President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 29, 2010 11:09 PM UTC
91 Comments
But I do admire many Colorado Republicans. Focus on the Family crazies aside, there’s a strain of reasonableness among many. Unfortunately, many have been booted out because they don’t toe the perfect line.
Here’s a partial list:
Mark Larsen
Al White
Dottie Wham
Norma Anderson
Rob Witwer
I don’t admire the Democratic Party either. I don’t really admire organizations, because it all depends on who is running them at the time.
I’ve had a hard time with the GOP most of my life because I believe in very few of the things they stand for, and I feel like they don’t really believe in their more feel-good ideals like “family values.” But I’ve never registered as a Dem (although, as I’ve threatened, I might just finally do that so I can vote for Bennet in the primary) because they often sell out their stated ideals too, like last year’s vote on FISA, which kept me from taking that step when I had a more honest motivation.
You do have to respect the GOP’s ability to act in concert, although the freer individualism of the Dems, IMO, is better suited to our two party system. Party discipline like that of the ‘pubs is more suited to Parliamentary systems, and I think they’re going to learn that lesson soon as they lose moderate members.
Smart people do dumb things.
I admire the Democrats who believe in civil rights for all regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religious preferences or sexual orientation. I also admire Democrats who believe in public education, as flawed as it is, and in letting people establish and maintain relationships without big government getting in the way. I admire Democrats who believe who you love and partner with and what a woman decides to do with her body is none of the government’s business. Finally, I admire Democrats who don’t think the government should have a role in death bed decision making.
They agree on a message, and they don’t let their individual egos sabotage the party as a whole. Democrats are quick to turn on each other, have tons of primadonnas, and seem to have a very hard time actually getting things done as a bloc. Republicans generally maintain a consistent message and can act unanimously, which means that when they really want something to happen, they’ll make it happen (and often get a few Democrats to support them). I admire this strategy and wish we could emulate it better.
Democrats do a pretty good job of keeping Republicans honest when they try to cut taxes without explaining how that will affect services.
Republicans do a pretty good job of keeping Democrats honest when they try to expand services without explaining how that will affect taxes.
Republicans can sometimes reign in the wildest instincts of progressives that say changing everything is the best idea.
Democrats can sometimes reign in the wildest instincts of conservatives that say changing nothing is the best idea.
And they back up their words with actions.
Republicans are for small government, less spending and lower taxes, and they use big government to mess up people’s lives, increase spending in attempts to out bid Democrats and make it nearly impossible to not raise taxes.
Let’s imagine two people in a relationship. One is always coming up with wild ideas and schemes that will in theory make life better. The other one says that sounds nice, but what happens if…. (Of course I am totally making this up and don’t have ANY real life experiences like this!)
Basically I think Democrats come up with ideas to improve on society or fix things that are wrong, and the Republicans perform the crucial task of saying, “I think this could really blow up in our faces,” and “Can you show your work and explain how this plan of yours will actually correct Problem X without creating Problems Y and Z?”
I know quite a few perfectly nice and sane Republicans. In a small town, what kind of a person you are matters a lot more than what party you are registered with.
Good topic, LB!
Only you and SXP have managed to pull this off without feeling the need to get a dig in.
Very cool metaphor, though. Nice work.
I didn’t “get a dig in.” Unless I was supposed to keep it absolutely uncritical at the same time.
he’s doing a freaking excellent job, he calls the shots and outright fires people when he has to (Walter Reed) and he cancels programs when they don’t work efficiently.
He is down to earth and dosen’t seem to give a shit about the politics. He just stays behind the scenes and gets the job done.
My kind of guy. Great SecDef.
I totally respect the Republicans’ discipline to messaging. They’re excellent at that.
They spend and spend and tax people who vote against them. Their voters are the people who don’t pay taxes and reap all the benefits of government spending.
Now, that’s clever.
to have whatever kind of sex they want, whenever they want, with whomeever they want, pay for it with someone elses money…and get away with it.
It’s also really cool how they’ve been able to conscript Christ’s message for political gain, while absolutely not adhering to any real Christian values.
I absolutely knew you weren’t going to be able to help yourself.
Awesome, SR.
Teddy Roosevelt. He did a hell of a lot for the national park system and specifically for Colorado–created Mesa Verde National Park, CO. He also established the Antiquities Act which to this day enables designation of historic landmarks and monuments.
And they support Puerto Rico’s right to become a sovereign state of the Union and they actually made it part of their party platform in 2008, I think.
under Teddy’s law, one of the most worthwhile things he did while in office.
Good thinking and that is definitely something worthwhile, in my opinion.
I will impart something a friend of mine told me when I was hanging out in his music store last week. His 15 year old son is the source of this profound comment.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats:
“Republicans don’t care how you spend your money, but they want to tell you how to think. Democrats don’t care how you think, but they want to tell you how to spend your money.”
That’s about the truest thing I’ve heard all day.
the total dedication to traditional values, and the fiscal responsibility. All of these things equate to a morality I could only dream of someday attaining myself.
Nay, I am just a simple woman. I should remain chaste in matters such as these. I beg thee for forgiveness.
And besides, didn’t she marry Lisa Marie Presley or something?
members of both parties for their willingness to spend their time and money to make a difference. The caucuses that I have attended were held in the same location (different classrooms) for both parties. Watching them walk in, you can’t tell, in advance, which are republicans and which are democrats. They are all members of the community giving their time because they think it matters. Few, if any, are going to get any personal advantage out of their involvement, but, unlike the majority of Americans, they appreciate what it means to be a citizen, and why it is important to participate.
I know my answer is something of a cop-out, but the truth is that what I most admire in the “loyal opposition” is their loyalty to trying to make a difference. I don’t admire the majority that does nothing but complain.
The relationships between the parties are so contentious now that it is easy for us to scorn and despise the party, and to forget that we both have the same goal. Dems, Reps (and Constitutions and Greens and Unaffiliateds) want to make this country a better place to live and fulfill our dreams.
In 1972, I was a 19-year-old McGovern volunteer … the only one in my conservative suburb. Election day was bitter cold, and I had to stand outside the polling place and hand out literature from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. I was warmed only by my white-hot loathing for Richard Nixon and everything he and the Republican party stood for. That wasn’t enough; I was freezing my tits off out there.
The Republicans had many volunteers, and they had shift changes every 2 hours and people driving up to give them hot drinks and snacks. I’m sure they had equal loathing for George McGovern and the Democratic party, but by God they gave me coffee and hot chocolate and snacks. They fed me when I was hungry and warmed me when I was cold, and no matter how angry I get with Republican party policies and talking points, I will always remember that the Republicans themselves showed me mercy and kindness.
To sum it up, what I admire about the Republican party is that its members are fine human beings with empathy in their hearts, just like everybody else.
In 1972 I was a 20 yo McGovern volunteer and also ran for a delegate for him. I also loathed Richard Nixon. I credit Nixon with making me a lifelong Dem, so he was a positive influence in my life.
I do admire Republicans for their committment to individual freedom and reminding us that government can’t, and shouldn’t be expected, to solve all our problems.
I never voted for Ronald Reagan, but the day he stood at the Berlin wall and said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall !” I was proud to be an American and proud of my President.
I should have put it on my list of things I used to admire about the Republican Party – fighting for individual freedoms. I don’t feel they often represent that position now, though.
My first vote was Ford/Carter and I remember that I thought Carter was better, but was most annoyed that Ford was in many ways just an older more staid alternative to Carter. Is a 19 year old I wanted more difference.
I fought very hard for Carter over Reagan, but when Reagan ran for re-election, and when Bush I ran, while I voted Democratic both times, I remember thinking that I didn’t see it as being that big a deal. I respected Reagan & Bush more than Mondale & Dukakis, while I agreed more with Mondale & Dukakis.
That seems like such a different era. They weren’t my first choice, but I was satisfied with them. And at times I saw them do things that I think was better than a Democratic president would have done.
He was even more bitter about Nixon than I was (which is going a looooong way) and he adamantly refused to consider voting for Ford because of the pardon.
Now with the wisdom of years, I have to credit Nixon for giving me the pure pleasure of watching the impeachment hearings and Senate Select Committee hearings. I was a poli sci major, and the hearings and the Saturday Night Massacre made me a poli sci addict.
Ok, this is going to get me shot. But I think when Newt ran the House and Clinton was president, that between them we had a really good government in Washington. You had two very smart, articulate, thoughtful people that were both superb political leaders. And they came from opposing viewpoints and battled to a compromise on issue after issue.
sounds like my godfather, who (gulp) worked for FREAKING DICK CHENEY ! He would always tell me all Republicans aren’t bad people.
OK, Dick Cheney is pretty bad, but not my godfather.
to stay on message. If getting Democrats are like cats, Republicans are like lemmings.
One of their own can, literally, be caught banging a woman not his wife, have his parents pay off the family, have the party hire the bang-ee’s spouse and kid, and when it comes out, there isn’t a peep that he should be gone. We Democrats kick them to the curb in a heartbeat (witness Spitzer)…and we don’t even claim to have “family values”.
I know some will say this is snark…it isn’t, I’m being completely honest.
1. My mom – greatest elected representative of either party!
2. Republicans are much more willing to put the interests of the children over the interests of the teacher’s union. This is the most important issue we face long term.
3. When in the minority Republicans are a strong sane voice for fiscal prudence.
4. When the parties work together on legislation (really do so, don’t just pose), we get better legislation.
5. Republican’s first instinct is to look to the private sector to address issues & problems.
is one of the best Repubs i know. As individuals I admire how they follow their moral values as their political litmus test (even though it may frustrate me to no end how I disagree with most of those values)
As a party, I’ve witnessed first hand how they stick to the party line, and I have been thrilled that the Dems have been doing the same thing this session.
Having been portrayed as an anti-American terrorist-loving, freedom-hating, elitist, baby killer who wants to destroy traditional marriage, I have no respect for the contemporary Republican party.
Like others, I envy their ability to drive the debate with clever sound-bites and slogans, and their intramural discipline on message and voting.
As for what they purport to believe in their ideals, I respect the belief in personal responsibility (though so many of their elected officals don’t practice what they preach) and, if it’s actually a Republican value, setting up the proper economic incentives for people to act that way.
Some of these should be qualified by statements about how they are incompletely true, or simultaneously undermined by other aspects of Republican doctrine, but, in the spirit of the exercise, I will omit those qualifications:
1) The Republican Party has been better than the Democratic Party, traditionally, at thinking of the nation as a single unit rather than just a collection of factions.
2) The Republican Party has more strongly emphasized the legitimate importance of considering how well-intended policies can create perverse incentives and thus lead to undesirable unintended consequences.
3) The Republican Party has placed a stronger emphasis on personal responsibility than has the Democratic Party, and personal responsibility is, in fact, the lynchpin of any well-functioning social system.
1) How long-standing does something have to be for it to be traditional? We are now into the fifth decade of living with the GOP strategy of using wedge issues to factionalize Americans.
2) Citing marginal unintended consequences is a cynical way of undermining the intended consequences of a policy, not a kind of principled opposition.
3) The GOP’s dominant constituency believes that they get a free pass on personal responsibility because they can wave their get out of jail free card of salvation at their own failings.
who believes that refusing to make even the slightest effort to recognize that defining half the population of my country as “the enemy,” and never striving to look past that definition, is not what either I or my party stand for.
It’s as easy for me as it is for you to criticize the Republicans. And it’s as hard for me as it is for you to compliment them. But, sometimes, it helps to do the hard thing rather than the easy one.
the number of Republicans voting for HRC was what? And that was because they are foursquare for personal responsibility? Or was it because they were looking past party to the country’s greater good? Or was it the unintended consequences of a healthy population?
Your analysis is a joke.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that you are completely correct in your less humorous counteranalysis that “they’re wrong and morally inferior, and I’m right and morally superior.” Does repeating that do anything to improve the human condition? In human conflicts and disagreements, is the goal to reduce tensions and increase cooperation, or to “defeat the vile enemy”? Which is more conducive to human welfare?
How about when the divide is deeper and wider? When America confronts its foreign enemies, is that the strategy to employ? Should we refuse to acknowledge their humanity, the fact that they see the world differently from us, and instead assume an intransigent combativeness, copying and reinforcing them by doing so, escalating the spiral of animosity and bellicosity?
But, wait, isn’t that what Democrats criticize Republicans for doing? Hmmm.
Have you ever noticed the similarity between Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists, each denouncing the other as infidels, both certain of their moral superiority? Is that the road forward for humanity? The same old same old?
And what happens when people in one camp try to encourage their own members to be more tolerant of the other camp, to try to see the world through their eyes in order to improve our ability to communicate and achieve peaceful and mutually beneficial resolutions to our conflicts? Aren’t they denounced by their own kind as “enemy sympathizers,” whose analyses are a joke?
Being “right” is easy, especially in one’s own mind or according to those who are like-minded. Being constructive and working toward improvements in the human condition is a more difficult challenge, but one well worth the effort.
The difference between ideologues and rational people of good will
Whose interests and needs you are really served by the expression of righteous indignation
There may well be voters who vote for Republicans who embody the wonderful values you ascribe to them.
And then there is the Republican Party–you know, the elected officials, party operatives, Fox News, the nauseating commentariat that makes up the right-wing noise machine.
You seem to think that criticising the latter is being the latter.
What a pretentious ass you are.
This was an exercise in trying to acknowledge the point of view of those who belong to it. I prefaced my post with a statement that I did not consider those acknowledgements to be the final word on the subject, but, in the interest of trying to acknowledge the opposing point of view, would not qualify them.
My original post clearly was directed at the values that some people who belong to the Republican Party identify with, not with the Republican Party as an organizational entity, or with other organizational entities associated with it or promoting those values.
You can keep being the bellicose partisan if you want, striving to reproduce the perennial errors of humankind on scales both large and small, pretending that you’re doing anything other than satisfying your own need to express hostility. I will keep trying, sometimes unsuccessfuly, to be a reasonable person of good will.
Maybe you thought you were answering the question in the spirit of “I think the following are some things that some people who vote Republicans might believe (even though these values don’t appear to be shared by the Republican Party and I’m really just spouting platitudes).”
But what you actually wrote referred explicitly to “The Republican Party…”
I can’t judge your thought processes (any more than you can judge mine, although you certainly seem to try). I can only reflect on what you actually type.
because what I actually typed was a list of references to attitudes, not to organizational attributes.
No, you’re right, you shouldn’t trust people who try, sometimes bending over backwards, to find common ground with those with whom they disagree. What kind of a world would we live in if people did that kind of thing?
It is hard to accommodate the beliefs of those who represent the diametrical opposite of your own beliefs. For you, Republicans seem to be that group.
Oh, wait, I’m not a Republican, but I’m in that group too…. I guess for you it’s just anyone who ever disagrees with you or ever says anything positive about anyone or any group you have ever disagreed with. At least you’re inclusive in your animosities.
For me, it’s a narrower group: Belligerent ideological purists. We have no common ground because you represent what I fundamentally oppose: Blind dogmatic certainty, in your case (as in so many) reified into implaccable hatred of anyone with the temerity either to disagree with you or to speak kindly of your enemies.
You put forth three value statements and ascribed them to the Republican Party (not, as you now claim, to Republicans).
I refuted your claim that such value statements are reflective of the Republican Party. I make no claims that I, or anyone else is morally superior–only that your political analysis sucks.
So that makes me at war with Republicans? A “belligerent ideological purist”? Blindly dogmatic? You’re going to have to work a lot harder to connect those dots up.
They’re perfectly well connected in the series of posts above. I’d suggest you work harder at obfuscation, but that would just make this already tedious discussion even more tedious, now wouldn’t it?
Let’s cut to the essence: I oppose the Republican Party platform. I am not in the business of arguing on behalf of either the Republican Party or its adherents. I engaged in an exercise in which I tried to speak positively of that Party or its adherents, prefaced my remarks with an assurance that I was oversimplifying in favor of that Party and its adherents, and then listed some values associated with that Party and its adherents that I think have some positive value.
That you ever took issue with the statements I made in that context, as if they are my own deeply held convictions, is a marvel of uncompromising belligerence (or just personal animosity?) on your part. That you are so lost in the depths of your ideological purity that you just can’t grasp that only amplifies the wonder of it all.
You want to “win” this argument by splitting hairs over whether I was ascribing attitudes to the Party or its members? You confuse the attitudes I listed with an “analysis” that can “suck”? (it’s not an analysis, jackass. It’s a list). You insist that taking such issue under such circumstances is not evidence of extreme hostility?
Fine. You win, I lose, you’re right, I’m wrong. I’ve been bested by a superior intellect with superior skills. Whatever floats your little boat.
Have a nice day.
“The Republican Party has been better than the Democratic Party, traditionally, at thinking of the nation as a single unit rather than just a collection of factions”?
You could actually write that kind of shit with a straight face? You have the time to make multiple posts and write thousands of words so that you can defend drivel like that?
What a douche you are.
Trying to acknowledge the humanity of those I disagree with. It’s awful, despicable, inexcusable. It’s just disgraceful! I don’t know how I’ll ever manage to look myself in the mirror again.
The statement you cited, by the way, is true. It’s also true of Fascists (in fact, it is arguably the defining characteristic of Fascism). And, as such, it doesn’t take into account the marginalization of minority factions in order to accomplish it (or hasn’t taken them into account for over half a century). But, nevertheless, the Republican Party has been better than the Democratic Party at thinking of the nation as a single unit, and, if the profound defects in the way that has been accomplished were addressed, it would be a good thing.
Look, you’re mad at me because I showed you up for being angrily wrong when you told Lauren Bacall months ago that no state legislation could possibly affect the IDEA burden borne by schools (it can, by altering the medical condition in which students arrive at school, and so altering the accommodations required to achieve FAPE), and because I defended the right of a conservative poster to express opinions (that neither you nor I agreed with) in a civil manner without being subjected to personal attacks.
And now you’re mad at me for bending over backwards, as an exercise in mutual tolerance, to credit my ideological opposites with positive qualities.
There’s something about your righteous anger, and the kinds of events that trigger it, that gives me the feeling I must be doing something right.
Your complaint is that I bothered to respond to you! And, yes, you do have a point there.
A twenty word response–how did you manage to keep your verbosity in check?
But points off for taking seven posts to get around to actually addressing one of my points instead of incessantly attacking me for the imaginary sin of being overly partisan. Although you don’t actually address my criticism–which is that at least since 1968 Republicans have systematically exploited racial tension and other wedge issues, which seems quite incompatible with your claim that they are to be lauded for “thinking of the nation as a single unit rather than just a collection of factions.”
Seriously, you need to get over your self. It’s not that you’re awful, despicable, or inexcusable (although insufferable comes to mind), but you are quite often wrong–and you don’t seem to take it well when that is pointed out.
when the person pointing it out happens to be right. In our interactions, that has yet to be the case.
And your point that I was supposed to get to has all along been completely beside the point. That’s what makes you so poignantly and perpetually wrong here.
You have believed that I was under some obligation to defend the substance of what I said from the outset were strained attempts to be generous to opposing points of view. I strongly implied in my first reply to you that nothing would be easier for me than to critique the very stances I had stated (a subtlety lost on you). I had declined to do so because it would undermine the purpose of having done the exercise in the first place, and I was reluctant to be goaded into that by a pissant like you.
That I addressed your pointless point at all is a tribute to how bored I’ve grown with your endlessly antagonistic buzzing.
Policies can be more or less attentive to unintended consequences. I think that most members of both parties can do better at striving to be more attentive to them, and one of the most important places to focus that attention is on what kinds of perverse incentives are created by a policy that oversimplified the nature of the world it sought to improve.
Policies need to be informed both by good will, and by intelligent analysis. One without the other isn’t enough.
Republican’s solidarity in voting, messaging and the 11th commandment.
Our party is a big tent and the trade off for that is that Dems sometimes criticize each other, don’t vote together or message together at times I think they should.
Repubs are better at team work.
Though he probably wouldn’t be considered a Republican by today’s standards, Theodore Roosevelt is another Republican who inspired me politically.
Dwight Eisenhower was my ideal Republican. He was the last Republican president who wasn’t anti-State. He saw that the government had an immense power to advance society through projects like the interstate highway system, and his encouragement of the space program.
Ike realized the vast potential of the public sector to inspire innovation in the private sector.
Even later, people like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were men I admire greatly for their strength of conviction, and for their love of this country.
And then of course there’s this Laughing Boy guy who’s alright I guess.
….when everyone was tripping over themselves in that near-gay Reagan love, I was reading and learning about Ike. And it started at Meninger’s and not my flirtation with being a Republican.
I did admire Bob Dole until he became a candidate for President, at which point his moderate point of view and ability to make deals was cast aside to court the wackos of the GOP.
And I thought the future of the GOP would belong to Jack Kemp and not Newt Gingrich.
Let us not forget.
I really admire the way (as infuriating as it is sometimes) the GOP bands together.
And until mostly recently, I really admired their fiscal responsibility – which I realize was not the case during W’s tenure.
Is it that hard to think of good things about us 🙁
…at all the compliments to type.
I’m sure they’ll be around later. 🙂
Just to fill the time until they show up.
Libertad: I like Democrat union thug O&G Ritter smegmata tax fascist job-killing monkeypaw Crown Royale poop!
GOPWarrior: I like Democrat cheeks under my testicles in November! RRRRAAAARRR warrior GRRRRRR!!
Barron X: I like how Democrats look in coffins, very peaceful and relaxing.
especially Barron X. Hey, he’s not afraid to say whats on his mind.
is the Libertad quote. Only, it makes a little more sense than Libby usually does.
And THAT, has to be earned. (sound of crickets)
in spite of the asshole who came up with it.
Cheers LB, and you too Cologeek.
My kids are still screaming. One starts and the other one wakes up and catches on. Gotta go.
tend to look back into the past for accolades. I just haven’t seen much the Republicans have done in my lifetime that I like. Let me search my memory. I was born in 1952.
Republican Presidents: 1953-1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower, then in 1969 thru 1974 Richard Nixon, 1974-1977 Gerald Ford, 1984-1989 Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 and George W. Bush 2001-2009. In the Republican Revolution of 1994, Gingrich led a revival where the Republicans had the Senate majority until 2001, when the Senate became split evenly but was regained in the 2002 elections. Both Republican majorities in the House and Senate were held until the Democrats regained control in the mid-term elections of 2006.
Most of the bullshit that fired me up started with Reagan. What a mess that was. This argument has been held here before, but in my mind his policies economically, in foreign policy, and domestically did tremedous damage (no, I don’t credit him for ending the Cold War).
In the 21st century, the Republican Party has been defined by social conservatism, where they successfully found hot button wedge issues that divided the country, which they were then able to successfully manipulate to win elections; a preemptive war foreign policy intended to defeat terrorism and promote global democracy, a more powerful executive branch, supply-side economics, support for gun ownership, and deregulation. Where has this gotten us?
Nixon did propose and sign into law the E.P.A. Give credit where credit is due.
It would take a lot more time and research to get specific here, but in general, I’m just not impressed with the Republican party. I’m not overly impressed with the Democrats either. Having to choose between one or the other, the choice is clear….but not great.
I would be a Democrat.
But I can certainly respect the fact that most of the rank and file believe that they are working for a better world. Any disagreements aside, that is something we should have in common with each other.
At least that’s the view from this gun-toting, homophobic, racist, domestic terrorist-in-waiting.
I guess I wouldn’t be unaffiliated.
I, unlike some of my fellow Democrats, don’t really admire the ability of Republicans to stick to the party line – I think it’s not productive to governing, and it doesn’t at all reward supporting the best possible laws.
I know what I used to respect about the Republican Party, and what I still respect about some of its members: practicality, fiscal responsibility, and a moral sense of duty to the country and to their communities. I don’t feel the Party itself reflects that anymore, though, so I don’t feel it answers your question adequately.
To tell the truth, I read your question earlier in the afternoon and racked my brain over it for a while in hopes of coming up with a respectable answer. I wasn’t terribly successful – sorry.
but can accept change. Strong roots but open minds are things that I can admire in Republicans.
n/t
….Repubs votng record over the last 9 years has been horrific. The DAV givs out grades based on voting records, and the GOP consistently either fails or doesn’t score at all.
n/t
take the notion of individual responsibility seriously (at least in theory). I admire that Republicans came up with the idea of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance as a way of getting out of an employer mandate and to help make individuals smart consumers when it comes to health care and health insurance. It was a bold, brave way to use the free market to fix the health care system.
LB said not to include any snarky comments, but I have to add that I don’t admire the Republican Party’s complete repudiation of their own idea just because the Democrats adopted and passed it. It wasn’t unconstitutional tyranny or apocalyptic when Republicans first proposed it.
That said, I admire the Republican ability to frame political questions in apocalyptic terms and accuse political foes of treason with a straight face. Democrats could learn a lot from those hardball tactics.
The second worst president in U.S. history is possibly the last Republican party example available. Nixon created the EPA and did the China visit, creating a major political shift in world politics. He saw the need for Federal environmental regulations. I have difficulty thinking of any examples of the R Party.
However, just about everything else he touched was real bad.
We need much, much more of this.
And then we need to come to the table and listen to one another instead of talk at one another.
I’ll maintain that the folks who were unable to come up with anything positive at all to say made a much bigger statement about themselves than about the party they were commenting on.
Some really great posts, though. Thanks, almost everybody.
how angry one Dem got with me for accepting the challenge.
Let’s you and I strive for more civil discourse as well. When I am arguing positions because I believe them, including the position that I think one of the demands of good governance is the mobilization of expert knowledge and analysis in the design of social policy, argue why I am wrong rather than why I am a defective human being (or “condescending,” or whatever version of “defective” you choose for the moment). Deal?
I don’t ascribe to you all the failings of the Republican party, although you staunchly defend their failings.
is an anchor of goodwill, from which he drifts in a broad arc, but which keeps pulling him back. I agree with almost none of his political positions, but will acknowldge that anchor of goodwill (from whose reach I am more often excluded than included) and seek to use it as a means to improve our communication.
We have to work with what is, not with what we would like to be. The world and all the people in it are, as of this moment, what they are. The challenge is to move it in a direction which best serves humanity’s long term interests. Believing, rightly or wrongly, to know what that direction is isn’t enough. In fact, it is often an obstacle to actually moving the world in a positive direction, particularly when it serves to increace rather than reduce barriers to communication and cooperation.
Again, being right isn’t enough. Being effective is what counts. Being effective requires recognizing the existence and salience of those who disagree with you, and thinking about how either to circumvent them or coopt them. When the numbers in disagreement are large enough, and the disagreement is passionate enough, that will almost always require some degree of accommodation and compromise. In the long run, that’s a healthy thing for all of us, because, on average and over time, the genius of the many really is greater than the genius of the few, and any approach to forging social policy based on exclusion rather than inclusion is saddled from the outset with a huge defect, both practically and substantively.
I will fight relentlessly and vigorously for things I hold to be true. I believe that we should employ the best analyses applied to the most reliable data in design of the social experiments that all of our public policies really are, because doing so employs the lathe of trial-and-error more expertly. I believe in considering and utilizing all of our social institutional modalities (hierarchies, markets, norms, and ideologies) in doing so, considering the strengths and weaknesses of each. I believe in attending to the various demands that social policies must meet, including robustness (efficiency in production of human welfare), fairness (social justice in the distribution of human welfare), and sustainability (preservation of the integrity and stability of the geological, ecological and economic systems on which we depend).
But I don’t believe that I can contribute to those goals most effectively by disregarding and dismissing those who disagree with them. As frustrating as it may be, there is no choice but to engage them, seek to persuade them, and, sometimes, seek to outmaneuver them in the strategic battles over how we implement our policies and forge our way into the future.
I’d like to think that the Republican Party is more than just what I see in it these days; I wanted to see that back when I faced the choice to switch parties, in fact.
I’d like to see more of the party that John McCain represented when he and Russ Feingold started in on campaign finance reforms; I’d like to think that GOP Senators and Congressmen would join in to help formulate and pass (by a 2/3 majority) effective permanent reforms – i.e. a Constitutional Amendment that was both effective and at the same time not limiting to our freedoms. But it won’t happen.
I’d like to think that Republicans were truly willing to help with health care reform, to make it more cost-effective and yet just as effective. But they proved that they didn’t want that; they unanimously defeated a plan similar to one they had offered in 1993, and that had hundreds of changes based on their demands for support. (And, I might add, was probably less effective for most of those changes.)
I’d like to think that Republicans were interested in seeing justice done, and in government run with as much control and efficiency as possible. But through the Clinton years and now, they have proven that they do not want judges appointed by anyone other than them, no matter how moderate those choices may be.
I’d like to think that they were willing to cut unnecessary military expenditures to save the budget, but when appropriations time comes, they’re as quick to the earmark trough as the Democrats.
I’d like to see Republicans come up with practical and fiscally responsible long term solutions for our energy problems, spurred on as Republicans in the past prodded development of our interstates and scientific R&D. But science seems to be a convenience – or inconvenience – of the moment within the GOP now; the money from Big Oil is apparently more important.
Heck, I’d like to think that at least the Republican Party stood for solid Christian morals as it claims (even conservative Christian morals, I’m not that picky) – but time and again all I see is those morals being used (and ignored) as a cover for greed and power.
Right now all I see is an opposition party – one who’s job is to be an opposition party, but has shown nothing of value beyond that. I’d be just as happy seeing the Constitution Party or the Libertarian in opposition; they’d be just as effective, and possibly more willing to work alongside their Democratic partners in government.
Give me something to start with, something to say “there’s something left in the Grand Old Party worth defending”. I’d be an advocate – really.
Before I head off to my Democratic County Assembly tonight, it would seem a good time to list my problems with my own party.
I wish that Democrats (the elected ones) were more outspoken. I don’t think they spend the time getting out to the media, nor do I think they have their messaging down like the Republicans do, and I think this affects public the marketplace of ideas.
I want to see Democrats step outside their comfort zones more often, to truly innovate rather than refine around the edges. That goes for schools, for health care, for energy…
I’d like to see Democrats start explaining our budget problems to the people. I don’t care if we need a tax increase if we need a tax increase; but if we’re going to need one, it needs to be sold to the people in clear terms. “Taxes bad” has saturated the country’s thinking, and “balanced budget” seems to only enter in as a convenient attack angle rather than a majority campaign issue.
I’d like to see Democrats take a serious run at election reform, opening up the process so that voters can consider third parties without “throwing away” their vote and so that candidates and individuals are once again in control of the election cycle.
I wish that Democrats weren’t so beholden to special interests; whether it’s weakening banking regulation, further strengthening already over-broad copyright laws, or caving to some ridiculous request by a union or activist group (while simultaneously failing to address the real issues the group might have), there’s not enough spine and independence from the lobbyist army that lurks in the halls of Congress.
And finally, one wish for all parties: I wish that Congressmen and Senators would stop listening so much to the Beltway wisdom, which is so insular as to be completely isolated from reality.
I really do admire the Republicans for developing and championing the idea of an individual mandate for health insurance. It’s the best of the GOP’s commitment to individual responsibility.
The elephant is wayyy better than the donkey.
I’ll save the rest
Republicans are better at coming up with logos and symbols too. Somehow they’ve convinced people to call them the “Grand Old Party,” even people who don’t like them at all.
I think Democrats would have been happy to call themselves the “Stupid Party Full Of Twits And Jerks Who Can’t Accomplish Anything,” if only “SPFOTAJWCAA” were as catchy an acronym as “GOP.”
As a legal doctrine, corporate personhood is much better for the little guy than it is for the big guy (ask physicians who have disavowed it in their little corner of tort law).
Probably too late to be worth posting but here goes.
I notice that the main thing Dems admire about the GOP is the lockstep discipline that allows them to all pull together. This is a pretty recent GOP attribute. The GOP of the past covered a wide range of positions on the conservative/liberal scale and did not vote as a block. Most of the admired figures mentioned here would have no place in today’s GOP, certainly not Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt or Eisenhower. Neither GWI nor Nixon would be anywhere near sufficiently conservative nor sufficiently hostile to making deals with the other side to get anywhere today.
When neither party voted as a block, legislation got through, often with large numbers of Rs voting with Ds and vice versa and filibusters were rare. So while I must admire the GOP’s historically recent ability to stick together to maintain absolute power when in the majority and much more power in the minority than Dems could ever wield in that position, I see the result of that success as devastating to our system of governance.
Having said that, I must admire the present day GOP’s confidence and decry the decades Dems spent begging to be seen as just as tough, patriot, fiscally responsible and having equally good family values as Rs while not being too liberal or too socialist. The Rs have been brilliant in taking and holding the field in terms of setting the standards and controlling the message and public perceptions.
I also believe that the effect on our national well-being of neo-conservative R policy has been utterly appalling but D failings are every bit as much to blame as R successes. Apologist Ds helped put Rs in the driver’s seat.