If you ever doubted that the Democratic Party has become utterly irrelevant in the state of Texas, take a look at the website of leading gubernatorial contender Bill White and see if you can find any mention of the fact that he's running as a Democrat.
You can find him espousing some moderate policies and criticizing Rick Perry while faintly praising Kay Bailey Hutcheson, but good luck finding a mention in his bio or his position statements on the main page or even the header of what party he belongs to. It's like he's embarrassed to be a Democrat. He doesn't want to be associated with a brand which has become tainted with economic disaster, unemployment and socialism.
Like hundreds of other Democrat politicians in Texas who have chosen to run as if they were independents or even switched to the Republican party, White clearly realizes that hitching himself too clearly to the Democrat brand would be the kiss of death for his campaign. In Texas and around the country, association with the Democrats in Congress or with the Obama administration is a fatal liability going into 2010. It leaves candidates like White in the awkward situation of trying to essentially trick voters into voting for them by selling themselves on their own merits and then letting the voters discover what party they are in for the first time when they get to the voting booth.
The bottom line is that candidates want to be elected, and there are only a few ultra-blue areas of the country where they can do it solely on the votes of die-hard Democrat loyalists. Most of them need some independent votes to win. Independents are growing in numbers and now make up almost a third of the electorate. In the recent elections and in current polls independents are voting for Republicans over Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin. That's very scary for anyone planning to run as a Democrat.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
Dave, don't you know you're not allowed to discuss any problems the Democrat party might be having. You're only alllowed to talk about how the GOP is dying. Just ask Baritone, handy, or Glenn.
the fact is that even today this nation remains a slightly right of center nation. That's why the moonbat leftists two major attempts at copletely dictating our lives, Cap & Trade and Messiahcare are being met with such fierce resistance.
2 - Dave Nalle
What interests me is that the Democrats keep talking about how people are leaving the GOP to go independent, apparently blissfully unaware that they are leaving the Democrat party at twice the rate they are leaving the GOP and that independents vote Republican at twice the rate they vote Democrat.
With the current breakdown between the parties (32% ind, 28% GOP, 36% Dem) that means that the voting actually breaks down 50% GOP and 45% Democrat. That's not good for them.
Dave
3 - Glenn Contrarian
*yawn*
But to rebut your (evidently hopeful) chest-beating, the 2010 elections will come down to results.
If the economy continues to recover through next November, that's bad news for the Republicans. You'd better hope Obama fails.
If the unemployment rate begins to fall by next October - and particularly if it begins to fall before the summer of 2010 - that's bad news for Republicans. You'd better hope Obama fails.
If the situation in Afghanistan stabilizes by next November, that's bad news for the Republicans. You'd better hope Obama fails.
If there are no major terrorist attacks on American soil by next November, that's bad news for the Republicans. You'd better hope Obama fails.
BUT let's say everything above DOES go as the Democrats plan...and yet we make no gains next summer, or even lose a seat or two. What does that mean? It means nothing, because you know as well as I do that the midterms usually go against the party that occupies the White House. So if the Republicans really make significant gains next fall, historically speaking, that won't be too surprising.
But what if the Democrats buck history and make gains next November? Personally, I think that would be a stinging rebuke of the current Republican tendency to avoid any hint of moderation, to support ideologues over pragmatists, and to oppose anything the Democrats (and particularly Obama) support - not because it's a good or bad idea, but simply because it's an idea that came from the Democrats (or particularly Obama).
It all depends on whether Obama succeeds or fails at making life better for Americans as a whole, doesn't it?
4 - Dave Nalle
I'd rather that conditions in the country get no worse, but I don't see how that is possible. If Obama fails on health care and cap and trade and somehow gets stymied on all the spending he has planned, there is a possibility of some natural recovery in the economy, and he may benefit from taht. I can only hope that the people see that such a recovery would be in spite of his policies and not because of them.
If he succeeds in his plans and implements his agenda against the will and best interests of the people there is no chance at all that he will survive politically.
Dave
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
If he succeeds in his plans and implements his agenda against the will and best interests of the people there is no chance at all that he will survive politically.
"against the will...of the people"? Last I recall, he was elected by a significant majority of the people, and his platform certainly included health reform that didn't merely consist of tax cuts and 'medical savings accounts'.
"against the...best interests of the people"? As compared to Dubya? As compared to Iran-Contra Bush 41? As compared to Reaganomics Ronnie? As compared to tricky Dick?
Since the end of the Eisenhower presidency, Republican presidents did a few things right (like opening up China, not continuing on to Baghdad during the first Gulf War, and raising taxes to get us out of the late-80's recession), and one big thing right (winning the Cold War), and a whooooole laundry list of wrong things that we'll be paying for for generations to come.
Frankly, I don't think the Republicans have a whole lot of room to talk when it comes to doing things 'in the best interests of the people'. I'd prefer they worry about the log in their own eye before they start complaining about the splinter in the Democratic party's eye.
6 - Baronius
Dave, you're overreacting again. The country can do just fine without banks, cars, doctors, energy, small business, big business, imports, exports, savings, investment, or credit.
7 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, do you seriously believe the lame arguments you make and the excuses you repeat from DNC talking points, or are you just so morally bankrupt that none of this really matters to you anymore?
Sure, Republicans have made mistakes. Who hasn't? But the key difference is that most of their policies are not intended to do active harm to the nation and its people. The Democrats can't say the same. They are working from a playbook in which the constitution, the republic, the people and their rights are the enemy. How can you be an apologist for that?
Dave
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Sure, Republicans have made mistakes. Who hasn't? But the key difference is that most of their policies are not intended to do active harm to the nation and its people. The Democrats can't say the same
You DO realize, of course, that you are quite strongly implying that the Democrats' polices are intended to do active harm to the nation and its people.
So according to you, we Democrats are INTENDING to do active harm to the nation and its people.
Yet you call me 'shrill'.
Tell me, were you a 'swiftboater'? You know, one of those oh-so-patriotic guys who were tearing down Kerry's combat service while ignoring Bush's months AWOL from his 'boutique' squadron in Texas? When you accuse us of intending active harm to MY country that I served for two decades, you sound very much like the swiftboaters did - willing to accuse the opponent of anything, regardless of how false the accusation, just so you can win.
How could I be part of an organization that encourages such attacks? I can't. That's why I'm not a Republican.
FYI, when you point out that yes, Republicans make mistakes just like everyone else, what you're leaving out is that it's a matter of degree. The 'mistakes' the Republicans have made since Nixon took office far, far outweigh the mistakes of the Democrats...and if you were objective enough, you'd know this.
But you're not that objective...and even if you did do enough honest historical research to find which party since Nixon took office has been involved in not only the most scandals, but also the most serious scandals, you wouldn't admit it...because you know very well where the finger would point.
As for myself, I'd rather be humble and right than to be proud and powerful at the cost of my integrity. I must base what I believe on fact, and I must not adjust facts to fit my beliefs. That's why I'm no longer a Republican (although if the Republican candidate is better, he'll get my vote as four GOP candidates did in the 2008 elections).
9 - Dave Nalle
You DO realize, of course, that you are quite strongly implying that the Democrats' polices are intended to do active harm to the nation and its people.
So according to you, we Democrats are INTENDING to do active harm to the nation and its people.
Yes, that would be a lengthier restatement of what I said.
When you accuse us of intending active harm to MY country that I served for two decades, you sound very much like the swiftboaters did - willing to accuse the opponent of anything, regardless of how false the accusation, just so you can win.
Look, military service is a great thing. I respect it. But it doesn't excuse your current role as an apologist for people who promote the most inhumane and destructive policies I've seen proposed in my lifetime.
the Republicans have made since Nixon took office far, far outweigh the mistakes of the Democrats...and if you were objective enough, you'd know this.
Perhaps. But the mistakes are hardly as much of a concern as the active promotion of policies which are bad for the nation and the people. Mistakes are to be expected and have to be dealt with, but they are unintentional.
You seem not to understand the difference between a scandal and fundamentally malignant policy. Scandals are transient. Bad lawmaking and oppressive government are much more serious.
You seem willing to excuse and minimize the worst possible political offenses which border on treason by comparing them with scandals which are by their nature trivial.
But you're not that objective...and even if you did do enough honest historical research to find which party since Nixon took office has been involved in not only the most scandals, but also the most serious scandals, you wouldn't admit it...because you know very well where the finger would point.
Glenn, I'm quite familiar with the history, thanks. But I'm not deluded enough to think that petty scandals are on the same level with policies which by their very intent violate the constitution and the rights of the people.
If you want you can make a valid argument that some things done under Bush are as bad as the things Obama is doing. I'll acknowledge that. But the terrible mistakes we made then under the pressure of 9/11 do not excuse doing more of the same today.
As for myself, I'd rather be humble and right than to be proud and powerful at the cost of my integrity.
Yet you choose to be an apologist for tyrants. Your world is a very strange and surrealistic one.
Dave
10 - handyguy
Apologist for tyrants? Jeez, Dave.
Your rhetoric went into overdrive during the last months of the presidential election and has not recovered its sanity yet.
Believe it or not, Obama and Pelosi and myself believe in liberty just as much as you do. We just don't abuse the word and the concept by defining it in the narrow and ideological way you now insist on, in every article and every comment.
11 - Arch Conservative
Yes Glenn's world is very strange.
Mark Sanford had an affair and lied about it......Nancy Pelosi wants to throw you in jail for not buying government health insurance.
Larry Craig tried to solicit homosexual sex in airport bathroom.....Henry Waxman and Al Gore want to force a massive tax increase, job killing cap and trade bill on the nation.
Mark Foley sent dirty emails to his aides....supreme court justices appointed by Democrats are citing foreign law in their decisions.
Yeah the GOP really has it in for America.
Sometimes you people are so fucking stupid it's beyond belief.
12 - Mark Saleski
it's true, we ARE stupid. i learned (at the very very far left lefty super-commie libral university of pinko-babies that i went to) that conservatives like to sit behind their desks smoking cigars, plotting ways to kill the poor, cut taxiz, and figure out how to get a better deal on lincoln town cars.
or so i thought. turns out its not true at all.
cuz i'm stooopid.
now if you'll excuse me, i have to get back to my plans for setting up a new legal defense fund for gay welfare cheats.
p.s. that's a polyp over there to your left. should probably have it cut out
13 - Dave Nalle
Believe it or not, Obama and Pelosi and myself believe in liberty just as much as you do. We just don't abuse the word and the concept by defining it in the narrow and ideological way you now insist on, in every article and every comment.
Indeed, my definition is extremely narrow. I define it as liberty. If you're trying to define it as something else then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.
Dave
14 - Mark Saleski
Indeed, my definition is extremely narrow. I define it as liberty. If you're trying to define it as something else then I'm afraid you're part of the problem.
so you get to play word semantics but nobody else can? because you're 'right'?
15 - Arch Conservative
Yes and handy defines it as those things that Obama, Pelsoi and company will allow us to do and ofr whci we should be so very grateful for their generosity.
16 - Dr Dreadful
Mark Sanford had an affair and lied about it......
The heinous thing wasn't that he had an affair and lied about it. It was that he told his staff he was walking the Appalachian Trail, then swanned off to Buenos Aires without even telling his lieutenant governor he would be out of the country, effectively leaving his state without a chief executive.
It was irresponsibility of the highest order.
17 - Dave Nalle
so you get to play word semantics but nobody else can? because you're 'right'?
Yes Mark, that's one of the perks of being right.
Dave
18 - roger nowosielski
"Being [in the] right" is equated here with one's political persuasion. And that's a semantic feat of the highest order.
19 - Arch Conservative
So you'd rather be thrown in jail by Nancy Pelosi for not buying govt. health insurance than lied to by Mark Sanford about an affair Dr?
20 - Dr Dreadful
Archie, kindly show me where I said anything of the kind.
Just about every Tom, Dick and Bill in DC has been caught with their trousers lowered in inappropriate locations. There's not much point in getting upset about that. Sanford's dereliction of duty was not that he lied about an affair, but that he abandoned his state.
Also, if you can provide a citation for your claim that Pelosi wants to throw you in jail if you don't buy government health insurance (as opposed to a TV reporter trying to put words in her mouth), I'll get duly upset about it.
21 - handyguy
There isn't even a law yet. But if the 'uninsured penalty' does become law, the few people dumb enough to go to jail would be going for tax evasion. Which is already a crime.
The jail term would be not for refusing to buy insurance, but for refusing to pay the tax penalty imposed for [selfishly, stupidly] not being insured.
22 - handyguy
There is not now anywhere in the world, nor has there ever been, a fully 'libertarian' society. Nor will there ever be one, certainly not one as large and complex as the United States.
So defining 'liberty' as the absence of federal involvement in an issue is political rhetoric.
My own definition of Liberty allows democratically elected officials to do their jobs. And if I disagree with their actions, I can try to get a new government elected and/or take the laws I disagree with to court.
But calling virtually every proposed federal program an 'attack on our liberty' is what I mean by distorting and abusing the word and the concept.
23 - Arch Conservative
The federal government isn't going to throw you in jail because you didn't buy a product they told you that you had to buy...they're just going to throw you in jail for refusing to pay a massive fine they impose on you after you don't buy a product they tell you to buy...
You're right handy...that's much better.....
The way you conveinently ignore the issue of the jail time in the health reform bill while going on and on about Mark Sanford's affair leads the reader to believe you think the latter is a far more serious and aggregious matter and well.....that's.....just fucking stupid....there's really no other way to put it.
24 - roger nowosielski
Besides, the notion of liberty is not supposed to be independent to the point of doing what you will, however detrimentally it affects the well-being of a community.
It's a contextual notion, first and foremost, a rather subtle point which is lost on such rabid and unenlightened proponents like Nalle et all. Their version of it is at best a farce.
25 - roger nowosielski
But Archie, the analogy with the liability insurance you are obligated to carry if and when you own and drive a vehicle is quite apropos. Failure to carry health insurance carries similar repercussions insofar as the cost to the society is concerned. So I don't see any problem with enforcement here, because, as one might say, living, no less than driving, is a risk.