I actually don't look for the real introspection to begin until after 2010. Right now I think the GOP sincerely believes they will gain back some seats at that time. If they don't succeed I'd say we can pop the popcorn and sit back for the show. In the meantime the right wing will continue to control the party, for the most part. They have the "tools" to do it...the think tanks, the radio talk shows, the magazines, the people in the House and the Senate (the moderates are pretty much gone) and Fox News.

Good for Grover and his ilk!

Ariana Huffington spoke about a "Marshall Plan" for the Republican Party last week on Olberman. I strongly disagree. I think it's time for the Republican Party to join the Whigs, American Nazi Party, and other detritus in the dumpster of history.

The Republican Party has not only positioned itself too far to the right, it's moved the Democratic Party to the right of where the Republicans were in the 1960s. Sure, America needs more than one viable political party - but it's not the Republicans. They're never coming back.

America needs a left-wing party. Something like the Greens, but without the battling egos; something like the Progressives, but without the racial bigotry. It doesn't look as if the Democrats will ever move left; indeed, the left wing media (i.e., Democracy Now) has already written off President Obama's administration as something to be opposed and protested. (Just as they all hated Clinton, for that matter.)

Who's for a leftist Party? Seriously - it's time for a change.

Two points.

1) If liberals could stand to call themselves 'moderates', conservatives would never hold power again in the United States. Meaning, can liberals give up their own ideological chest-thumping in preference for actual governance?

2) This is the second mention of the word 'cheerful' by a despicable, anti-American right-wing psycho. (Bill Kristoll was the first.) Is Frank Luntz back in vogue?

1. Why the hell are we talking about 2010 and 2012? The entire media didn't chatter about 2002 and 2004 10 minutes after Bush "won", did they?

2. If the country "rejected" the moderate view, in favor of far right conservatism, then some nutball like Tom Tancredo, or Newt Gingrich, or maybe even Ron Paul, would be working with his transition team right now. The fact that these men are all deeply unpopular with most Americans says it all. But the Norquist wing doesn't get it, and won't get it, for a very long time. That is why it is called "time in the wilderness". That is why the Democrats struggled so much after 1968. Because it takes a long time for these people to realize the world has changed.

This definition of "cheerful" must be related to the Bronx cheer.

Those who popped popcorn... are probably disappointed.

Oh, I don't know. The Govs pick an all Southern-white-male leadership. The Sen. caucus is going to vote on kicking Stevens out, while fighting to save Norm Coleman, who has precisely the same scandals swirling (accepting gifts). Palin is getting more airtime than Colbert, but mostly gets the same viewers. Arnold Schwartzeneger is talking up the Obama platform, while signifiant mouthpeices have jumped ship. There's plenty of conflict, and it will get nasty.

To this, I can only say: YES!!!

You listen to Grover and Rush and Hannity, Republicans. They will lead you to the Promised Land.

The only way to start winning national elections again is to become even more right wing. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

In fact, Republicans, you know what you should do?

You should go all the way with the anti-abortion message. You know what I'm talking about. All. The. Way.

No more of this namby-pamby, moderate nonsense about how women are victimized by abortion, and so there's no need to punish them for having one. You need to adopt a no-tolerance posture. You should add a plank to the GOP platform that calls for women who have abortions to be arrested, tried, and executed as murderers. After all, of abortion is murder, then you want to send the strongest message possible that it won't be tolerated, don't you?

All the way, Republicans.

You'll have the Democrats and their silly little governing majority right where you want them.

As Grover holds no position in the Rethug party, I would imagine that they can tell him to fuck-off if they really wanted to.

On the other hand, Go! Grover, go! Keep shilling for hard right values that represent only about 20% of America and 0% of those people who weren't dropped on their heads when young.

Time to get everyone to write the Republican leaders a few emails begging them to keep the faith. Don't give in to the liberal heresy! Extremism in the pursuit of freedom is no vice!

etc etc

A few thousand attaboys to the right people will guarantee they think that they're on the right track, as they head further out into the wilderness.

The far right wing of the GOP will not go quietly into the night. No more than the far Left wing of the Democratic party would.

The war is on now. Sides are being drawn, troops readied for battle and the battlefield drawn. The bloodshed is going to be great. Sit back and watch.

Remember, this is not about ideas or making the US a better country. It is about MONEY, POWER and INFLUENCE. Money being the first. Norquist and his ilk use the no tax montra to line thier pockets. If Norquist is so against taxes than why is he living in Massachussets? A "liberal" state with "high" taxes. Hell he could easily live out west with "low" taxes. Of course that would mean giving up the perks that come with "high" taxes. Good roads, infastructure. Better health care, etc. etc.

Grover Norquist ... scoffed at calls for the Republicans to move left, which he said had followed Republican defeats in 1964, 1976 and 1992.

Yes, because unsubstantiated historical analogies suffice for anyone still stupid enough to be a conservative.

Nice.
.

1) If liberals could stand to call themselves 'moderates', conservatives would never hold power again in the United States. Meaning, can liberals give up their own ideological chest-thumping in preference for actual governance? Posted by: The Phantom

I don't know of a single Dem in either house, other than Kucinich, who calls himself a liberal. In fact, they've spent the last 10 years running away from that term.

I guess you've been a member of a different party than I have for the last 30 years.

People have voted along the lines of social wedge issues for too long now. It's become apparent to people that this has been a way to convince them to support a party that works against their financial self-interests.

This works only as long as the people at the bottom and middle are doing okay, even if the very rich are doing comparatively much better. In other words, they'll buy trickle-down economics as long as some of it trickles down to them.

The problem for Republicans is now everyone under the super-rich is hurting. One of the foundations of Obama's victory was the relentless focus on the tax cuts for the middle class. No matter how the Republicans tried to counter-spin it, it sounded like a mighty fine idea to a lot of people.

The Republicans don't have to go left, right or center. They have to devise policies - as Obama did - that will offer benefit and increased income to the largest cross-section of people possible.

Americans aren't buying social issues or ideologically-driven political/economic theory. Their pockets are too empty to listen to purist rhetoric.

The Onion in its satirical way, was right on the money when it had that article saying how bad things had to get before someone like Obama could get elected.
The more people are hurting in the pocketbook, the less they care about social issues. And they aren't likely to forget this crisis and who was in charge as it happened--Democrats will be able to point to this in future elections as a warning to anyone who might be thinking of voting for another conservative like Bush--or, um, Bush in drag.

I think the question of whether the nation will shift left, finally, after three miserable decades, depends on the success of the Obama administration. The first test comes in 2010. If the economy has improved by that time, if some of Obama's agenda is up and running, there's a chance that we'll finally dig ourselves out of this right wing madness.

But if things go badly, if health insurance becomes the mess it became under the Clintons, if Afghanistan becomes Obama's version of LBJ's Vietnam, and Bush's Iraq, if the economic situation is worse than today, well then, it ain't gonna look too pretty.

And you can bet the right wingers know this. How hard will they work to sabotage Obama's presidency? Pretty damn hard, you betcha. We mustn't forget the Clinton years.

What does Mr. Norquist care about social conservatism or global warming (in principle)? I thought he was strictly a Club for Growth nutter.

It's been already stated by some of the more honest/stupid members of the GOP that the plan is to be relentess in their obstruction of any progress in Congress, then complain that Obama lied to you, he's incompetent, he can't get s*** done, only a Republican Congress can get s*** done, even if it is s*** you don't want. Essentially, try to hold this nation hostage to their increasingly unpopular worldview.

So why would they change? Their new master plan hasn't had a chance to work/fail yet. But if it starts to fail early enough in 2009, look for a new era of bipartisanship to truly begin.

Led by the Republicans. naturally.

Jeff II:

Sorry for not being clear. I didn't mean Democrats in Congress, or even politicians. I meant liberal voters, activists, bloggers, blowhards, etc. The whole of the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

If those people were smart enough to simply go about their business without swearing anyone to some ideological oath or forcing purity tests on red-state Dems, then the Democratic party would be calling the shots for the next fifty years.

The best part is, no matter which way the right goes, they'll be fighting it out long past the transition. In the meantime, President-Elect Obama will have had almost a year to craft the narrative. If he does it right, for the next generation, the battles will be fought on our terms. And given his performance in the campaign, I have no reason to doubt Obama will do it right.

Personally, I'm wondering the same thing as Joshua: Why the hell is everybody talking about this? The mere fact that "Whither the Republican Majority" is still getting news coverage shows how acclimated we are to letting them dominate everything. I don't think we can kiss them off quite yet.

Sorry for not being clear. I didn't mean Democrats in Congress, or even politicians. I meant liberal voters, activists, bloggers, blowhards, etc. The whole of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Posted by: The Phantom

That's the point, all these "usual suspects" that you enumerate aren't part of or have no real influence on the Democratic party. There is no "liberal wing" of the Democratic party because it's been alienated and scattered to the wind, many alighting in Nader's camp and others emerging as Greens.

We liberals have no voice in the Democratic party. I vote Dem because I hate Rethugs so much, not because I think all the Dem candidates are so great.

Democracy works and when they get spanked hard they cry like little bitches, typical bullies.

As I have previously stated elsewhere, conservatives need to trash the Republicans altogether and form a new Tory Party.

I am beginning to suspect that liberals likewise may need to trash the Democrats and form a new Whig Party ( based on the 18th century British - not the 19th century American Whigs ). I will suspend this judgment pending such factors as how Lieberman is dealt with, whether health care reform actually is passed, and whether Obama really does need change. )

Basically, the Tory Party would have to include some notion of commonwealth in its beliefs as well as to realize that there is no point in being rich if one is not also a gentleman. "The quality of mercy is not strained" must be its serious theme.

The Whig Party would have to realize that that economic progress is meaningless unless it rests upon a solid, nuts-and-bolts program for social justice which trumps all other social objectives, which are legitimate only if and to the extent that they can be fitted within this nuts-and-bolts framework. Otherwise, they are erroneous and - often - pernicious.

The post-election "bloodbath" between the various wings of the party hasn't really come to fruition.

It hasn't come to fruition yet. I have perfect faith in the ability of the various parts of the GOP to shoot themselves full of holes.

Simply put, the neo-cons, theo-cons, + money-cons don't particularly like each other. Victory allowed them to overlook this, but now that they've been drubbed in two consecutive elections, look for the long knives to appear.

And it's already starting. The 'not conservative enough' argument can be used by any of the three wings to mean 'not enough like my brand of conservativism.' The 'it was Palin's fault' argument could be used by the neo-cons and money-cons. The 'not enough gays + abortion' argument comes straight from the theo-cons.

Believe me, the fighting's only just begun.

-Z

I don't really understand what kind of "bloodbath" we could expect to see at this point beyond the many contradictory public statements, disagreements and finger pointing about the campaign failures in '06 and '08. It seems that the real fireworks won't happen until at least jan or feb, when a democratic president and congress begin moving forward with major progressive legislation. At that point "moderate" republicans are going to face intense pressure from both sides and will have to make tough choices. Then in '10, the primary battles will bring about another round of clashes over the direction of the party. But right now, what would a "bloodbath" mean, substantively?

Jeff II:

"I vote Dem because I hate Rethugs so much, not because I think all the Dem candidates are so great."

Well, that's really what I was getting at. If liberals -- you, anybody else -- can recognize that they have no effective power without the Democratic party, then there's really no way for the Republicans to break up that liberal-moderate alliance.

Right now conservatives are talking about going the other way -- which is where some (enough) liberals were in 2000 with Nader, and even again in 2004 with Dean. If ideological purity is the only measure of success (and I salute you for seeing the falacy in that), then liberals will never stand a chance, precisely because they're 1/5 of the electorate.

And by the way, on your earlier point that no elected Dems openly call themselves liberals, that's probably true. But it doesn't meant that some of them aren't liberals, as one look at the voting records of Senators like Leahy and Harkin would attest. They just don't wear it on their sleeve, because it doesn't get anything done.

Some people think that's weak. I think it's smart. But again, I'm more interested in results than rhetoric.

Democracy works and when they get spanked hard they cry like little bitches, typical bullies.

It appears as though Grover's political instincts are as dead-on as Karl Rove's. Which is like saying an intestinal parasite is as loathsome as a cockroach.

“I have no reason to doubt Obama will do it right.�

Being fresh out of his teaching time at the University of Chicago, having the opportunity to enjoy teaching the Constitution does give a unique advantage to a political player in this system.

For me and its just a guess, after eight years reflecting in the Constitution and it’s power as a living document and not just a piece of paper, Obama, being a minority has a unique moment in time to make adjustments accordingly to line up America’s government in the best fit and balance the Constitution has to offer, or this whole notion of the Constitution to work for the minority is flawed.

The Republican’s have been doing this, as the minority party, with the deliberate deceit, and the best contextual bucking rodeo propagandizing Republicans could develop, with the best Maverick, McCain and Palin, and Mainstream Media support could give with all the complicit trimmings. But who really wants a Maverick to run the country, the whole thing was absurd, like a bad cowboy movie we would never want see after viewing its premier.

Please America, if not the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Culter, Morris, Savage, Levin, Medved, all of hate radio, and the smooth operation of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox are extreme right wing entities. They would be successful these past years if not abusing the Constitution. Its wildly in your face, here Reagan is dead, and so is that mantra of “Government is the problem�. That flies the face of “Where as we the people� are the government. It does not make sense and is typical of the major Republican initiatives. It reminds of the story of the Pharaoh that cast out every word in the land that had Moses on it. Here, the Republicans will bury Reagan and all his attributes.

However with the Internet and the power that can be expressed by the majority middle class has the rich elite circling their wagons just to keep what they have. As many have said the game is about to happen so keep the pop corn warm and the wine on ice this should quite a spectacle. Pulling the rich out of the mix to have a real free market is what should be done.

But, for about a century being embedded in the a money system that is fundemental structured against the majority, the Jekyll island group that Federal Reserve gang, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund along with all those Quasi government organizations, like the pentagon, and secret stuff agencies, CIA, FBI, IRS etc…, find themselves with their pants down by the American electorate. They are all loaded with corruption bias and wild policies in the trillion dollar play ground developed and carried out by old time senators and party leaders that need to bow out of the system or face huge retribution. If Obama has a spine of steel these meeting with old timers are a deal to bow out or face public humiliation that would be a huge negative personal legacy labeled for a long time.

Please America, who would have thought, that just six weeks ago, the news would blabber out and support Bush’s new actions, that America is in the worst economic crisis since the depression, still does not admit that America is in a recession far greater than anything ever charted. Seemingly, at every turn now, outing, huge negative economic numbers day after day. Consistently says America is resilient, yet whispers that the American dollar will no longer be the defacto standard in the world economy, here, forces are in the background to do just that and they are likely the rich and wealthy, many rich Americans, that want to back a global currency and dump the dollar. Heaven knows the Arab Wahabbi, of which the Bin Laden family, friends of the Bush family, always had that goal. Then its no wonders why this money, power, and political soup turned into poison.

In accordance with which the founding fore fathers had warned about. Obviously, currently, the way the Republicans have been working the government in power was accomplished for greed, plain old greed for the few and not within accordance with the majority. It all sticks out like the Grand Canyon of goofs. Typical of the Republican method is to work out details behind closed doors, but, as Palin says, wish God to open those doors of opportunity. That is very sick social leadership.

Paul II said:
I don't know of a single Dem in either house, other than Kucinich, who calls himself a liberal. In fact, they've spent the last 10 years running away from that term.

I guess you've been a member of a different party than I have for the last 30 years.

Amen.
Starting with Clinton.
No one defended liberalism so the country went "center-right."

Oddly, liberals are willing to call themselves "progressives" and the right has not done any decent job of equating the two.

What "Progressive" cause isn't "liberal"?

I'll call myself "Progressive" if it makes people more at ease, but it sure feels the same to me.

So all you neuvo-liberals out there...when the conservatives start accusing you of being "progressive" like it's a bad thing... kindly don't roll over and show your belly.

Call em the selfish, short sighted meatheads they are even if they temporarily have the upper hand.

We shouldn't suffer 14 years of decay because you "moderates" don't want to fight. THEY do. They're paid to. We don't have money, we rely on guts. We got em back in 2004, won in 2006, and we should never EVER repeat the mistake.

"This is the second mention of the word 'cheerful' by a despicable, anti-American right-wing psycho. (Bill Kristoll was the first.) Is Frank Luntz back in vogue?"

Perhaps the word "cheerful" came down via a RNC talking points memo. See Steve's A Peek Behind The Curtain.

"What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view."

HAhahahahahahaHAHAHA ha ha ha. Omigawd.

Tony Perkins wouldn't recognized a moderate view if it came up and went boogah boogah boogah in his face.

That said, I recommend all my Republican friends follow his and Grover Norquist's advice. MORE rabid right wing social issues. That's the ticket for them. Palin/Perkins 2012

The far right wing of the GOP will not go quietly into the night. No more than the far Left wing of the Democratic party would.

What do you mean, "would"? They did, starting in 1968. That's why the Democrats started pandering to corporations -- there was no one on the left who was willing to pull them back. You have a couple of Barbara Lees and Dennis Kucinichs left, but they're pretty much drowned out by the rest of the party.

Hopefully people on the left have started seeing the folly of deciding that electoral politics are meaningless or that both parties are "the same."

"If liberals could stand to call themselves 'moderates', conservatives would never hold power again."

Actually most "liberals" DO call themselves moderates. It's the ReThugs who call moderates "liberal" and conservatives "moderate."

I think that its premature to talk about their not having an internecine struggle. They are still like Wyl-EE Coyotee -- running in the air before the inevitable drop to hard reality below.

I predict that over the next six months, as mature, informed and principled leadership again dominates our public arena, that the frame they used before (hysterical magical religionism) will have less and less traction or relevance. The modeling of leadership by the Obama administration, even in its mistakes and failures, will shift the frame slowly but inexorably. The seriousness of the issues before us and the difficulty of the decisions will also reinforce that sort of frame as we will want to keep the markets calm rather than inflame with crazy talk and hysteria.

At least thats just my opinion

The Republicans went too far left in 1964?! Nordquist is loonier than usual. Goldwater was so far right that he couldn't be seen from the political center with binoculars. He courted the John Birchers and their ilk, bringing them out from under the rocks and rotten logs where they'd been hiding. Goldwater wanted the U.S. to leave the U.N..; opposed social security; and was a rabid opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And I still vividly recall, as a 7th grader, watching the 1964 Republican Convention, where Goldwater partisans repeatedly interrupted Nelson Rockefeller's speech with heckling and mocking. It gave us a foretaste of right-wing rudeness to come, ala Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.

And 1976? That had nothing with the Republicans being too liberal, and everything to do with Watergate. and Ford's pardon of Nixon, not to mention Bob Dole's pit-bull campaign tactics.

Finally, 1992 was a reaction to 12 years of Republican rule, to be expected.

Ross T