The excellent New Yorker piece on the Republican Party, "Party Unfaithful," reveals two interesting truths about politics. First: politicians of the same party pretend to like each other when they're in office even if they don't. The three-way catfight between Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Tom DeLay--formerly the leadership of the House GOP--exemplifies this truth. Second: Politicians find purity to principles easier to adhere to after leaving office than while in office. The complaints of Gingrich, Armey, and DeLay over the leftward drift of the GOP would carry more weight with me had the trio done more to advance conservative principles while in office. Rather than be doers then they chose to be critics now. It's interesting that the worst offender on this score, Tom DeLay, takes the hardest line now that he's out of office. The article is a must read, particularly if you want a better understanding of what you just read.

Interesting read. I thought Jeff Flake's comment near the end of the article is correct: "It's a tough environment, and, frankly, I'm not sure we've bottomed out yet. There are still a lot of investigations going on, and the war is going on. We're going to have to turn it around, but I'm not sure how we're going to do it. All we can hope for, I guess, is for the Democrats to overreach on something."

Add the immigration bill, the possibility of further invasions (Iran, Sudan), and the fools running for president, and the bottom gets deeper and deeper.

That said, I still can't imagine Hillary (assuming she's the nominee) beating anyone. Though conservatives won't be much intrested in the likely candidate (Rudy McRomney), I think there's a good chance that that lack of interest will be offset by Hillary-hatred. Let's face it, the woman is pure evil.

It probably won't come to that, though. I'm starting to think that Gore will enter the race in October and win the primaries and the general with ease.

I am sure that, regardless of who the dems nominate, whatever sacrificial lamb the GOP throws into the ring will be slaughtered as per the overall schedule. And that includes Hillary. She may be hated, but shes a wily politico, and that once gaping chasm has been closing at a fairly regular rate for quite a while now.

"It's a tough environment, and, frankly, I'm not sure we've bottomed out yet. There are still a lot of investigations going on, and the war is going on. We're going to have to turn it around, but I'm not sure how we're going to do it. All we can hope for, I guess, is for the Democrats to overreach on something." - Jeff Flake

I definitely agree with this quote, but I wonder: Was it said before or after the democrats traded an Iraq deadline for a hike in the minimum wage?

McCain is toast, Rudy will fade as a liberal one issue candidate and moderate clear thinking and well styled Romney will get the nomination.

But, it won't matter. After GW, people will not vote for a GOP'er out of Bush fatigue. It's scary because that likely leaves that evil biatch Hillary to scoop the pot.

God help us.

This will be the first presidential election in which I can vote, and I have no idea how I am going to choose for anyone - I won't ever vote for a dem and none of the rino's strike me as being much better! It is an incredibly frustrating situation, most of my friends feel the same way...what are well intentioned young conservatives to do?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

The only conservative running.

If Ron Paul could win, I might consider him as a viable candidate. But, even though he is likely the truest Conservative of all candidates, a true Conservative will not come out of the primaries in the new Republican Party. That said, you can see how the GOP is in trouble.

Well nobody is asserting he will win. But why would you vote for the Republicans if they are not conservative? At this point it can hardly be said that the Democrats are such a worse alternative. They are more or less identical.

Ben-T,

I'm clearly confused, and with good reason. This coming Presidential election will probably be one of the most important in a long time but is going to be one of the toughest in terms of making a choice from a relatively weak field. As I loath the majority of Democrats, I need to throw my lot in with the GOP (even though I realize that there is a slim difference between the two parties). And whoever can carry that banner successfully will be the one who gets my measly vote.

Illogical? Maybe. Naive? Probably. But my mind will be set at ease if I pledge to one who can command support form a majority of the party faithful.

Unless there's a groundswell for Paul, he won't be that guy.

Why do you need to throw in your lot with the GOP, just because they aren't the Democrats? In what substantive way would we be better off with the mainstream GOP in power than with the Democrats?

Well, let's see, among top Dem contenders, there's Hillary - the lying chameleon socialist who's already said point blank that she believes in collectivism. Then there's Obama - a one term liberal Senator who neither has the experience or the plan to run a country, but he is pretty good at bromides and spouting catchy slogans and will be the best pick for the white guilt / feel good crowd. Finally, Edwards - the sleaziest of lying trial lawyers. As one local scribe referred to our pro football team’s coach as it applies to the one term Senator from North Carolina: he is duplicitous pond scum.

Nope, hate to say it, but even though I’m not particularly excited about them, I’d pick the worst of the GOP flock than any one of the likely Dems.

I think George Wallace was a little right and a little wrong as there is a lick, a small one mind you, of difference between the two parties.

How? What policies do you think will be enacted by the Republicans that will be better for America than the Democrats?

At this point in practice they tend to behave identically. Personal dislike of one party or another is, as you pointed out, the only reason to vote for the other at this point.

Judges.

Little evidence of that. Bush would have continued in the long and proud GOP tradition of appointing liberals to the Supreme Court, if not for the groundswell against him over Harriet Miers.

Yes, but the selection of judges by a GOP President would likely be for ones who are more conservative and, hopefully, ones who are more constitutionalist in nature.

Admittedly, the Miers fiasco was yet another scary 'Bush' moment. But, thank the Lord, Bush will be gone.

In general, based on their overall social and political philosophies, I believe that a GOP candidate is a better selection. Even if they are not the most conservative, they at least have some conservative principles that most Democrats do not. If you've heard how the leading Democratic candidates discount the fact that we are and will continue to be under attack by certain sects and terrorists, national security is another one of those items that I would rather have handled by the Republicans than the Democrats.

Certainly GOP rhetoric is better, but politics is a business, and rhetoric is advertising. I have seen little evidence that the GOP, once elected, enacts conservative policies, judges included.

Look, I agree that both parties, by degree, suck. In fact the Dems are mostly socialists and the GOP has been highjacked by country club 'conservatives' who do not like true conservatives such as Ronald Reagan.

But until a viable third party comes along (and I pray one does - calling Pat Buchanan), I have to go a right as right is available. And that just happens to be the GOP, such as it is.

OK...Clinton lies under oath - walks away; Berger steals classified government documents - fine, community service, probation; Jefferson takes money in bribery scan - Dems up in arms saying he's a target.

Libby doesn't lie about something he knew nothing about - 30 months in prison.

Amazin!

Yea that Libby sentence was bullcrap. He should have been let off scot free with an official apology from the courts for wasting his time.

Regarding as right as right gets, I am rapidly starting to conclude that the two parties are literally identical.

I think there is one major differene between Democrats and Republicans. This is in the area of taxes. Anyone remember the Bush tax cuts when he first took office? In my opinion they did not go nearly far enough but I think it is unlikely that the Democrats would have cut taxes. As a CPA, I can testify to how these tax cuts positively affected the average taxpayer.

Now I do not want ANTONE to think I'm a Republican apologist. With that in mind will the Democrats please get on with impeachment of the President and will they please end the war in Iraq by cutting the funding and bringing the troops home asap.

Cutting taxes does not actually achieve anything when you just ratchet up the inflation tax via gross overspending.

True True. Tax cuts and then drunken sailor spending? More Bush hocus pocus.

Ben

All I know is the short term benefits of the tax cuts are more money in people's pockets. At least in the short term, the tax savings have been greater than inflation. As to the long range consequences of cutting taxes without cutting spending, this may be a different matter entirely.

Asdf

Tax cuts need to be accompanied by a cut in spending. The long range consequences of the Bush/Republican policies of cutting taxes while increasing spending may well prove to be devestating. In any event we desparately need to cut government spending. As stated in the previous post, I am by no means a fan of Bush or the Republicans. Btw, why should we insult drunken sailors by comparing them to George W. Bush. At least drunken sailors spend their own money. George W. Bush spends someone else's money.

Yes, GW has handled tax cuts like he's handled immigration - tax cuts with spending sprees and immigration control with open borders. What a tool. Maybe he's not like a drunken sailor but he definately must be drunk.