"Has the G.O.P. Gone Off the Deep End?"

[applegrove]

Has the G.O.P. Gone Off the Deep End?

By THOMAS B. EDSALL at the NY Times

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/has-the-g-o-p-gone-off-the-deep-end/?hp

"SNIP....................................



...... House Republicans were preparing to “slow walk” the Senate immigration bill to death.

Doherty turned to Twitter:


If Senate Immigration bill gets ripped apart and ultimately defeated by House #GOP I’ve decided to leave my political home of 32 yrs #sad.

Doherty told me that he has

come to the conclusion that my party has elements within it that dislike homosexuals and think America is still in the 1940s. And while we talk about freedom and liberty, that liberty and freedom only seem to be acceptable for some.



.....................................SNIP"

[surrealAmerican]

1. "Gone"?

They've been off that end for over thirty years.

[Initech]

2. They've passed the lowest point on earth at this point.

[drizzit]

3. The G.O.P. would need a ladder to reach the deep end

[babylonsister]

4. This is who Thomas Doherty is...

from the article. I didn't know.


Thomas Doherty, patronage czar and political enforcer for the former New York governor George Pataki, reached the breaking point last week when he read that House Republicans were preparing to “slow walk” the Senate immigration bill to death.

snip//

Doherty, no liberal, is representative of the growing strength on the right of the view that the Republican Party has gone off the deep end.

“Their rigidity is killing them. It’s either holy purity, or you are anathema,” Tom Korologos, a premier Republican lobbyist and the ambassador to Belgium under George W. Bush, said in a phone interview. “Too many ideologues have come in. You don’t win by what they are doing.”


GOOD!! Wake up, morons!

[applegrove]

5. Here, here.

[lpbk2713]

6. One thing I've often wondered about ...

if they were to ever go off the deep end ...

how would we know?

[salin]

7. that article is a worthwhile read.

K & r

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

8. Almost like they took this as a procedural outline

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html

I looked up George Washington's farewell address a couple of days ago, after reading an article linked at DU, in which the speech was quoted in support of religion in government. This section made me think of the current state of our opposition, and how they arrived where they are because of the Koch-backed Tea Crazies. It's almost like they read the speech and decided, "Ooh! We should do that!"

[mick063]

9. Even the mild version of Republicanism is offensive.

You know......the ones that have the (D) by their name?


Progressives can play from a position of strength if they play their cards right. The populist campaign spin from our President can be actual policy instead of reelection rhetoric.

I have believed all along, and still do believe, that the quickest way to undo the hardcore reactionary ascension is to give America a taste of it. I am willing to help give America that taste if the Democratic party remains an empty sea shell for the 1% hermit crabs to crawl in to.

This is why I will not compromise by supporting a President that feels compelled to "negotiate" with crazy. This is why I believe we will never get back on the right track without implementing a little bit of our own primary vetting.

I understand that ideological purity tests could lead us down the same road as the GOP. The difference, for me, is that progressive ideological purity is vastly more beneficial to the common man. I realize I won't get everything I want, but I vehemently disagree with relabeling long established social programs as "entitlements" to make dark intentions aesthetically pleasing. I vehemently disagree with putting financial moguls above the law. I vehemently disagree with corporations writing legislation and trade agreements to suit their selfish needs. (Perhaps if wages were rising, they might have a feeble leg to stand on. You know.....fulfill Reagan's promise?).

Such things are non negotiable. They are not negotiable because they put the very survival of our Society at risk. This goes beyond a "purity test". Doing what is just is always the right thing to do regardless of the politics.

Who will stand up to be the next Franklin Roosevelt? Who will make history and become the most popular President since Franklin Roosevelt? What politician has the conviction to do what is right for those he represents?

Time to step up whomever you are.

[thucythucy]

11. Yes.

[dgilmour32863]

12. They've always been pretty batshit IMO

But they've gotten even nuttier in recent years.