America 2008... a one-party state???

[Cascadian]

With what has been happening in California, in Texas, Minnesota, Georgia, and soon in Ohio and Colorado, does somebody notice that all that has happening could be more than an effort to get Bush four more years? Does anybody get the feeling that the Republican Party is on a goal of turning it into a one-party nation? The more the Democrats lose, the more they will become a redundant party. A token party if you will that is only there to give the illusion that there is a democracy in this country.

The Republicans are getting their grubby hands into every facet of life in this country from running for school boards (so that they can dismantle the public school system.), city councils, port authorities, all the way to state and federal office.

I am telling you this is the grand plan. The Republicans will become the only party and god help you if you don't agree with them. You could lose your job and could even go to jail someday for not agreeing with the Republikkkans.


Think about it.

John

[toddzilla]

1. i'm moving out of the country..

yes i'm defeatist..

[boxster]

2. No, they need to keep us around so that they have somebody else to blame.

eom

[Dogmudgeon]

3. If the Republicans control America in 2008 ...

... they will retain about four seats in the House in 2012.

At that point, the two party system will be either Democratic/Libertarian or Democratic/Progressive.

The tide has already begun to turn. The day the Deserter-in-Chief landed on that flight deck in his spiffy flightsuit was the day the worm turned.

The best thing that could happen to the GOP would be to lose the Presidency and control of the House and Senate in 2004, and undergo a massive internal purge of the NeoCons and the Rectal Right. That way, they would have a chance to stick around and not be blamed entirely for the series of economic and ecological disasters that are headed our way.

--bkl
Optimistic in such a pessimistic way.

[novalox]

4. Rove

I've read some rather persuasive bits suggesting that Rove is trying to capture the center on spending/programs in many areas -- esp. medicare drug benefits, which the GOP was much MORE opposed to in decades past -- and more open to moderate candidates ... in an effort to render the Democratic Party marginal as a fringe/left party. Once this is done, perhaps after 10 years (the theory goes), the GOP would be safe to push back to the right (judicial appointments, etc.).

[WillyBrandt]

5. No, Rove only cares about centrist RHETORIC

It is part of the GOP strategy to make Dems and GOPers SOUND the same on domestic issuse, since Dem positions are more popular. However, they also want to keep the actual content right-wing.

All those moronic Naderites who said and say that Dems and the GOP are the same--because of how the rhetoric sounds similar sometimes--are simply playing the role of right-wing stooges.

The Greens, a la Lenin: Useless idiots.

[blackcat77]

6. Of course they are...

...but they won't succeed. It's the old pendulum thing -- as soon as either party gains too much power, the people go the other way. The Dems peaked in '92 and got too big for their britches and were slapped down in '94. The Pubs *immediately* claimed a mandate that they didn't really have and have been losing ground since then. 2002 was a hiccup, IMHO, caused by an inept campaign strategy, or lack thereof, but I see things moving back to equilibrium in 2004.

[WillyBrandt]

7. 9/11 held the pendulum

The irony is that the right wing is pulling all these power grabs as their power is slipping. Whereas they once faced a shifting trend to a weak, ineffectual Democratic party, they now face an extremely angry and more effective Dem party.

Dems are slowly becoming de-wussified. They are more likely to be angered than cowed by hard-right tactics. They have ceased to be silenced by the 9/11 effect: (1) they realize the GOP's talk about bipartisanship is an utter fraud; (2) the tide is turning against the GOP; and (3) this is a pivotal moment that could be seized by the Democrats.

We can place the GOP in its tomb over the next ten years if we're smart.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Clark supporter who thinks that Clark can pull these things together.)

[morgan2]

8. what would be so bad about no more democratic party?

bring on the greens.

[VOX]

9. Oh, yeah -- Greens are really gonna sweep the nation!

Greens can't even get 5% of the national vote. In the CA election just past, they got a whopping 2.8% -- 218,843 votes from the *entire* state.

Sorry, but I'll stick with a horse that actually has the capacity to cross the finish line.

On edit: BTW, this is *Democratic* Underground.

[morgan2]

10. not saying they are

But it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Ya this is *Democratic* Underground, but that doesn't mean the party is perfect chairman mao. Gotta push the party away from the Clinton's and other corporate kiss ups or it will retain its label of republican lite.

[Old and In the Way]

15. Yeah, I really hated all that peace and prosperity during Clinton's.

term in office.

Good idea running to the 2% Party that has no infrastructure, no national elected reps in Congress.

But, I understand where you are coming from.

[The Zanti Regent]

11. GREEN = GETTING REPUBLICANS ELECTED EVERY NOVEMBER

Thanks to Ralph Nader, my nephew lies in a hospital. He's a quadraplegic, thanks to President Asshole giving him a one-way ticket to Iraq.

DROP DEAD NADER--AND DOUBLE FOR JELLO BIAFRA AND THOSE F'N GREENS

BURN IN HELL, GREENS!

[morgan2]

13. scapegoating what?

if Al Gore wasnt such a wish washy weenie he would have been elected. Stop trying to blame others for your parties problems.

[Old and In the Way]

16. "your parties problems"

Our party's problems had nothing to do with Al Gore...it has everything to do with a corrupt Supreme Court that put partisan politics before the democratic will of the people. The "State's Rights" party rejected the FSC's decision to recount.

Just goes to show, the 500,000 more people who voted for Gore got it right. But I suspect you probably have a crush on the un-elected fraud-moron who occupys Al Gore's White House.

[morgan2]

19. so infantile

There you go again looking at things in terms of black or white. Obviously if i don't like Al Gore I must love George Bush. Yes there was a lot of fraud in Bush's "election" but thats only done by skimming votes, if your party nominated someone with a shred of personality or conviction that wouldnt be able to happen. I'd love to see what happens after another wanna be republican like Leiberman or Clark is nominated in 2004. Gonna be crying blaming your loss on everyone but yourselves.

[Cascadian]

20. It's just as bad as the Republicans

They would always say "if don't support Bush you must be a traitor..." type talk. It is no different with certain Democrats "If you don't support so and so you must support Bush..." What a load of crap!


John

[MrPeepers]

22. Explain to me...

if the Green party dosn't suck votes from Democratic candidates, why the Republican Party has seen fit to repeatedly donate money to Green Party candidates?

Peepers

[morgan2]

23. obviously they do

but the point is to force the democrats to actually listen to their base. If they want people to vote for them they have to address their concerns. If they don't deal with mine, they don't get my vote. Although Clinton was infinitly better with the economy than Bush, he did allow for all these crooked corporations like Enron and Worldcom to flurish.

[Old and In the Way]

27. Is that why Republicans donate to Greens?

To help the Democrats "get back to their roots"?

Sorry, if Greens don't understand that they are played by the Republicans, I have no sympathy. Perhaps they were naive to believe there is a 3rd way in today's political landscape, but there isn't. You have 2 choices on the menu, A or B.

You've tasted A, what another helping?

Also, remember this....Clinton did not control both Houses, the SCOTUS, or the corporate media. He also had to deal with an 8 year political inquisition....I'm amazed he got anything done in those 8 years.

[Cascadian]

14. The Greens are around because of Republican Lite.

Have you ever thought about that? The Democratic Party needs to come back to it's labor and socially progressive roots. If that means a modern version of FDR or Truman then so be it. The DLC which dictated this move to the supposed center, has alienated many Democrats to join the Green Party and voting for Nader. It's as if the leadership has forgotten the working class and poor. No. Don't blame Nader because of 2000, blame the DLC's misguided policies and blame Gore for choosing a milquetoast running mate.

John

[Old and In the Way]

28. So what?

Greens can't win running a national candidate with no foundation. Stop dreaming. Start the hard work of developing a local/state network of legislators...then you can be a player.

Until then, don't feel bad if I consider any "Greens are better than Dems" threads to be the inspiration of the RNC.

[SoCalDem]

12. The goal.. We are the Alan Colmes to their Sean Hannity..

The ultimate "Hannitization of america":(

[onebigbadwulf]

17. One party system

This is no secret my friend. Republicans don't want competition, they want their way, and they don't want anyone getting in the way. Democrats naturally want a two party system for fairness and balance. Republicans, however, will hijack anything and everything- from voting machiens to recall petitions- our very democracy to have all the power. America is turning into an oligarchy. This is starting to look like Communism 2.0.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. I could see how the Republicans could control the government...

For the next ten years, considering we did throughout all of FDR's presidency but I don't think we will become a one party nation just like that. Soon enough people will be pissed off enough that democrats will return to power, should it get that bad.

[Cocoa]

21. Rove has such ambitions

his model is the McKinley administration, which was the start of a long period of Republican dominance.

[the_real_38]

24. If Lieberman gets the nomination next year...

... we'll have a one-party state then.

Seriously , we already have a one-party state. It's the corporate party.

[Cascadian]

25. Don' t worry....

Providing that nothing tragic or catastropic happens to the other 8 candidates, Lieberman doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to get the Dem. nomination.

John

[Jason600]

26. More correct than you know

Getting Bush elected again I think is just one step in the plan. Republicans I think are gettin the clue that they will need to be more excepting of social issues than they have been. If this happens, then they will start to win big. Think about it as far as perception. They will say smaller gov, less taxes, left social issues, patriotism ie america first............ a very smart game plan. Although this will piss off the christian right to no end, it would cause havoc for other parties. Truth in an election unfortunatly is sometimes, errelavent.

[rhite5]

29. Change the year in your question to 2002 .....

In truth, we became a one-party state in Nov 2002 when the Republicans took control of EVERY branch of government. There are no more "checks and balances" anywhere in the Federal government.

Black Box Voting planted the final nail in the coffin in that election and it will ensure that the same one party will "win" all presidential elections in the future. They will allow a few others to win Congressional and Senate seats just to keep up appearances.