The big money in the repuke party doesn't come from fundy zip codes

[cali]

It comes from places like the Upper East side of NY. And evidently these people are in horror of Huckabee to the point that they'd vote dem. The repuke party is splitting in front of our eyes. Why is that so hard to see? They won't come together if the Huckster gets the nomination, and that's why he presents no threat- whatever the polls say now. If they nominate Romney, the fundies will not be motivated- no matter who the dem candidate is. If they nominate Rudy, the fundies are less than not motivated: A lot of the single issue anti-abortion zealots will stay home period. McCain poses more of a threat, but even he doesn't excite the base.

No matter how you cut it, they're in big trouble.

[Mythsaje]

1. Right...because the monied interests and the religious wackjobs

have finally come to a parting of the ways.

The money folks have no interest in allowing the self-absorbed, moralizing hypocrites free reign. The religious folks aren't all that keen on a generally secular, help-business-at-all-costs candidate.

Our divisions are nothing compared to theirs. Even when one considers the Blue Dogs and the DLC.

[Turbineguy]

2. That will mean

Bush needs a Democratic successor.

Do him a favor and find somebody who will be even worse than he is.

[cali]

3. really? you actually think that

any of the dem candidates will be worse than bushco? How... silly. And why does bushco "need" a dem successor. What kind of "logic" is that?

[frogcycle]

13. I don't know about the "worse than bush" part, but

the corporatists ARE reading the writing on the wall, and working hard to keep the dems most sympathetic to their world view in the lead. They are just plain scared of Edwards, who comes out and says he won't strike deals with them. In their world, as long as you are negotiating, you can still get your way. As long as you don't do anything with finality, you can always undo temporary setbacks. Accept a moderate CAFE standards increase with a long lead time; you can always go back and tweak it, find loopholes. After all, that's how they deal with tax law - they don't really care what the rate is, as long as there are plenty of loopholes and shelters.

The philosophy that if two sides have diametrically opposing views, some sort of middle-of-the-road compromise is necessary is carried to extreme. Sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong. The idea that you have to "sit down with them and work out a mutually acceptable plan" is sometimes valid, but often just plain stupid. They teach that approach in business schools and middle managers throughout industry subscribe to it like a religion. It is why some companies never get anything done. It's always "let's take a meeting" and let everyone have their say, then back to business as usual because nothing was decided. They love this, because the few of them who are the actual activists then steamroll their way while convincing everyone there was "consensus." If you don't want something to happen, you commission a study; if you do, you get the team to agree to a pilot program or something that then becomes reality.

That is how they attempt to stifle progress on the climate issue; just insist we don't have 100% agreement by all 6 billion people yet, so we need to study further. But if they want to start a war, well, then, any hint of a long-term possibility of a threat is enough excuse to go. And you just gather the dummies together, yap at them for a while, get their heads nodding slightly, and then say "ok, then, we have agreement; let's go!" And then pound them mercilessly that they gave you the green light.

[cali]

14. I don't know how true that is.

If I were a corportist I'd take great comfort in Edwards' past history and in particularly his activities with Fortress, which were very recent, and you don't get much more corporatist than hedge funds.

[frogcycle]

16. regardless of how much you try to paint Edwards as a bad guy

the two ahead of him are blatantly more friendly to them in their stated approach and personal style. DK probably has more demonstrable bona fides as a progressive, but they aren't afraid of him, because they don't see him as a threat to actually win. If he were to surge like Huckabee, they'd really get nervous. But as long as Edwards is talking the way he is now and still seems viable, they are NOT taking any comfort from the fact that he put money in a hedge fund, or did work for one. They do NOT think he is "one of them." They view him the way the mafia did RFK.

[cali]

18. I'm not painting him in black and white tems simply because I'm

expressing my concerns about him, and his history. JE doesn't have any bona fides as a progressive- beyond his very appealing rhetoric. His record in the Senate is more conservative than either Obama's or Clinton's.

And personally, having grown up in New Canaan, Ct and known a lot of corporate CEO types, I can tell you that in my judgement they're not afraid of JE. And how do you know that they don't take comrort from his investing in on a mega-scale and working for a hedgefund.

As I said, I like what he says, and if he's the candidate I'll gladly vote for him. If you think that, and pointing out facts, is painting him as a bad guy, I suggest you tune in to the many Obama and Clinton threads that really do that.

[frogcycle]

21. ok, peace

[cali]

23. deal. And there's really a lot I like about JE

including the fact that he's speaking out on critical issues that no one else is- like the destruction in NOLA of public housing.

[EV_Ares]

25. Right, there was and is no problem with Fortress. CNBC analysists

were on MSNBC the other morning and Scarborough asked them who Wall Street and corporations most liked and disliked in the candidates. For the republicans it was Rudy and for the dems it was Hillary with Obama second to her.

Edwards was the one they did not want. It was Erin Burnette from CNBC who they were talking with about this.

[EV_Ares]

22. For your information if you would look it up, there is plent of info to

support the fact that Edwards is the last candidate they would want or support. Look it up on CNBC where they were talking about their most favorable candidates. For the Dems it is Hillary, then Obama. For the Republicans it is Rudy.

You keep bringing up Fortress and that has been explained away again and again.

You might want to look at your own candidate Hillary and even the Hedge Fund who Chelsea works for and how much money that Hedge fund has given to Hillary's campaign. Check it out.

[cali]

24. You can't explain away Fortress. I've seen people try and do it

and it's weak. Having said that, I have no use for Clinton's money raising practices. Hsu and other scandals should be huge warning signs for dems regarding having her as the nominee. I think there will be plenty of scandals on that front if she does get it. That's a good enough reason in itself not to nominate her. (yeah, yeah, I know you think I'm some sort of stealth Clinton supporter) Furthermore, I know about Chelsea Clinton's job, and the connection betweeen her employer and Clinton- another warning light. And lastly, Clinton has done nothing about raising the tax rates on Hedge Fund managers or regulating the industry.

In any case, I still maintain that most corporatists don't worry much about who's elected- repuke or dem. Makes me think of my dad who died a couple of years ago. I imagine a lot of people here would call him a corporatist, and yet I'd bet almost anything he'd be supporting Edwards- and we'd be fighting about it. He was an early supporter of Carter and supported Bill Bradley.

[EV_Ares]

26. Now that was a very good reply and one that makes a lot of sense except

for the fact that I don't see Fortress as any big deal. Actually, I see no problem with Chelsea's job with the hedge fund which I don't think neither of us do. I do see possibilities of questions coming up on the amount of money they have given to Hillary but all within guidelines and nothing wrong with it, it is the system that is wrong. I am glad you knew about her job, just never saw where you ever mentioned it or the money given to Hillary.

I agree with you in the end that most corporatists probably are not that concerned about who is elected, they do have their favorites and Edwards is the one they least like.

I am sorry to hear about your loss 2 years ago of your father, I still miss my dad and the opportunity to talk to him. Your father's choices are along with mine. I always liked Bradley and Carter is a man I feel was probably one of the most intelligent of all our presidents, not a very strong president but as a human being he is someone I respect and admire very much.

In the end, I do not expect John Edwards to get the nomination but I do hope he has a lot of input when the convention gets here.

[frogcycle]

4. I forget where I saw it, but I read an editorial or heard on AAR

a couple of days ago a discussion of exactly this. The "real" republican party - the big business elitist corporatist medieval nobility republican party - made its "deal with the devil" to recruit the fundies, pander to them a bit, and get their votes so they could win elections* even though they are in such a tiny minority of the population. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Their party is being overtaken by the riffraff they brought in while laughing behind their backs (see: "Faith-based initiatives"). There is all-out panic among some of them. It is like someone lowered the drawbridge and let the serfs into the castle, muddy boots and coarse ways and all.

*or at least keep them close enough to steal

[cali]

6. yep. you're exactly right.

They adopted a cute little demographic that's about to bite them in the ass bigtime.

[Tarc]

11. Schiavo was the beginning

The traditional conservatives were simply aghast at the attempt to forcibly intrude via government on that poor woman's situation. That was the start of the fundamentalist/fiscal conservatism schism that is playing out today.

[billybob537]

5. Correct!

What the republicans are hoping for is a match up with Hillary or Obama! Anyone else will not energize their racist/Clinton haters enough to even be a contest! Thats why Edwards walks away with the greatest lead against all their candidates!
The question is "Do we let the MSM pick the candidate for the Dem party? I don't believe Hilary or Obama will win the primaries. I've been saying for years Edwards is the best choice, and I still believe he will win.

[cali]

8. No. We don't agree. I made the point that

Huckabee and Guiliani would split the party completely, and that Romney would weaken it considerably, and that Clinton and Obama, as well as Edwards would win. And sorry, polls a year out are meaningless whether they're about Clinton's lead or Edwards greater margin of victory over pukes. No negative ads have been run yet about Edwards, and there's plenty of material there, as well as his funding limitations. He'd still win, but I don't think his margin of victory would be any greater than Obama's or Clinton's. And hate is not an effective enough motivator. They need someone to rally around. They don't have it. Repukes are much less enthusiastic about their choices than dems.

As for the canard about the MSM choosing our candidates, that's wearisome. I don't have TV, don't tune in to talk radio- ever, don't read the MSM, and yet mysteriously, I still don't trust Edwards. I'd prefer him over Clinton, but that's about all the enthusiasm I can muster up for him right now. If he wins the nomination, of course I'll ratchet that enthusiasm up.

[OHdem10]

7. Never fear, they are already working on this.

Where Unity really counts the GOP still hold the Lead.

Nyt: Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum.
This is the headline given to their coverage of the Ominibus
Budget Bill.

The division in our own party created the Headline.
The Unity in the Republican Party gave them the win.

It will be interesting to watch the GOP solve their dilema.

AmericanSolutions.com

[cali]

9. Nope. That headline has zilch to do with what I'm talking about

The GOP has run into a buzz saw. That's undeniable.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they want a Dem to win this time

Look at the mess Bush has created. If a Democrat is elected, especially with a divided Congress or one with slim Democratic majorities, the Republicans in the House and Senate can work to block legislation designed to right the wrongs of Bushco. And then the GOP can say in two years that the whole mess is the Democrat's fault.

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have to have the guts to actually try to change things. And he will have to be able to cajole the weak kneed Congresspeople into action as well.

[cali]

12. Except there's little doubt that the dems will increase their majorities

Not only does the election cycle not favor the repukes in the Senate, the large number of repukes not running in the House, but demographics are working against them as well. Dems will pick up 4-6 seats in the Senate and 8-12 in the House. That will make a difference.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. but will the Democratic leadership gain courage?

Or will they continue to say that they don't have the votes? That is what concerns me. That and certain Democrats voting with the Republicans.

[cali]

20. History says yes. And do you realize how much of what they've passed

wouldn't have been vetoed if there was a dem president. If there's a dem president and increased majorities in the Senate and House there's a 100% chance that things like Habeas restoration, War Profiteering prevention, SCHIP, environmental legistation, etc, will pass.

[frogcycle]

15. correct

they won't go quietly into the night. They will all turn into Inhofe on every front. Actually, they already are - they'll just get worse. Trent Lott said a while back that obstructionism was working for them just fine: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/expose_obstructionists

They will spend every minute just blocking everything they can, and adding "poison pills" so that a "compromise" can be reached (aka "watered-down" legislation)

These people think it is all a game. They want to rule the world; it is a big football game, and if they have to go through a few years of playing defense before they get the ball back, well, then they go into "prevent" mode. Because they have the lead, and all they need to do is keep the other side from scoring much, and then they'll win.

[MadBadger]

19. Thats where Bloomberg comes in.