Point taken. Which is why I want the Repugnicant part to dry up and blow away.

Cheers! (I hope)

It's not happening because, although the democrats are centrist conservatives, they're about the furthest left this nation has right now. Any attempt to create a party further to the left will result in splitting the votes and guaranteeing that wingnuts will be sitting in the White House for 8 years. (Nader anyone?)

However the US only has 2 political parties, both very similar to an outsider. If one party fails or ceases to become an effective opposition what kind of Democracy will the US have?

I think the US needs more than 2 similar Political parties. A raft of parties where voters choose their reresentatives based on their local policies must surely be the way forward and may lead to a real democracy.

This would encourage alliances and coalitions leading to powersharing and would hopefully make bi-partisenship a reality rather than a buzz word.

Seperating the Christian Right from the GOP would be good for the planet hopefully encouraging them to quietly wait on a hill for the Rapture whilst the rest of us continue to deal with reality.

Proably just a pipe dream though…………………………..

What Beck, Palin, teabaggers, et cet. promote is not conservatism. To Ed's point in the last paragraph, they are morons preaching idiocy to fools.

The Republic party deserves to dry up and blow away. For the good of the world, I hope it happens. The Democrats now occupy the centrist-conservative, pro-corporate position that was the traditional Republic party focus. There's room on the left for a new, genuinely liberal political force to emerge. Why is it not happening?

Cheers!
JzB the slow-thinking trombonist

It never occurred to me to ask this question until now – but could this be part of why many American businesses are having their asses handed to them by foreign competition?

Cheers!
JzB the inquisitive trombonist

I'm currently wondering how big that number will be. If a bunch of teabaggers win primaries and run against even a crappy Democrat, we could see a smaller turnover.

However, I think even if Dems gained 10-20 seats (nearly an impossible goal traditionally), the media (let alone Beck) would focus only on the one district that a Blue Dog lost to a Tea Partier and how that was clearly a mandate for Obama to start another war with some brown people somewhere.

The problem is that they can't conceive of anyone who isn't hardline. Their brains aren't capable of processing the notion of someone who would normally vote Republican, but the candidate is *too* batshit for their tastes so they'll take the Democrat. These people have been steeped in the "never ever elect a Democrat for any reason EVER" culture and mythos that the Becks, Coulters, and Malkins of the world have brainwashed them into for so long that they can't concieve of principled individuals that will not support a clearly insane or incompetent candidate just because he's on their party line.

They misunderestimate the Palin effect: How many people, who might have otherwise voted Republican or simply not voted at all, voted Democrat in 2008 because they felt strongly that Palin must not be allowed anywhere near a position of national political power?

They firmly believe that Sozzafava's 6% are reluctant converts to the new Religion of Conservatism. They can't fathom that it might be the 6% of people who side with Republicans, but not with Loonies.

We see the tea-baggers win control over the "intellectuals" and it doesn't make sense, but the tea-baggers were always tools to be used to achieve an agenda. They're far too confused and ignorant to be anything else. I could swear there is method to Beck's madness as well.