As for the perception of “Democrat [sic—can’t you show a little class?] foreign policy appeasement,” I already agreed with you. The Republicans used their ability to set the agenda, by gutting civil-service protections in the DHS and by manipulating the run-up to Gulf War II, to paint the Democrats as weak on foreign policy. Both Republican policies have been unmitigated disasters in the real world, but they were extraordinarily successful politically.

“To whom do you pledge allegiance, Sebastian? The United States of America, or the Republican Party?”

I don’t know about Sebastian, but you’ve convinced me. Next election, I’m voting for the flag.

I heard that in Kansas the school kids recite the pledge as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the the United States of America and to the Republicans for which it stands…”

What’s the matter with Kansas?

Read above. The thesis is that Republicans gain power by controlling the levers of the state and exploiting them to shut out Democrats. Unfortunately for that thesis, Republicans gained power at a time when the Democrats controlled all three branches of government. The fact that Republicans voted against Clinton’s abysmal health care plan does nothing to verify the thesis in question.

The concept that some ideas rejected by Democrats might appeal to people has apparently not crossed anyone’s mind.

“The point, as you most certainly know, is that the Republicans actively fought not Clinton’s specific initiatives, but the very possiblity of Clinton’s success.”

Failed because the minority party didn’t support him? Am I permitted to use this argument with Bush and Iraq?

The point, as you most certainly know, is that the Republicans actively fought not Clinton’s specific initiatives, but the very possiblity of Clinton’s success. Gingrich said to Clinton – years later, after Newt was out of power – that he and Dole recognized that success for Clinton in ‘93 and ‘94 would lead to a lasting Democratic majority, and thus the Republicans chose to do everything possible to derail that success. It had NOTHING to do with the good of this country. It had EVERYTHING to do with the good of the Republican party.

To whom do you pledge allegiance, Sebastian? The United States of America, or the Republican Party? Do you love your country, or your party? Because your party cares for itself (and its donors), not for its country.

Oh yeah, not a SINGLE FUCKING ONE. They all said that it would result in a catastrophic economic collapse.

Oh, and Dole worked not to develop a workable compromise on health care, but to destroy it so that they could run on its failure. You know, putting the good of the country behind partisan politics?

Please, please stop trying to pass off your bullshit version of recent events in an informed forum. We were there, Sebastian, same as you.

American liberal/lefties generally grew up during a period in which, at least on the legislative level, the Democrats had hegemony. And this period coincided with the shift to the left of the Democrats, which came in response to extra-party movements—the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, etc. But that hegemony ended long ago, the Dems have been shifting right for almost twenty years, and for almost any conservative boilerplate rolled out by some G.O.P.-er, I can find comparable stuff from a Democrat.

McCain is, of course, mostly a standard rightwinger, but his willingness to criticize military spending—for instance, on the 30 billion dollar fraud of “renting” useless Boeing jets—can be very favorably contrasted to Hillary Clinton’s support for every military boondoggle that has come down the pike, including the Star Wars defense.

What this means is not that liberals should immediately vote for McCain or vote against whoever runs against Hillary. Rather, it means being smart enough to support moderate Republicans in, say, the South, where Republicans have a one party lock—and will have for the next generation. In the same way that Democrats could generate racist segregationists like Fullbright, who still could criticize, and become prominent for criticizing, the Vietnam war led by his own party’s LBJ, progressives should stop the “Re-thug” talk and get real. Otherwise, they will simply cede the legislative branch to the right wing. This isn’t about whether McCain is a liberal—of course he isn’t—but it is about placing your bets for win, place or show. If there is a logic to supporting conservative Democrats running for offices they are clearly going to lose in the South, I’d like to hear what it is.

Others have picked on this statement, but I’ve got to pile on also.

Liberal Republicans are people like Linc Chaffee and Jim Jeffords. Going back a bit John Lindsey, Jacob Javits, and Ed Brooke.

John McCain is not very different than Barry Goldwater. That he can be viewed as moderate is simply a comment on how far right the center of political debate has moved. I mean, really: on what issues is he moderate? That he doesn’t personally like the Rove machine? His support for campaign finance reform? I can’t think of much else.

As for Giuliani and Schwartznegger, yes, neither are standard bearers for the Christian right. But otherwise, how would they be considered liberal? They’ve sold themselves as such, largely on issues like abortion and gay rights. But lets be honest, its going to be pretty damn hard for either of them to get far in a GOP primary with views such as these. And indeed, Schwartznegger bowed to the political reality of his base by vetoing a gay rights bill recently in CA.