Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Greg Laden's Blog

Evolution, Life Sciences, Science Education, Human Evolution, and Stuff

Darwing_Face.jpg Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.

Hornbill170.jpg Looking for stuff about birds?

Lion_mane170.jpg Lean more about lions

Congo_sidebar.jpg An archaeological expedition to the Congo


The Skeptical Search Engine


Nature Blog Network
Climate Defense Fund


The contents of Greg Laden's Blog are copyrighted by Greg Laden.

Recent Comments

Search

Profile


Click on "About" for the big picture, and "Archives" for the details.


Recent Posts

Blogroll

If you don't see yourself on my blogroll, just drop me a line and let me know. I'll add you.*
*Assuming that I'm on your blogroll, of course!

Archives

« Four Cops Executed in Tacoma by Gunmen | Main | Watch the guy eat the note »

Dean? Rachel? Republican purity? Huh?

Category: Republicans
Posted on: November 29, 2009 2:26 PM, by Greg Laden

So, I stop paying attention for a couple of days and Rachel Maddow is now an older white-haired straight white guy???

Whatever, this is an interesting report.

I like the idea that the Republicans are terrified of their grassroots. I certainly am.

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Politics

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/126043

Comments

1

This is scary, because it could result in the emergence of a real-life Christian nationalist party as a force in American politics. That would suck big time.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 29, 2009 4:07 PM

2

For those for whom Dean's report just whets the appetite, here is a link to the GOP "purity test" (not as interesting as the purity tests I remember from high school). I sure hope the Republicans adopt it!

The GOP Purity Test

Posted by: Zeno | November 29, 2009 4:57 PM

3

Purity tests and factions and teabaggers - oh, my!

The GOP has lost its collective mind. It's a little easier to understand ringleader Michael Steele, though, when you know who's coaching him:

http://bit.ly/3ppyiu

(social satire)

Posted by: bondwooley | November 29, 2009 4:57 PM

4

Also over at Lester & Charlie's blog, there's a poll asking what items were left off of the GOP's purity test. Things they all believe in but didn't write down, like "God put the hole in the ozone so he can watch you."

Check it out here: http://bit.ly/llPZg

Posted by: bondwooley | November 29, 2009 5:00 PM

5

Why do you assume that 'Rachel' Dean is straight?

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | November 29, 2009 5:25 PM

6

The only good thing that could possibly come out of all this, is the end of the two-party system.

Posted by: Deen | November 29, 2009 5:35 PM

7

I always thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would be the first to split. Now I don't why I ever thought that.
The political spectrum in the U.S. has been moving ever further right for the last twenty or thirty years* and there has always been something to fill the void on the left, the Citizen's Party (my first presidential vote was for Barry Commoner), and the Green Party. But as the Republican Party has shifted right, they've been creeping into (publicly) unexplored political territory. Now the Republican Party has awakened a monster, and that monster is galloping off the scale, and the moderates are scared it's going to carry them all off the cliff.
You have basically two factions, one led by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, and a weaker faction led by Michael Steele and the few moderate Republicans left. And they may only have power because Limbaugh and Palin don't hold office. Yet. There's a power struggle going on and I think it's going to end up with a split in the Republican Party. The interesting questions are Who will get to keep the Republican name and What will the new party be called?

(In a rational world, both factions would get together and realize that a split will only help the Democrats, and they would reach some compromise on their platform that would leave a monolithic Republican Party in place. You see the flaw there, don't you? I used the words 'rational' and 'compromise' in that sentence, and to one faction those words don't exist.)

*Just reflect for a moment that Nixon, a Republican, imposed price controls on the economy; I don't think such a thing would even cross Obama's mind, would the conditions so warrant.

Posted by: Equisetum | November 29, 2009 6:04 PM

8

It is amazing. I never thought the GOP would get this bad when I quit it back in '80.

But then, I've been told by today's Religious Reichists that Nixon was a communist so maybe I just need to readust my credulity meter.

Posted by: Rob Jase | November 29, 2009 8:00 PM

9

Here in RI we got news of the rise of the Moderate Party of RI. Only problems being fund raising and getting viable candidates. They can't do either very well.

RI is interesting. The electorate is split at about 60% Democrat, 30% Independent and 10% Republican.

Posted by: Tony P | November 29, 2009 8:29 PM

10

Damn. I failed, but then I'm not a Republican, but merely a fiscal conservative. There is no party for that viewpoint.

Posted by: Donna B. | November 30, 2009 11:41 AM

11

Republican politics as I remember them:

'70s: I am not a crook
'80s: trickle-down economics
'90s: contract with America
'00s: patriot act (includes Democrats but basically initiated by Republicans)

now the purity test - can we count this as the '10s slogan?

don't they all refer back to the first one?

Posted by: rcs | November 30, 2009 3:24 PM

12

rcs:

Only indirectly -- Nixon was a crook of a different color. And destructive sociopathic tendencies aside, he was actually a competent president.

No, the modern Republican party began with Laffer and Wanniski's economic theories in the mid-70s (post-Nixon) and the Godbotting of the Reagan campaign in 1980.

Posted by: Brian X | November 30, 2009 10:58 PM

13

he was actually a competent president.

That's the oddest thing I've read all week. How old are you, boy?

The illegal war in Cambodia? The fact that his staff and cabinet had to trick him into not nuking Hanoi?

Also, on Republicans more generally, are you aware of the fact that every major social program that we have come to know and love of the 20th century, going back to the 30s, was vigorously opposed to by the Republican party? If the health care reform bill gets one or two Republican votes it will be about average.

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 30, 2009 11:44 PM

14
I like the idea that the Republicans are terrified of their grassroots.

It's unfortunate that the Democrats aren't the slightest bit afraid of their grassroots and, rather, avidly seek opportunities to cockpunch them.

Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 4, 2009 1:13 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.