Why is it that most American Extremists are found in the Pub Party?

[opihimoimoi]

Or in the GOP Camp?

Why? Are they in Denial? Are they Delusional??

[AllentownJake]

1. You obviously have never been to a party meeting

:rofl:

We have our nutters, we just found a way to hide them in the attic.

The GOP had their nutters in the attic till Bush 2. Somehow the nutters than started running the party.

[zipplewrath]

2. More true than you know

Rove's whole strategy was to involved these people deeply in the elections, and keep them there by continual care and feeding between elections. Don't kid yourself, the democratic party has its unstable types and has had violently unstable types at various points in the last 50 years. During the late '60s and 70's we had multiple groups of extreme left wing radicals that would resort to bombings and violent confrontations with the police. Yes, we ALSO had MLK and others preaching nonviolence. But the difference here is that the left and the democratic party learned their lesson. You might "throw them a bone" at election time to remind them that you are as close as they are going to get. But you DON'T turn over the party to them. They are never satisfied, they are single issue types (actually merely single minded) and they actually seek to be a victim and marginalized because they are uncomfortable being in the majority. It takes away their "victim" status. As the party seeks to rebuild itself, I suspect (more like hope) that the GOP sees the folley of dealing to closely with them as well. Outfits like Operation Rescue have to be told that they must distance themselves, continuously, from these folks or they don't get to "sit at the table".

[opihimoimoi]

3. shades of Annie Foxx

[junkiebrewster]

5. I don't think you can really conflate the radical left of the 1960's

and their relationship with the Democratic Party of the era with the current situation in the GOP. For one reason, radical extremists of the 1960s were just as against the Democratic Party as they were the Republican Party. They were anti- establishmentarian and in the 1960s the Democrats WERE the establishment. Heck, the Vietnam War was a war escalated by Democrats, putting them squarely in the sights of the Radical Left.

Another place where the comparison fails is that the modern, mainstream GOP has actively courted the extremist right. The 1960s mainstream Democratic Party did no such thing. There may have been some lefties that tried to infiltrate the Party, but by and large the Democratic Party was of the center and did not cater to radical leftists or even give them dog whistles.

Of course, Rush would like peope to belive that the Democratic Party was some wild-eyed leftist organization in the 1960s and Republicans have done a good job of trying to rewrite history to make this true, but I think the comparison is false.

That said, having been to party meetings myself, there are some nuts on the Democratic side. Some of them even post here. :)

[AllentownJake]

6. Actually our nutters were in control in the 80s

not in the 60s. Maybe not in control but had a significant voice at the table.

The entire crazy Presidential primary scheme we have now is a leftover from the nutters and the powers that be compromising.

[zipplewrath]

9. I don't think I disagree

To some extent I think we're in agreement. The left has had it's radicals, but the GOP actually brought them to "the table" so to speak. They thought they could "control" them. The dems just always tried to pander to their nuts. I think where we disagree is that the nut balls on right tend towards "anti-establishment" as the old lefties. Roeder was labled "anti-government" and was part of the whole freemen/libertarian/survivalist bent of the right. The democratic party though did have the advantage that they were far more willing to embrace the whole "peace, love, cool it man" attitude of the late '60s and early '70s, not to mention diversity, such that they could more easily distance themselves from the nut jobs. The right, with all their false bravado, has a harder time, which is how they had so much trouble confronting the "kill Obama" shouts at their rallies. They struggled between not looking weak and not looking crazy. Strangely, they seem to lean towards being more comfortable with crazy.

[stray cat]

4. Neither the dems nor repubs are in denial - they will take votes from extremists and anyone else

They want to win elections and if either party can keep various groups of special interests or even extremists they will. And the GOP and Dems are not that much different in wanting to keep their extremists voting for the party

[DrToast]

7. Reagan brough them in so he could use them for votes...

...and now the inmates are running the asylum.

[BoneDaddy]

8. Stick around

Plenty here

[Occam Bandage]

10. We've got plenty on our side. Violence is mostly out of vogue, though,

but there are still the odd ecoterrorists and animal-rights "crusaders" from time to time.

[ieoeja]

11. Try the anti-war threads.

In one today (which may have dated from yesterday; I was too busy to log in yesterday) I learned that the United States orchestrated the Islamic Revolution in Iran! There really does seem to be no evil in the world today that they do not put squarely at the foot of this country.

[opihimoimoi]

12. Ain't that a SHAME....we're the one to BLAMMME

[Occam Bandage]

13. You think America was behind the Islamic Revolution?

It's undeniable that America was behind the 1953 coup, and it's undeniable that Reagan negotiated with the Ayatollah to fix the release date of American hostages (and agreed to sell him missiles), but to claim that America was behind the Islamic Revolution is...a bit off. And by that I mean crazy.

[opihimoimoi]

14. Yes it is crazy....:o)