The end of the modern Republican party?

Many conservatives on the fringe are more angry than usual lately. And it's not the usual suspects (the Clintons, the Kenedys, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, welfare recipiants, ad nauseum)No, the recent uproar on the AM radio dial and on Fox News is directed at one man. This man's name is John McCain.
If you go on Rush Limbaugh's website (I suggest you don't) you'll find a picture of John McCain, Rudy Giulliani, and Govenor Schwarzenegger of California. Above this photo is the caption "McCain chooses to surround himself with liberals." Limbaugh has been very public in his criticism of McCain, and he's not the only one. Fringe right-wing collumnist Ann Coulter has publically said she'd vote for Hillary Clinton before McCain. Michael Savage has said McCain is "not qualified to be president." Many on the right feel that McCain is far to liberal for their tastes -he has, after all, signed a controversial immigration bill with Ted Kennedy, and he did pick up an endorsement from the New York Times, the most hated paper in the eyes of the AM Talk Radio crowd- and are outraged that he is well on his way to becomming their party's nomination.
And this isn't the only potential bad news for the Republican Party. Many prominent conservatives aren't supporting Republican nominees. Tom Bernstein, a Republican who is a former business associate of President Bush as well as his Yale classmate, is now behid Obama. Bernstein, who was a co-owner of the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush, donated the maximum $2,000 donation for Bush in 2004, and gave another $5,000 to the RNC. Mathew Dowd, a former Bush adviser, has announced that he is disapointed of Bush's "my way or the highway" attitude, and will support a Democratic candidate this year. Other famous Republicans who are now supporting Obama are Rober Kagan of the PNAC and Susan Eisenhower, President Dwight Eisenhower's grandaughter. Hillary Rodham Clinton has some high powered Republican supporters of her own. John Mack, cheif executive of Morgan Stanely who helped raise $200,000 for Bush and the RNC, has said he is very impressed by Mrs. Clinton's "expertise." Between the two Democratic frontrunners, more than $750,000 has been raised by former Bush supporters. There are websites such as Repbublicansforobama.com that cater to these Republican voters who have been scared off by the acts of George W. Bush. Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan and Bush 41 administration member, has written two articles need in which he makes the case that "sophisticated" conservatives need to vote for the least liberal of the Democratic choices or "go down with the sinking Republican ship."
Many Republicans fear a split in the party. If a third party candidate enters the ring who can give these disenchanted conservatives a voice, John McCain (assuming the current trend continues) doesn't have a chance. Mind you, this is a big "if" but since many conservatives may stay out of the 08 race anyway, it isn't really that out of the question.
Ron Paul is just one of the possibillities here. Paul has collected an extreme amount of money through the internet, I for one am curious what he is doing with the money. He stands for many of the conservative ideals that right wingers accuse McCain of being soft on (on things like immigration, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay adoption, and limiting government)It's more than possible that Mr. Paul would make a third party run for the presidency, and in doing so, split the vote between himself and McCain.The Republican Party is fractured between those who are disgusted by the imcompency of Bush, those who are disgusted by moderate McCain, and those who are just plain disgusted. The Party's old leaders are dying or fading from the public eye, and leaving behind a disjointed grouping of religious conservatives, corporate conservatives, libertarians, moderates and neocons. The party may be well on its way toward a schism.
And I'm loving every minute of it.

A Comment on Bush League Justice and Mayberry Machiavellis

Bush renominated Steven G. Bradbury as assistant attorney general, against the wishes of the Democrats in Congress.
Bradbury is the author of a controversial memo authorizing harsh interrogations for suspected terrorists.
His claim to fame is writing memos saying we should be able to subject terror suspects to freezing temperatures, waterboarding, and other "inhanced interrorgation" methods. And Bush thinks this is the best guy for the Assistant Attorney General spot.
This is an insult. That the President would think that he can just nominate whatever knee-jerk neo-Marque de Sade he wishes for the role of Assistant Attorney General is beyond ludicris. That he would attempt to put another of his lackeys into the office of the assitant attorney general speaks vollumes of his hubris. The Attorney General's office is supposed to be that of the High Priest of our legal system, it is the A.G.'s duty to make sure the laws are upheld. Instead, from President Bush, we have recieved the inept Ashcroft, the willfully senile and potentially criminal Gonzales, and the lack-luster Mukasey. The Michael Mukasey that refused to define what torture was, and who is now refusing a special prosecuter into the missing CIA tapes. But it isn't enough that he has given us these men, the Three Stooges of Justice. It isn't enough that he has given us countless other "loyal Bushies," men and women completely unqualified for their respective jobs. It isn't enough that the legacy of the Bush Era Justice Department is now and forever will be the fireing of district attorneys based on political believes, the side stepping of our Bill of Rights, and the legality of the barbaric practice of drowning suspects to the brink of death.
No. These measures are not enough for the Mr. Magoo of 1600 Pensylvania Avenue, for the trageo-comic figure that is the unqualified fear monger that we call "commander in chief." He must apoint one last Bushie. One last Mayberry Machiavelli for whom things like justice shall always come second place in a race with things like greed, for whom loyalty to the Party is less important than loyalty to the People who's justice he is supposed to seek. One last political apointee for whom truth is a four letter word, torture is merely another tactic, and liberties are optionable.
If the Democrats allow this one to slip threw, then that will be the last straw, that will prove to myself and to my fellow Americans that they are no force of resistance in the face of the behemoth that is Bush/Cheney. To their credit, they have been meeting during their break so that Bush cannot get the recess apointment he yearns for.
And that's a start. Unfortunately, it's only one of many steps we need to take if we wish to undue the travesty that is Bush League justice.
and to our elected officials in Washington, as well as to you, Dear Reader, I give this very sincere salutation.
Good night. And good luck.

from an undisclosed location in Southern New Jersey, this is J. W. Connelly, signing off.

i'm very new to Blogspot, anyone know why my titles keep apearing in other languages

my previous post apeared in a language unfamiliar to me

Anyone know how to fix that?

Hello,

I am a 16 year old from the East Coast who is very intested in politics

I can also be reached at

myspace.com/youngliberalproud

I usually post most info there, so you may want to check that regularly because i log into myspace more than blogspot

वहत दिदं't थे प्रेसिडेंट क्नो, ऎंड व्हें दीद हे स्टॉप क्नोविंग आईटी?

Republican Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee asked the now famous question "what did the president know and when did he know it" during the Watergate hearings of the 1970's. Now we have a new president, also accused of spying on Americans and of putting politics before personal liberty and the good of this country, poised to be investigated. This time it is waterboard, not Watergate. This time it is missing video recordings, not missing tapes. This time it is accusations of selling out a CIA operative for political gain, not commiting an act of burgurlary for political gain. The simmilarities are astonding. President Bush claims to be a history buff, but has failed to learn the leasons of his own party's history. If you comit a crime, destroy the paper trail. And let us be thankful, once again, for shear luck and stupidity, for those may be the only things keeping the wheels of justice in motion. The questions beg to be asked. "Mr. Bush, did you know of these torture tapes? Mr. Bush, did you know of the plan to sell out Valerie Plame? Mr. Bush, if not, why, didn't you know of these events?"Thankfully, Washington has finally began seeing the light. An investigation has begun. again. the bells of reconcilliation against an unpopular demagouge are ringing. And to paraphraise Ernest Hemmingway:ask not for whom these bells toll, mr. bush. They toll for you.I return you to my original question: "what didn't the president know and when did he stop knowing it?" It has been said before, and it shall be said again. Mr. Bush's only defense at this point is to claim stupidity. He is either a) purposely attacking what makes this nation great or b) to stupid to know that someone, somewhere in his administration is manipulating him.My final question to you, Dear Reader, is a simple one:Which reality, A or B, is the more frightening?I have posted links here for those who wish to find more about the investigations:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22474868/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/washington/03intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin