Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dick Morris sees two parties. I see four.

I can't remember a more breathtaking 48 hours in politics since Barack Obama's election in November 2008. Byron Dorgan is out; Chris Dodd is out; Bill Ritter is out. Who would have thought that just one year into Obama's promising presidency, the Democrats who had pinned their hopes on him would be dangerously close to political meltdown?

No doubt this has to do with all the factors you've read about: the lousy economy, public concern about the messy health care compromise, renewed fear of terrorism, the usual cyclical problems of the incumbent party in an off-year election.

But much, much deeper forces are at work -- tectonic shifts in the American electorate that also explain why Republicans are at war with one another and thus unable to take full advantage of the Dems' woes (though the GOP will do well in November if present trends continue).

Dick Morris sees a "New Two-Party System" in which centrist Democrats are getting squeezed out of a liberal party that has no real place for them any more.

That's about half right. It's more like we have four political parties stuffed into two. Roughly speaking, the Democrats consist of a liberal wing (epitomized by, say, Howard Dean) and a centrist wing (think of Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln). The Republicans include a conservative wing (e.g., Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio) and an ultra-conservative wing (Sarah Palin). These are not recent developments. Both parties have been ideological and regional coalitions for decades.

You might even say that the four parties I'm talking about correspond roughly to the four political cultures first identified by historian David Hackett Fischer in his classic book Albion's Seed. That book traced the main currents in American political ideology to the folkways and notions of liberty imported from four British regions that provided the population of early America.

East Anglia gave us the Puritans of New England, with their emphasis -- "liberal," in today's terms -- on community virtue. The Quakers who settled the Delaware Valley established a society and politics built on problem-solving and compromise. Southern England gave us the Virginia cavaliers, founders of a conservative, aristocratic tradition. And the Scotch-Irish who settled the Appalachian backcountry produced a populist, anti-government, "don't tread on me" mentality.

Now, however, under the Internet-intensified pressure of recession, terrorism and global uncertainty, the four parties are breaking out of the two-party mold that had previously contained them. On the Democratic side, President Obama finds himself torn between progressives demanding an ideologically pure health-care program, among other agenda items, and a pragmatic wing desperately attempting to hold together 60 Senate votes by whatever means necessary. On the Republican side, it's unclear whether the party's right wing is angrier at Obama or at its own leadership. Certainly the fury of the Tea Party and similar groups threatens here and there to overwhelm more conventional conservatives (just ask Charlie Crist in Florida).

Dodd, Dorgan and Ritter are victims of the four-way crack-up in the following sense: off-year elections are low-turnout affairs that often hinge on who has the most motivated voter base. In 2010, the Democratic left is turned off while the Republican right is fired up. These three political warhorses could not win under those circumstances. But if the Republicans benefit this fall, their gains may be transitory: their own internal split may flare up once they have to decide how to use their new power.

Small wonder that we are seeing so much churning in the political class, as various incumbents either switch parties or retire prematurely -- while both parties emphasize recruitment of fresh blood and contemplate such unorthodox measures as the Democrats' rumored courting of Tennessean Harold Ford Jr. to run for U.S. Senate in New York.

Where could it all lead? The past is not prologue, but party instability of this magnitude could be the harbinger of even bigger changes. The U.S. political system actually fractured into four major parties in 1860 -- and we all know what happened next.

By Charles Lane  | January 6, 2010; 5:38 PM ET
Categories:  Lane  | Tags:  Charles Lane  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democrats AND Republicans should fear midterm elections
Next: The cruel world of online dating


Actually, I think its the GOP that is more split as we were able to witness in their disintegration in last fall's NY congressional election. The Democrats were the beneficiaries of that GOP split.

While it is true that 13 older congressional Democrats are retiring, let's not forget that 14 congressional Republicans are retiring in 2010 also.

We should also not be surprised at all over any seats won back by the GOP in 2010, some will be the "dead cat bounce"...for the GOP there is nowhere to go but up. Some will be (pardon this old phrase) White backlash. A lot of folks never believed we would have a Black President...and they are none too comfortable with the idea now that its real.

Posted by: free-donny | January 6, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

These "four parties" you cite account for about 60% of the electorate. Their supporters cancel each other out and will not decide the next election, or the next one after that. Who will is the 40% or so Independents who reject either party, who see beyond the faux ideologies of either side, and are not currently represented in Congress or the White House.

Posted by: steve-o5 | January 6, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

One good thing about this rescission/depression is the American citizen is waking up from a very long slumber and discovering that they have been sold into bondage by both political parties in this country.

We are told that globalization is good for our country. Good for whom?

We are told that outsourcing is good for our country. Good for whom?

We are told that Illegal immigration is good for our country. Good for whom?

We are told some businesses are too big to fail and that bailing them out is good for the country. Good for whom?

We are told that giving tax breaks for businesses to relocate overseas is good for the country. Good for whom?

We are told by both political parties to turn a blind eye to corruption at the heart of our democracy. Good for whom?

You have to face the fact that weather you are from the left, right or middle that we have a dysfunctional government at time of national crisis and war. That is not merely wrong but it is treasonous.

We have been divided by race, creed, and political leanings for so long that we no longer know how to talk to each other. We play right into their hands by ignoring each other because we are told that the other fellow cannot be right because he is not my party or creed or race.

My answer to them is

I am an American before I am a party member.

I am an American before I pick up my bible.

I am an American no matter my skin color.

I am an American who will no longer be told to be ashamed of our history. We might not have been perfect but we have much much more to be proud of than to be ashamed of.

I am an American who no longer buys into the thin gruel that Washington is peddling.

I am an American who says we need term limits or we will lose our Democracy to the thieves occupying Washington.

I am an American who says we need Campaign finance reform now not 10 yrs from now

I am an American who says it is time to put aside our differences and stand up and be counted.

I am an American who will bow to no one except God.

What about you?


Posted by: scon101 | January 6, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Lane, do you even remember the election? I do. It was supposed to be fought and won over ending job and factory outsourcing, ending the H1-B, L-1, and like "guest worker" visas. I remember. I voted for Obama. I campaigned for Obama and for our new Senator Jeff Merkley. Instead of keeping their promise, they squandered their political capital on healthcare, various "rights" for minorities, for actually giving taxpayer money to the gigantic corporations, banks, and Wall Street traitors that have been driving job outsourcing. So, of course they will. They deserve to loose. No one imagines that the Republican's are going to be any better, but I and every other liberal I know of is going to vote for them in 2010 to deliver a MESSAGE. Who knows, maybe the Republican's ill get "it" and they will re-enact trade tariffs, punitive taxes, fees, on outsourcing companies and investors and they will enjoy a long and healthy reign as our representatives. If not, we will throw them out in two years, play musical chairs and flat out crush incumbents until they start putting *US* first. In the meanwhile, I simply can't wait to hear the pundits explain away the defeat of entrenched Democratic big wigs like Wyden, Kerry, Schumer, all of those free traitors that compose the leadership of my former party.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 6, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

What political parties? All I see is a few artfully crafted marketing strategies designed, coordinated and funded by Wall Street and managed by a few thousand marginally competent but thoroughly corrupt politicians.

Posted by: DEFJAX | January 6, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Once the health bill is passed, the Democrats will be in a better position because the case against it then will have to be made through facts instead of misinformation. Republicans running on repealing the bill will find it hard to explain just what is so wrong with it. For example, despite all the claims of a "government takeover," this bill depends upon market competition to bring the price of heath care down. On the war front, also, Obama's measured approach and careful analysis will have begun to show results in increased security in the civilian areas targeted by the buildup and in increased effectiveness of Afghan national forces. Liberals, some of whom have strayed from Obama slightly, will have come back to the party by then just as the Hillary defectors lined up for Obama in the general election.

Posted by: roland_menge | January 6, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I think all the pundits are full of a potent combination of manure and methane gas. Which is it: no room for liberals or no room for Blue Dogs and the DLC? I haven't seen a lot of liberal views coming from the White House. Single payer health care? Not even close. Out of Afghanistan? Fuggedaboudit. Depends on who is spinning the tale. We know there are no moderate Republicans who will be allowed to influence their party on its journey to irrelevance. Will the Tea Party people eventually morph into a coalition of independents and fiscal conservatives who used to be Republicans, or be controlled by the real crazies, birthers and such? I sure don't know, but I am sure Chris Dodd's retirement is a big plus for a Democrat holding that Senate seat.

Posted by: greyK | January 6, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

You're looking a bit too far back in my opinion. For a template of what's to come you only have to look at Clinton's first midterm election.

Posted by: wolfcastle | January 6, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I believe its 14 GOP reps not running for re-election versus 10 Democrats.

Ont he Senate side, 6 Republicans are retiring, as opposed to 2 Democrats.

Sure there is fracturing in both parties, but come on, it sure looks like its more complete in the GOP.

And that closing line? Civil War? Are you serious? That's just plain silly.

Posted by: megman | January 6, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"On the Democratic side, President Obama finds himself torn between progressives demanding an ideologically pure health-care program..."

This is a gross slander that actually reveals Mr. Lane's own ideologically driven perspective. Progressives well understand that politics is a process of trying to bring irregular halves together no matter how much the Lanes of this world insist that we do not. The problem with the proposed health insurance reform legislation is not that it does not contain all that we want. The problem is that it actually contains almost nothing of what we wanted.

Posted by: ptcruiser1 | January 6, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

roland_menge - You're living in a fantasy world. I wont be supporting any Democrat that isn't anti-free trade right now. Obama and the rest of those scoundrels have shown that they will blather and promise us anything, but they wont deliver. Now, after it's much much too late to do anything about corporate and banking reform, they couldn't do anything even if they genuinely wanted to. That leaves genuine liberals, as opposed to party operatives and blind fools, with one choice -- visit utter ruin upon them. Destroy the careers of the leadership, turn on them like pack of rabid dogs, make them PAY for LYING to us. I, for one, am flat out furious at the leadership of my former party and I mean to screw them in every way possible and do the same to any nitwits that stick with them after their treachery.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 6, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I like the historical analysis, and I agree (as a Dem moderate who lost his political post because I wasn't pure enough) that the two parties have become four working groups - but the large number of independents suggest that we will soon have a receptive audience for not just new parties but major modifications to the governance of our country (a more parliamentary model?). That doesn't mean civil war (maybe new constitutional conventions). I would myself welcome changes - perhaps term limits and limiting the notion of money as free speech; anything that makes the process more transparent and responsive.

Posted by: jee730 | January 6, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Who would have thought? You would. All they need to do is bomb Iran and you're on their bandwagon forever. Maybe the tea party dudes will run Larry the Cable Guy and elect an independent.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 6, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

If you were paying attention in '93-'94, the Democrats' predicament today is not surprising.

In '93-'94, the Clintons were too liberal for America.

Obama-Pelosi-Reid are too liberal now. Either they make a drastic course correction or their party's candidates will be slaughtered in November.

Republicans, meanwhile, still need to regain trust on fiscal policy. Their leaders are so entrenched in Washington's porker ways, I'm not optimistic on that.

Posted by: DagnyT | January 6, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Folks are missing what happened in NY's 23rd district. The only thing republicans and democrats agree on is that they divide the spoils and that there cannot be be a third party. The republicans sacrificed this seat rather than let a moderate take it. Anyone really doubt that Nancy and Harry aren't making the same threats to moderate dems right now? A third party representing the middle, would leave dems and repubs fighting for scraps -- and money. Follow the money.

Posted by: ericnestor | January 6, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

As intense as the Democrats' efforts were to alienate their own support base, The Republicans seem determined to be doomed from within. They stand for obstructionism and extremism. They are in total denial of the economic destruction they that caused (Reagan, W. Bush), the further destabilization of the world, the transformation of the war on terror to a war for oil profits, and being brothel workers for big insurance and big pharma. The total nuts, like Rush and the 'tea party' types, will push them further into extremism. Fox "News" will cheer their crazier representatives. They are going to be in a serious state of risk by November.

Posted by: revbookburn | January 6, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Of course the left couldn't be split into liberal, and, that wouldn't put the left in a better light than the right.

You're a d00sh

Posted by: urallimbeciles | January 6, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Steve's tirade reflects something crucial in the current environment that David Brooks wrote about yesterday in the NYT. I recommend it. It contains much more wisdom than Mr. Lane.

Posted by: HLS69 | January 6, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Another example of Liberal MSM distortions.
The two wings of Democrat party are described as "Liberal" and "Centrist". The two wings of the Republican party are described as "Conservative" and "Ultra-Conservative".
Poor John McCain, he thought he was a centrist.
Of course Sarah Palin, since she believes in Jesus, is an "Ultra-Conservative", which must be the same as a "Radical Muslim Extremist".
This is an example of sick MSM writing which would have found a nice place in the regimes of Stalin and Hitler.

Posted by: fgoepfert1 | January 6, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I think Health Care Reform will sink the Democrats. All Americans will pay more for health care and more for taxes. Needy Americans will still have to pay for coverage and feel the hardship. It is a loser for everyone.

Posted by: mgd1 | January 6, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting that you quote David Fischer who wrote Albion's Seed. This book should be required reading in every school curriculum in this country. You poorly summarized his findings based on his research of the folkways of all four English groups. Number one, he states that we are all influenced by at least one of the four regardless of our ethnicity today and this continues. You do point some of the superficial differences among the four groups. But Fishcer states further that the one thing the Puritans and the Quakers have in common was their love of education and the showedit often by founding Harvard, Yale, Penn, Brown, within just afew years of hacking their way out of the wilderness. On the other hand the two groups most hostile to education were the Cavaliers and the Scotch-Irish. The Cavaliers because education of the people, whether white or black was a direct threat to their rule in the Southern colonies. Only the first-born sons of the Cavaliers were entitled to an education and that often that was received in England. Is it any wonder that the South to this day has been crippled by this attitude and is highly susceptible to backwoods preachers and posers on Cable TV? The Scotch-Irish were perceived as "white savages" by Franklin among others. They were the last group of arrivals in the Colonies and did not settled in the cities and hightailed it immediately through the Cumberland Gap in the late 1700s. They were anti-goverment as they did not have any stake at all in the then new Constituion and had spent the previous 700 years fighting English kings. There was a reason the Roman Emperor Hadrian built that wall across the north of England.
In his conclusion American is made of now of these four factions with the former two being seen now as one and the later two still celebrating their own respective ignorance or of how they are so good at keeping others ignorant. Europe is more united in many ways than is America which is still pretty much stuck where it has been since about 1790 or so.
This is a book that will surprise many who are used to talking about Blacks, Italians, Jews, Poles, Mexicans but never their own kind, forgetting that just a little further back in history they were immigrants, too.

Posted by: sunnsea | January 6, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

You don't have critics..You have folks out in the public that think you're an idiot, but not critics. You're not that good. Especially when you try to use Rovian math (2 is bigger and worse than 6 - Republican retirements = 6- Dems = 2)...That just continues to re-enforce the FACT you ARE an idiot.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | January 6, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Machiavelli would not be surprised at all. Changes make too many people nervous, if not unhappy, and this president is definitely for altering the status quo, which is synonymous with social paralysis.

The current crisis threatens those who still keep their jobs. The ambience is not conducive to reflection and the moderation reflection requires. Squeaky voices are those which make themselves heard throughout the grey spaces.

Your discussion about the regional coalitions that are eventually regarded as national political parties seems adequate. Some still believe that the cultural extreme right, which better characterizes the GOP, will find a more comfortable environment in a Christian Democratic Party. Perhaps. If you think of a CDP like that of Germany (or Chile), the idea may be fine. But think of a CDP moulded on the Italian defunct counterpart!

Posted by: gpcarvalho | January 6, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Few admit there were many Democrats who helped Republicans bring the 8 year crime wave during the Bush Administration. Dodd got his kick backs and now he's out. Notice how the Media is all over the Dems but for the corrupt Republicans nothing said. We will see Americans have woke up and know the corrupt Law Makers and they will remember the Republican Party of NO on every vote made to help all Americans. Look for Independent and Democrats to win big and yes those honest Republicans too.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | January 6, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

A "political meltdown"?!?! Hardly.

So a handfull of old Dems retire - big whoop. Does anyone really think this is some kind of vindication or good omen for the GOP in the mid-term elections?

Furthermore, anyone who looks to Dick Morris for sagely predictions is a fool.

This is just right-wing nut-jobs continuing their self-destructive wishful thinking. If the GOP wants to be relevent again, they'd better do more than wish and hope and pray. They'd better come up with some good ideas. Fat chance.

Posted by: kurthunt | January 6, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Roughly speaking, the Democrats consist of a liberal wing (epitomized by, say, Howard Dean) and a centrist wing (think of Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln). The Republicans include a conservative wing (e.g., Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio) and an ultra-conservative wing (Sarah Palin).

Why do the Democrats get to have the centrist label and the Republicans get the "far right" treatment. It's all a matter of perspective. If you are left of center and then you look way over to the right you might see people who objectively might be called centrists/moderates as well. However, since your starting perspective is already in the left they are considered "conservative", "ultra-conservative", "far right", etc.

Posted by: sauron | January 6, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The view from the catbird seat is 2 partys.

The X Gop were left behind when their party walked out on the US Constitution to spy, run a not born on the turf blow to the US Constitution, ignored in No on bailouts, then told to ignore illegally secreted intel by a public official.

The X DEms were left behind when their party walked out on them and the US Constitution.

The meeting of the 2 X's was ina party that is on the 50 State ballots already to break the electoral colleges of the 2 corrupt partys.

Now the GOP and Dems mount another attack on the US Constitutional Republic in the form of Napolitano open borders during 2 wars, to apparently grant amnesty to out-vote the American base.

Apparently, nothing illegal is out of the realm of these 2 corrupt partys. The void of the USA through tyranny taxation on the unborn, is their standard of moral turpitude.

Posted by: dottydo | January 6, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Is this the chicken little report? Lane has blown this completely out of proportion. "Dangerously close to political meltdown"?!? Because of three resignation announcements Lane has concluded that the Democratic party is close to extinction, or whatever political meltdown means.

This is hardly catastrophic, Mr. Lane. Have some tea and perhaps read up on the history of the legislature.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | January 6, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

The liberal democrats read the election results wrong. They thought this was a sudden shift by the American people to approve their leftist policies. This was not the case. America was just simply tired from the problems of the past four years, and voted for the only other candidate, who by the way, was talking centrist policy. A few things you don't hear about are matters not meeting public approval. The Dems refusal to allow more domestic drilling for oil while still forcing us to rely on foreign oil, rankles people. We know that "green" energy is nowhere near being developed. We also know that jobs are needed in the USA and this would help. Dems want to force all Americans to buy health insurance whether they want it or not--this is against traditional American values. The Democratic party is identified with gay marriage and abortion, two social issues that meet strong disapproval of many Americans. The Dems won't face their problems. They keep blaming everything on Republicans, who though far from perfect, did not cause all the problems alone that brought the wealthiest nation in the world to the brink of bankruptcy. That was truly one bipartisan effort that worked. Most of America is not as liberal as the Democratic leadership. That is why they are in trouble.

Posted by: johntu | January 6, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I know American people are bitter and angry now. They seldom were not. But it's a little too shallow to pin Dorgon's and Dodd's dicision to President Obama. Dorgon is from a conservative state. Dodd's trouble began well before Obama was elected. By the way, I remember there are more Republicans who call it quit for the coming election - does my memory serve me right? Why should you folks make such a big deal out of this?

Posted by: ExpressReader | January 6, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

What is so odd about retiring at 65 after decades of public service?

Sen. Byrd and Sen. Hatch should have retired years ago; do you really enjoy seeing them displayed as worn out tires that can still carry the truck of the US government (albeit with a significant risk of a dangerous flat)?

Posted by: Martial | January 6, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

You see 4...I see 1. The 1 is the party that wants all commucrats out of legislative power as soon as possible. The election of 2006 was the biggest travesty ever dealt to the American people. They did it to themselves and they're the only ones who can undo it. All democrats need to be voted out of office in Nov 2010.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | January 6, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Why is anyone listening to the toe sucker? Or Gingrich for that matter!

Posted by: knjincvc | January 7, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Lane senses a tectonic shift in Dick Morris's shorts and the WP prints it.

Posted by: craigjjs | January 7, 2010 6:01 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
07 January 2010

I can only conclude that Charles Lane, in this essay, proves that he has a more nuanced assessment of U.S. politics than Dick Morris.

Indeed, in reality there are four political parties now operating in these United States. The Democratic party is split into two. Likewise the Republican party.

This is the main reason why even if Democrats enjoy a comfortable majority in both houses of the Congress, they still find it hard to get things done that quickly--if at all.

That is likewise the problem which Republicans encounter when they are the majority in the Senate and in the House.

This is a situation which lends itself to stalemate and paralysis.

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | January 7, 2010 6:21 AM | Report abuse

Consider this. More Republicans than Democrats have already announced they will not run for re-election. Or had that little fact slipped past you in the daylight?

With a party platform built on three planks - fear, hate, obstruct - I would think it is the G-NO-P that is danger come mid-term elections. The major acts of terrorism in this country have been orchstrated by the right-wing neo-fascists in this country, or did you miss the near riots they brought to last summer's town hall meetings. Death panels? Why are right-wingers so bent on killing people?

Posted by: BigTrees | January 7, 2010 6:30 AM | Report abuse

The idea that the Democrats are undergoing anything like the ideological civil war raging in the GOP is just nuts. The GOP is about where it was circa 1964 when it was overtaken by a right wing movement that managed to nominate Goldwater and which even its own Republican Establishment (i.e. Eisenhower, Rockefeller wing) were describing under their breath as fascist.

Healthy political parties in our two party system absorb political movements and rub off their rough edges to make them digestible for the larger country. In the GOP's case it has been absorbed by the same right wing, largely white, Christian and Southern (in geography if not worldview) that it once tried to make a junior partner in its governing coalition.

Proof of that was the inability of John McCain to take charge of his party after he won the nomination and was instead humiliated by the right wing base that insisted he accept what amounted to his third choice as running mate, Sarah Palin. And the idea that national "Republican" figures like Palin and Pawlenty would endorse a non-Republican (but right wing conservative) candidate in a special Congressional election as they did in the New York 23, was breathtaking in what it says about the true nature of the GOP as a leaderless cultural protest movement and not a national political party in the American tradition at all.

Lane does a great disservice to his readers with this kind of lazy equilivalance he sets up (and by his even lazier labeling of Sen. Lincoln as a "centrist" which suggests "sensible" when she is quite obviously your run-of-the-mill conservative Southern Democrat) by suggesting that anything like this deep ideological fissure is tearing Democrats apart. They might have heated arguments and threaten to run primary challengers against one another, but that's just normal stuff in any party. Democrats are not trying to purge one another from their party as Republicans are with their ideolgical litmus tests and by their RNC Chairman offering a 12-Step program that seems more like a blueprint for moral salvation than political recovery with its advice that Republicans admit their sins for having abandoned conservative "values" and "principles" and for forgiveness and absolution with a promise to return to the one true Conservative Faith.

The GOP isn't a political party. It's a religion.

Posted by: TedFrier | January 7, 2010 6:32 AM | Report abuse

There is struggle in the Dem party, and those who know a bit of political philosophy can easily identify it. Lane doesn't recognize it directly, but in his own writing he actually identifies three camps in the Dem Party: liberals, "centrists", and he later mentions the "pragmatists". These are poor monikers.

A better rubric for the pragmatists Dems would be Social Dems. The term fits their politics and connects it to accepted political philosophy. Social Dems have approved of policies that Obama has justified on the basis that it would be "good for us all" or "good for certain groups." This is how communitarians typically argue for their policy proposals. In political science, progressive communitarians are sometimes called socialists. The term carries negative connotations in America, but Dems can't escape the fact that many of Obama's policies were constructed on such rationale.

For instance, rather than looking at the range of affected individuals like taxpayers and investors in any substantive way, Obama argued bank bailouts would be good for us all. Liberals would have opted for a receivership-type policy that would have distributed the risks fairly.

Health Care is another example. Rather than letting individuals decide for themselves what how to spend their money - as Obama suggested in the campaign, Obama led Dems to compromise for a mandate. The common argument his supporters use is that this benefits a certain group of people who do not have health care. Liberal democrats would have gone with a public option and let individuals make their own decisions.

Social Dems is a more USEFUL category because it identifies the assumptions these type of Dems use to evaluate to process and the end policy result. Centrist is a term that means virtually nothing. No one goes around saying they are a centrist.

Posted by: sti1es | January 7, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

What this article fails to acknowledge is the huge grassroots support Obama generated. We were heard from loud and clear on election day and we are still out here watching the "Party of No" trying to overthrow yet another election this time by obstructionism. I wouldn't be predicting anything without factoring us in to it.

Posted by: AverageJane | January 7, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"and we all know what happened next"

Yes, but some forget that the "States Rights" side LOST.

Posted by: StevenEMedlock | January 7, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

fgoepfert1 wrote: "This is an example of sick MSM writing which would have found a nice place in the regimes of Stalin and Hitler."

Generally when someone throws around casual comparisons to Stalin and Hitler, they dont actually have a clue about the what the regimes of those autocratic dictators were like.

Only those ignorant of history and intellectually lazy, use such thoughtless comparisons.

Posted by: gorble | January 7, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I've had about as much government as I can stand over the past few years, and I don't think I am alone.

I look forward to divided government, so things get gummed up and only the truly important things get done.

Posted by: sold2u | January 7, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

If more Republicans than Democratic Senators are retiring, it is not a "meltdown" for the Democratic Party.

Lane is a very typical member of the Washington Post Editorial Board. I have no respect for these writers because they donned cheerleader skirts and fluffed their way to being the permanent pro-war voice of the right wing.

And lane is the worst. Lane writes his dog pile rants on behalf of punishing the poor and worshiping the wealthy by opposing living wages and calling for a cut in the Minimum Wage.

Lane is a fool, and a right wing fool, but welcome as his conformist views are at the Post, even Lane needs to get is facts correct, and as a factual matter:

If more Republicans than Democratic Senators are retiring, it is not a "meltdown" for the Democratic Party.

Posted by: wapoisrightwingrag | January 7, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I am a (former) Obama supporter who's frankly disgusted with BOTH the Republicans and Democrats. The time has never been more ripe for the emergence of a third party. The growing income disparity and corporate ownership of Washington will be our undoing.

Posted by: twnctyguy | January 7, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Look. We have a two party system. The left is not going away and neither is the right. But, at some point when the people wander back and forth between these two poles they get tired and come together somewhere in the middle where everything works.

No matter how the elections turn out this fall, the liberals will still be there and the conservatives will still be there. In the final analysis, all of this might be fun for the media but sometime this year each party has to choose their candidate. And in this paradigm that means one republican and one democrat. Oh, maybe they can change their names but one way or another they are going to end up on the same chessboard they have always operated on.

Democrats will lose seats this fall. It is natural. Republicans will pick up seats. How many? Don't really know. But, anyone who thinks there is something "different" going on out there just doesn't know their history. We have been through this same phenomenon throughout our history.

No matter how all of this bubble and fizz plays out, the left and the right and the center are all still going to be there and we are going to end up with candidate A versus candidate B and one will win and one will lose and in the end there will be so many type A's and type B's and life will go on. Limbaugh will still be on radio cussin' the ones he doesn't like and Olberman will still be on TV rippin' the ones he doesn't like and we will do it all over in a couple of years and have a whole new configuration of A and B.

It never ceases to amaze me that liberals and conservatives cannot see that these ideologies are eternal. None of them ever die. They just get different names.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 7, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

“Roughly speaking, the Democrats consist of a liberal wing (epitomized by, say, Howard Dean) and a centrist wing (think of Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln). The Republicans include a conservative wing (e.g., Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio) and an ultra-conservative wing (Sarah Palin).”

Interesting, Voinovich is retiring, twitter queen Palin is hawking her book.. no mention of McConnell, Boehner or any other leaders in the G NO P.

Posted by: sold2u
“I've had about as much government as I can stand over the past few years, and I don't think I am alone. I look forward to divided government, so things get gummed up and only the truly important things get done.”

Humm…What do you consider important? We haven’t had much government with the party of “NO” stopping everything important to America.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 7, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

The country is in desperate need of a strong, centrist political party whose presence in a coalition would be required in order to govern. There are a lot of people associated with the Tea Party movement who could be drawn into such a party, if it were structured along the lines of what people around Ross Perot had attempted in 1992. The trick would be to get some nationally-known figure, like a Perot, to lead it and to be willing to burn their political bridges behind them in the process if it didn't work. It might have to be someone like Perot who is outside of the current system but who can draw people in- as Perot did with Hamilton Jordan - who were fed up with the current system and wanted to make some major changes. They would be demonized immediately by all of those who undeservedly receive Federal spending at odds with the interests of the majority- the defense contractors, the Israeli lobby, agricultural interests, etc. So, I wish someone luck if they decide to do so and I would be the first to support them.

Posted by: ripvanwinkleincollege | January 7, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Dec. 2010 will see the Democrats with a reduced majority in both the House and the Senate but still a majority. This will cause the next two years to be a more bi-partisan effort but by then the more controversial programs will have been enacted. If the extreme Right and the Tea party succeed in removing a large part of the remaining Moderate Republicans (as defined by them) in 2010, there will more than likely be gridlock in the Senate even on legislation that has the support of a majority of Americans. If that happens the GOP will have a problem in 2012. The extremes in both parties are creating an atmosphere that could result in a viable third party in the center. That could make things very interesting.

Posted by: notthatdum | January 7, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

If you think that the Democrats are "...dangerously close to political meltdown?"
you obviously haven't been paying attention to the numbers. So far, two Democratic Senators are retiring, out of 60 current Senators, which represents 3.3 % of Democratic Senators. FOUR Republican Senators are retiring, out of....40 current Senators, which represents 10% of Republican Senators. Now, which party is "melting down"? Once again, get your facts right, Charles.

Posted by: posterchild90 | January 7, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Who are the enablers of the abuse suffered by the American people at the hands of Congress, Presidents, etc.?

It is the U.S. Supreme Court! With the two stupid decisions giving corporations "personhood" and equating money to free speech. Yet, nobody goes after them. Why are they given a free ride to do anything they want? Where are the checks and balances on them?

And now Scalia is salivating at his chance to expand the corporate money in politics by taking all controls off of money in politics. Bye, Bye America! Hello pure Fascism!

Posted by: baldski | January 7, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

An interesting read until the insane last sentence. So, if the parties realign (which always involves some interim fracturing into more than two parties) and we wind up with the Whigs and the Federalists, or however it ultimately comes up -- a process that has occurred repeatedly in the past and in other democracies -- that equals violent insurrection and bloody civil war in which the states group together and kill large numbers of the residents of other states? Because that's pretty much what a civil war boils down to.

No, I agree a change may be coming one way or another, and wouldn't want to predict how it all will work out, but despite Rick Perry's random mention of Texas seceding (though he continues to blithely accept federal dollars), I don't think an actual armed mass conflict among Americans, with Armies, Navies, Marines, and now Air Forces on each side -- and let's not forget, with nuclear weapons presumably available to each side -- is in the cards.

That's why I call the last sentence of this column insane.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | January 7, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: knjincvc

Humm…What do you consider important? We haven’t had much government with the party of “NO” stopping everything important to America.


You got your stimulus plan, you got your auto companies and half of wall street, you got your healthcare reform, you got your tax increases. Take your winnings, be happy, and go away for a while. I want your guys to demonstrate they know what the hell they are doing. I am skeptical... If the government proves it can run healthcare without turning it into Amtrak, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I spent enough time working in government to know what it can, and more importantly, cannot do.

Posted by: sold2u | January 7, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

this article doesnt rate a comment.

Posted by: donaldtucker | January 7, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the commenter above who stated that the Dems seriously misinterpreted their victory of '08. Actually, I believe that THEY believed their own propaganda. The American majority voted for the candidate who was NOT GEORGE BUSH. They did not suddenly buy into the entire "progressive" political, economic and social agenda. As the events described in this article show, Americans did NOT write the "progressive" wing of the Democrat party a blank check to be used to make all its dreams come true. Honest to God, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going on, terrorist attacks in the offing, Russia acting beligerent again, the economy in tatters - the Dems' obsession with healt care reform seems remarkably self-indulgent. Yeah, we know it's the "progressive's" Holy Grail. Yeah, we know Teddy Kennedy would have wanted it. But what the hell does it have to do with America's current, pressing problems? NOTHING. How about focusing on real issues for a while. You can get back to building your Utopia after the dust clears.

Posted by: Bugs3 | January 7, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Roughly speaking, the Democrats consist of a liberal wing (epitomized by, say, Howard Dean) and a centrist wing (think of Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln). The Republicans include a conservative wing (e.g., Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio) and an ultra-conservative wing (Sarah Palin)."

Nice slight of hand, Lane...of course, like everything else Liberal, you're wrong. There is no actual centrists in the Democrat party, only nominal ones.

2010 and 12 will push the abort button on the fiasco that was November 2008.

Posted by: DCer1 | January 7, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Some will be (pardon this old phrase) White backlash. A lot of folks never believed we would have a Black President...and they are none too comfortable with the idea now that its real.

yeah and blacks will never backlash against obama no matter what he does.

face it, white republicans are probably the least racist voting block in all of america.

afterall blacks went for obama 95-5


they also happen to be the least educated voting block in america (sorry, its just a fact)

Posted by: dummypants | January 7, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"But what the hell does it (health care) have to do with America's current, pressing problems? NOTHING. How about focusing on real issues for a while.(Which are??) You can get back to building your Utopia after the dust clears.

Health care cost are killing American business, that is a REAL pressing issue. Real issues besides HC are education, rebuilding infrastructure to be ready for jobs which haven't been invented yet. Who knew how important the computer generation would be in 1975?
As for education, the Chinese and Indian's have the real potential by shear population brute force to clean our clock if Americans don't wake up to the real issues.

Posted by: knjincvc | January 7, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

This is just pundit talk. Political meltdown? I don't think so. As others are commenting, just think back to the Clinton years...and I don't expect we will see anything as significant as those midterms. The Republican reaction to Obama is just as hysterical (perhaps more) than it was to Clinton, but the Republican party is itself in disarray and there are many who think the Tea Bag crowd should shuffle off and form their own party ("Badly Educated Middle Aged White Men" might be an appropriate name). Because they are bullies they will cause havoc in the Republican party wherever they do not get their way - which will be most places. All of which is infinitely preferable to a repeat of the Gingrich "revolution" of the 90s, one of the most destructive and foolish periods in modern US political history.

Posted by: gposner | January 7, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Liberals/Progressives will tell you that the Democratic is basically a centrist party and that what this country lacks is a strong progressive party akin to the Social Democratic parties of Europe. One look at the current version of the health care reform bill should tell you that they are probably correct.

Posted by: jbentley4 | January 7, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Hogwash! You sound as if you were 10 years old.

How many "doom and gloom" pieces on the Democrats can the Post possibly publish in two weeks time? (Hint: much more copy than it devotes to facts, i.e. the news.)

Republicans are retiring too--more in numbers than Dems, I think. The GOP will also pay in many districts for being against everything positive just to tarnish Obama politically and make of him a "failure". But you don't care about this, you of the snarling pack of media dogs.

Why do you join this chorus of received opinion, mostly scripted by the extreme right? Why do you take sides with the nutty Tea Party people instead of stepping out to defend pragmatic policy and programs that will help America climb out a very bad place?

You and all the editors at the Post must begin to think rather than babble the day's street-cleanings. Might it be that journalism is not being killed by online competition but rather journalists and editors of print publications have totally failed their role in our society?

Posted by: walden1 | January 7, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Nativist, middle-class revolt against international elites and their underclass puppets by the end of 2012.

(The Mayans were on to something after all.)

Posted by: pmendez | January 7, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

We need blue dog dem's and conservative
republicans to stop this train wreck
deficit spending.
Two parties, Them/Spending

Posted by: simonsays1 | January 7, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"face it, white republicans are probably the least racist voting block in all of america.

afterall blacks went for obama 95-5"
And you could probably say 95% or more of white republicans voted for McCain. And African Americans have historically voted Democratic in every election - and it usually ends up being in the ninety percent range - so your statistic is meaningless in this context.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | January 7, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I think 4 polical parties would be a positive thing. It would prevent the current situation where one side or the other has total control.

If no one party held a majority then they might actually have to compromise and talk to one another to solve problems instead of just bullying each other.

Just a thought.

Posted by: BradG | January 7, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to those who have pointed out a fact that was apparently too inconvenient for Mr. Lane to acknowledge: MORE Republican representatives and senators than Democrats have already announced they're not seeking re-election. It is amazing that anyone armed with that information could seriously declare that the Democrats are on the verge of another 1994 wipeout!

Yes, Democrats will almost certainly lose seats this November, as has happened to virtually every party at midterms. But it is virtually impossible for them to lose enough races to forfeit control of either house of Congress or anything close to it. Sorry, Republicans, but that's the way it is.

Posted by: DCSteve1 | January 7, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

It does appear that the last round's illegal voters including Mickey Mouse and friends won't even vote for the Pernicious Party now.

These 2 corrupt partys have to band togather now, and have to import a lot more voters to over ride the 88% now voting Independent Party for either of them to survive.

Forget that such activity is un-american, their survival isabove the law.

Posted by: dottydo | January 7, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

It does appear that the last round's illegal voters including Mickey Mouse and friends won't even vote for the Pernicious Party now.

These 2 corrupt partys have to band together now, so together they now have to import a lot more voters to over ride the 88% now voting Independent Party for either of them to survive.

Forget that such activity is un-american activity, clearly, their survival is above the law.

Posted by: dottydo | January 7, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Where you see 4 parties I see 1 1/2! The so-called Republicans, my party for over 40 years is a splinter party of religious wing nuts and nationalistic world-dominating wing nuts; which will barely qualify as 1/2. The political Republicans and Democrats are really just different labeled neo-fascists, corporate owned demagogues selling the country and themselves to the highest bidder; because they have the power, the money, and the reins of government and media propaganda control; we need to count them as the one party. The fact that 70-80% of the people of this "country" find every politician, every CEO, every banker, every wall-streeter, every General, and most self-proclaimed pundits venal cowards, opportunistic thieves,and charlatans besides being traitors, criminals, oath-breakers, and just plain bad people leads one to believe that there exists some sort of populists political action. Wish that it was so; but in fact Americans will just go back to their reality TV and let the nation continue to debase itself and the 1% of 1% will bray their contempt for the masses and their ignorant acceptance of stupidity and hubris!

Posted by: Chaotician | January 7, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party nominated its leading moderate as President, a man with maverick, centrist positions based on a long record of policy positions and voting.

The Democratic Party nominated a faux "post-partisan" whose minimalist voting record nevertheless established him as among the most left-wing Democrats in the Senate. His record thus far as President is to lead the very forcing out of moderates to which you refer in the header of your article.

Republicans are undergoing a resurgence of the point of view that small government, reducing spending and taxes is the future for building center and right of center coalitions that predominate in this country.

Every survey debunks your theme that Republicans and surging forces like the Tea Party folks are "far right and extreme right yada yada yada". It's the Democrats who have reached the fruition of ideological governance, and it's a far left, very ugly rendition.

Posted by: analysis1 | January 7, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Tell ya what, let's ask the National Chairman of the Republican Party which party is cracking up. Oh yeah, he's too busy cracking the rest of us up!


Gimme a break! With a 20 vote lead in the Senate and a 79 vote lead in the house, how could the Democrats or any other party possibly maintain that gap?

Just by simple gravity, the GOP should win some seats. And just ask Mike Steele, gravity is all the GOP has working for it. Even a dead cat bounces and does anyone think things could possibly get any worse for Repubes?


Posted by: free-donny | January 7, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

To: free-donny

As was true for the liberal leadership in D.C., free-donny neglects to mention the Republican wins in Va. and N.J. on the same night. Also, the f'd up way the Republican candidate in N.Y. was selected - and her showing her true colors at the end - should not give free-donny a warm, fuzzy sense of security regarding that seat. It goes back to the "Repugs" (let me save you some ink) next election. And free-donny has set up the liberal squeal for 2010 and 2012 by categorizing any liberal losses in those contests as nothing but racism. it has nothing to do with his mis-guided policies, his broken campaign promises (how 'bout "transparency"..."it will all be done on C-SPAN" X 100), turning over key initiatives to the most far left members of his party after promising inclusion and bi-partisanship, rolling back security precautions THAT WORKED!, spending us into potential bankruptcy (far beyond what he inherited and with scant success), still blaming Bush for everything when he only desrves some of it, AND ON AND ON. Yeah, it's all about being black, free-donny - maybe in your mind. Happy New Year!

Posted by: ddnfla | January 7, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

As an Australian, I have a particular affinity for America - its values, its constitution, its creative output, and just the very idea of America itself - yet I am in constant wonder at its ability to cannibalize itself with ideological vitriol that has very little to do with the reality of the times, and the disproportionate advancement of ideas that the American media portrays as being mainstream.

This happens in Australia to be sure, but it is far more pronounced (from my view afar) in America.

The craziness of the supposed backlash to President Obama`s health reforms is truly astounding to me. We have a socialized health industry in Australia (supplemented with private insurance in certain instances) and I will not make false claims that it is perfect, it mos def is not, but the underlying rationale behind it is that every citizen of our country is protected. This is one part of a Government`s role, and it makes economic sense.

I mention all this simply because President Obama was elected by an overwhelming majority in 08, and one of his stated goals was to fix American health care. So he sets about doing that and then (some) Americans go nuts and then some of the media goes nuts and then there seems to be a feeding frenzy with everyone looking at navels and sizing up if they are able to make the navels a permanent hole. But then over-thinking even this, to start wondering the exact proportions of spatiality this perma-hole should be and wondering if perhaps their should be a little sympathy so to apply bandages or not, and if they should be clean or dirty bandages or home-made or store-bought and it turns into one big conjunctive, suppurating mess, but the hole hasn`t even been made yet, just the idea of it.

All Western democracies are made up of uneasy, shifting alliances, that is the greatness of them and also the instigation of angst.

I am a liberal, I do not hate conservatives (I love the discourse in fact), I did not hate President G.W. Bush (though disagreed with some his rhetorical and actual positions), but when Glen Beck becomes the mouthpiece of conservatism and starts calling Nelson D. Rockefeller a Communist, maybe conservatives should stop listening to the geezer.

I mean, as Jon Stewart said recently, really, what has President Obama done that has warranted such vituperation and emotional rapine?

Apologies for the long and winding response, but appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Posted by: RolloTomasi | January 7, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Check out our COMMUNISTS IN THE US GOVERNMENT News and Reference Site:

Facts organized all in one location. Obama, New Party, Ayers, Dunn, Jennings, Jones, Sunstein, Jarrett, Lloyd, Wright, School Indoctrinations, Soros, Cop-Killers, Cuban Spy Rings, Commie Media, Misinformation, Congress Investigation, plus details on Socialist/Communist Members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and over 80 others. Listen to Soviet Spy defector explain how communist takeovers are performed and Reagan's guidance on dealing with Communists. Learn what a Socialist, Communist and Progressive is. Examine ACORN, SEIU's and Union Communist leaders. See FBI files and testimonies. Catch up on Takeover News and study a Communist Takeover Plan from the 1960's, along with how to resist. Videos, links, pdfs.

Commies can run, but they can't hide! -

Posted by: CommieBlaster | January 8, 2010 5:59 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Senator Voinovich is a liberal dressed up as a moderate Republican. As someone who lives in Ohio, I know this. The Democratic Party splits are best described as liberal and ultra-liberal (progressive). The Democrats are overall significantly left of center. The Republican splits are the moderate-liberal and conservative, though overall it is right of center. But for the last century, particularly since the New Deal and its massive vote-buying schemes dressed up as long-term entitlement programs, the Democratic Party is best characterized as corrupt to the core. Yes, there have been Republicans who have fallen into the corruption trap in the effort to use Democratic tools of buying power and votes with taxpayer money, but the Republican core wants desperately to get back to small, efficient, honest government and jettisoning the Federal vote-buying schemes like social engineering programs, wealth redistibution scams and so-called "health care reforms".

Posted by: honorswar26 | January 8, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse

This column is definitely overwrought, almost hysterical. It's a cold winter day today--Mr. Lane should take a walk in the snow, have a cup of hot cocoa, and try to calm down.

Posted by: jwyzalek | January 8, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

I fully agree with you, mibrooks27. The problem is, however, that Medicare would be destroyed in between and many similar things would occur. It seems that the bunch of powerful thieves in government acts much faster than any opposite reaction can be produced. This country is fast declining and I happened to be in the very sensitive and the most absurd point of this decline.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 8, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse


The Democrats are rotten to the core but the Republicans are pure eh? Pfffht! Worship less at the power of the Party eh? Pfffht! I think you know diddley-squat about what the Republican Party actually represents anymore. Reagan exemplified HUGE government, MASSIVE SPENDING, and the quieted voice of the American people. He wasn`t a bad dude at all, I actually mean that, but he was mos def bad at his job. When did the Wall Street crash of the eighties hit?

I am thinking it was at the heart of his second term. No one to blame except... except all that Peras..ay what Roy, kan`t even get into this place.

Reagan was a genius. I don`t think I have heard of any President sleeping and dozing as well as that geezer did. He was exemplary at it. Pretty good at snoozing it too.

I do not doubt Reagan`s purity of heart. I think he meant to do good things. And he did do things he meant to do good, accidents are chance. But galvanize America he did do not. He did not make the American Federal Government smaller. He did not decrease taxes to the larger large of the universe large any smaller, save for those that thought themselves bigger than America, larger than America itself, thought themselves the Universe, and ****ing tanked it - PiSzooo. It is a sexy sound that the Republicans begat the God of Obsolescence - BiShootz. Gaaaaaaarzoontike. Astonishingly how good that sounds, now, as it streezles our sleeves. What a profound act affect that has had on ourselves, and the AP, the communist AP, told me that.

And I am ears aplunder fron years of defunds.

Is that when the Banks of Most Yieldest, creep along the floor...

Oh, cheers darlin` (:waves to fourth hook[professional sure, but so inspiring too] of the seventh district of a state somewheres in America), I only fort Limbo-expounds in mounds of un-festooned American Hades-seeeekyness.

Posted by: RolloTomasi | January 8, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Sadly there no longer are political parties in existence that faithfully practice the democratic ideals of the founding fathers nor are there political parties that pursue the ideals of the republic which carefully adhere to the voice of the American people. What now remains is largely the shrill sound of numerous wayward politicians which shamefully pursue their own personal agendas at the expense of the nation. The old adage that the more things change in Washington the more things remain the same is true! The country is in fact the worse for it.

Posted by: joe100821 | January 8, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

"There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own," Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, said Sunday. "But if it comes from anyone else,
it's racism."

Posted by: jahoby | January 11, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company