agreed with you, brian.

Boolaboola at 9:00: Excellent post.

The lowest common denominator of Republican Party politics, especially at the Presidential level, requires that a Republican candidate appear as a strong leader who will stand up to liberals and the media. In a pinch, emphasizing the second of these conditions can sometimes be used to compensate for deficiencies in the first.

This LCD has historically allowed Republican Presidents considerable flexibility where policy is concerned. Plenty of conservative commetators griped about Nixon going to China, Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev and approving huge corporate tax increases in the 1986 tax reform bill, but hard-core rank and file Republicans never doubted either man's credentials as a conservative.

One of the contributions -- if that is the word -- of the Bush family and especially of the current President to the Republican Party is to make it more like the Democrats. The GOP today is more reliant on organized interest groups with specific agendas than it has been in modern times, and the Bush family has encouraged this for the same reason succesive Democratic Presidential candidates did in their party. By making sure to go farther to meet the concerns of organized interests than other prominent Republicans were willing to go, the Bush family sought to ensure its dominance of the Republican Party.

It isn't a matter of winning general elections - as many Democratic candidates have demonstrated, lining up all "the groups" behind you (or the other way around) doesn't get you first past the post, and may not even get you close. The four Bush elections -- two wins (in 1988 and 2004) against very weak Democratic candidates, one crushing loss (in 1992) and one popular vote loss that became a win because of a quirk in the electoral college (2000) -- show the same thing. But though neither President Bush or his father sustained popularity among the general electorate as well as Reagan or even Nixon (pre-Watergate) did, the GOP today belongs more completely to President Bush and his political machine than it ever did to Nixon or Reagan.

Republicans play by Bush rules now, which means a sharp increase in the amount of the interest-group pandering traditionally associated with Democrats. The old GOP lowest common denominator still applies -- it's the thing that best explains Giuliani's appeal among socially conservative Republicans. No one conveys hostility to liberals like Giuliani. But it isn't the exclusive gold standard it used to be, and this could give the next Democratic President a significant opportunity to use Republicans' dependency on their own "groups" to define the GOP as Reagan was able to define the Democrats two decades ago.

For some reason, though, Republicans never shared this reputation, despite the fact that they had plenty of special interest checkboxes of their own: tax cutting groups, the NRA, pro-life groups, evangelicals, the chamber of commerce, etc. etc. I was never quite able to figure out why...

It's because "special interests" is code for racial minorities. And like Random Dude said above, Republicans tend not to think of themselves as part of a distinct group because they tend to come from what they see as the American norm. It's those who differ from that norm in some way who are "special."

This leads to illogical situations such as women, who are the majority of Americans and an even greater majority of voters, being labeled as a "special interest." Compare the number of stories referring to the Democrats' problem with men to the number referring to the Republicans' problem with women. The upshot of all these stories is that Democrats are too dependent on special interests; i.e. anyone who isn't a white male heterosexual "Christian."

When responding to Al, realize that he's a comic troll. A ventriloquist act. He's mouthing the imagined wacko responses of the ur-Al who has moved on to pester people at the Mathew Yglesias blog.

(Why someone would want to pretend to be a troll is between "Al" and his shrink. Or his muse.)

The game should have been up when Drum "Al" and Yglesias "Al" took opposed positions on the same day awhile back, forcing the Yglesias "Al" to distance himself from the Drum "Al". I only mention this because apparently some people still get overwrought about Drum "Al's" nonsense. Relax. It's supposed to be nonsense.

With Dems looking like big winners,

Let's see. SCHIP veto fiasco, cave on FISA, cave on Iraq...
With "winners" like this, I'd hate to see the Dems as losers.

The Democratic Party can and will use the SCHIP veto in the 2008 campaign, so that's not a total loss. Moreover, in that one, the Democrats were pretty overwhelmingly united. Agree on the rest, though.

Of course there is truth to the idea that a major US political party is a collective. Image for a second that we had a system like the UK. We would have multiple parties that would have different key focus and yet would bond together as a colition to form a government. Just becuase we call our's "two party" system, the same dynamic is at play.

The Democratic Party can and will use the SCHIP veto in the 2008 campaign, so that's not a total loss.

Except that the Dems are busily drafting compromise lege in order to give GWB and the GOP the win.

The Democratic Party can and will use the SCHIP veto in the 2008 campaign, so that's not a total loss.

You're damning them with faint praise, PaulB. It's pretty damn close. They looked like rank amateurs on that one.

Except that the Dems are busily drafting compromise lege in order to give GWB and the GOP the win.

Exactly. Nothing says you're in the majority quite like compromising further on the compromises you've already made.

This is actually a function (THE function) of our Two-Party system. A parlimentary system which allows more than two parties to thrive (because parties must build a majority coalition), does not encourage lobbyists to heap large sums of cash on one or the other of the two parties.

This is actually a function (THE function) of our Two-Party system. A parlimentary system which allows more than two parties to thrive (because parties must build a majority coalition), does not encourage lobbyists to heap large sums of cash on one or the other of the two parties.

The need to build a majority coalition is a product of a multiparty system as opposed to a two-party system with minor parties at the margins, not the source of such a multiparty system. The source of a such a system is generally an electoral system that doesn't force people to compromise on a major party choice at the election to avoid wasting their vote, and which allows minor party candidates to actually be elected. Usually, this involves either pure or mixed party list elections, though you could do it with candidate-centered elections in multimember districts with STV or a simular system.

agree with cmdicely, unfortunately I suspect our current political arrangement is a "sacred cow" and won't be changed.

Personally my observations have been that the degree of correlation among those disparit R interest issues is astonishing. Seems most of them agree about most of the issues. At least from the viewpoint of someone who was an independent it has always been astounding, and depressing how many people buy into the collection of interests (pretty much the whole basket) of one party or the other.

The Evolution of the Republican Presidential Contenders
.
"When the Truth came knocking"

The moderator says to the assembled Republican Presidential contenders, "This is an open question for the candidates."

Evolution theory holds that man is a direct genetic descendant of hairy, arm swinging, tree climbing African apes who apparently survived despite having only crude rudimentary mental processing skills. The scientific process of carbon dating confirms the dates for such evolution and shows that man in this sense predates the Bible's time line by hundreds of thousands of years at a bare minimum. What is your opinion on the validity of carbon dating?

Romney: People will say there was a time that I embraced carbon dating but in my maturing process I have opened my eyes to how destructive liberal ideation can be to man's ascent. Junk science should not be employed to accelerate the decline of our moral virtues.

McCain: I am a firm believer that the age of the earth is a matter of state's rights.

Thompson: The media's obsession with my wife's youth has reached a new low. They're saying that she is in effect 'carbon dating' which I find offensive.

Brownie and Huckee (in unison): "Attacks on religious values are a staple of our opposition. Brothers and sisters, let us pray for God's hand to smite the ballot boxes of the heathen."

Giuliani: "Believing in evolution is weakness in the face of the enemy. It allows terrorist scum and their nine eleven democratic party appeasers amongst us to encircle our homes and maim our children. Science in pursuit of planetary wide war is to be exalted but to use it to appease Islamofascist aggression is treason. As I've previously said, nine or eleven times, I will only appoint judges that know the ramifications of using science in pursuit of weak kneed terrorist lovers.
Craig Johnson