I dunno, they've got a pretty good headstart in some respects -- PLENTY of deeply closeted gays in the GOP living the progressive lifestyle without supporting progressive politics.

Im somewhere in the middle, fiscally conservative and socially moderate with liberal leanings...

If the Republicans want to court more people into their party, tone (way) down the fundamentalists appeal to the far right...

Get the politics of fear based religion out of their political posturing...I don't want to live in a Theocracy....

Republicans won't last much longer if they continue to be an echo.

The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935), Illiterate Digest (1924), "Breaking into the Writing Game"

They are called Libertarians and they take pride and go on a 5 minute monologue when they are asked about their political views.

In short, their argument is "I am conservative on the fiscal issues meaning tax cuts are preferred with a pro-business tax policy; yet I am socially liberal in that I believe I have no qualms with the homosexual lifestyle, abortion should stay as it is, and religion has no place whatsoever in schools or government."

The Republicans as is will not get that vote. Their base would just call them RINOS, go on a long winded argument how RINOS like Ron Saxton, Kevin Mannix, and Gordon Smith never won them a majority, and end with a 20 minute sermon on the Church of Reagan and the 1994 Contract With America.

What Republicans will never bring up is how Newt Gingrich served his wife divorce papers when she was in a hospital bed getting treatment for cancer.

Family values my azz. Everyone comes from and has a family. How utterly arrogant of you all to presume that your party is the "party of family values." Cleft-palated donkeys.

Now if we could only get the Democrats to dump organized labor.

Now if we could only get the Democrats to dump organized labor.

It always amuses me to see the bitching and moaning directed at teachers and government employees who have some job security and relatively efficient health-care plans. All of these were negotiated at the bargaining table, and you'd think the free-market crowd would have some respect for that -- not that I expect consistency out of them or anything.

Bottom line, I don't see how we're going to rebuild a middle class in this country without unions. Which isn't to say they don't have faults. But they do have value.

Ryan Leo you may want to try getting out more. This Libertarian comes from a long line of Democrats and has been disgusted with Demos on a number of issues ranging from the cost of foreign deployment of U.S. troops to the poor quality of education, the drug war, and the bending over of the leadership in Portland to the developers at the expense of us working stiffs.

There is a growing libertarian movement that's pulling the Republican party in its direction, pushing the country-club and evangelical crowds towards a pro-jobs, limited government agenda that is compatible with the views of the value voters, without actively promoting those views. That's how the statewide campaigns in Virginia and New Jersey played out in November.

The local Republican party's neglect of this trend is what caused the schism in New York's 23rd Congressional District campaign and opened the door for the election of the Democrat.

This is kind of off topic, but what happened to the seriousness of the swine flu pandemic that was going to cause chaos and mayhem throughout our nation?..

We were inundated with news about this approaching disaster, then Tiger got caught with his pants down (what is it now 13 times) and all of a sudden, the swine flu didnt matter anymore..was it even real?...

Id vote for a party that promotes the return of news as opposed to this constant pandering of fear, panic and prejudice that seems to only appeal to the far right crowd... The big name news orgs are responsible for all the divisions we have in this country... and if there truly was a liberal media, they wouldnt give a rats ass about some golfers romps outside of marriage..

It's going to be hard for the Republicans to develop a following among well-educated social progressives because they've been at war with the better-educated elements of society for about four decades. (Remember Spiro Agnew's little rants about the "effete snobs" and the "pointy-headed intellectuals".) They can't turn that around on a dime.

In order to court the conservative base (mainly downscale, rural, Southern, older (predominantly male) whites), the R's have made intellectuals the enemy. Conservatives "know" that everybody in education (especially everybody that teaches at, works in, or attends a university), most professional people (especially those in media), and almost anyone else with a graduate degree is a "liberal." They owe a big chunk of their success since the late '60s to their bashing of people who see the world in shades of gray, rather than as black and white.

Though it's hard to argue with success, I've always wondered about this approach in the longer run. I would be a little concerned if any group I was involved with proudly advertised that it was on the side opposite the smart people.

It has also seemed strange to me that so much of the middle- to upper-lower class conservative base abhor unions so much, when no part of the economic stratum benefited as much from the union movement as did blue-collar workers at this socioeconomic level. The shriveling of the middle class has strangely (?) coincided with the destruction of the union movement. It always amazed me that so many “Reagan Democrats” supported someone who took direct aim at their economic interests, and continue to support people who do so.

I agree with Roger that, without a strong organized labor component, rebuilding the middle class will be difficult. Progressives, especially the "Whole Foods" crowd, understand this well. Politicians love to pander to the "working class," but neither party seems very interested in looking out for their interests. However, given decades of recent history, the Republicans have much harder and longer road to travel to court these people.

We'll see what happens when these youngsters start growing up. Many are from well-to-do backgrounds and places which are relatively more conservative. As they get older, that DNA has a way of reasserting itself.

As bojack himself well knows, our "liberal, progressive" leadership is a three-ring circus. You'd think that some alternative will start to look attractive eventually. Is a moderate too much to hope for?

If dumping (on) unions is your goal, then the Democrats are your party and have been since Bill carried Republican water and rammed NAFTA through.

Seen any card-check legislation lately? Or how about single-payer health insurance? Or how about any foreclosure protection? Any reforms to keep businesses from plundering their pension funds during the in-and-out bankruptcy game? Speaking of bankruptcy, seen any reform in the draconian bankruptcy laws? How about reforms to keep businesses from firing labor organizers?

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Labor is to the Democratic Party what the fundamentalist nutjobs are to the Republican Party -- the folks with nowhere else to go, and treated accordingly.

Timely story on tighty righties in WAPost today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121303042.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

It always amuses me to see the bitching and moaning directed at teachers and government employees who have some job security and relatively efficient health-care plans. All of these were negotiated at the bargaining table, and you'd think the free-market crowd would have some respect for that

Respect because you use threats and intimidation to get what you want? Alrighty then.
Myself, I like to get my benefits because I earned them. And I dont have to carry the deadbeat workers with me.

What a perverse world it is when political parties seek to "attract" voters, rather than representing them.

In other words, when a political party is in search of a constituency for the sole reason of perpetuating its existence, isn't something seriously, seriously wrong? Isn't it supposed to be exactly the opposite?

"I don't see how we're going to rebuild a middle class in this country without unions"

They've done such a good job they've almost finished the middle class. Finished for good I'd say. Their work is done. Why don't they go and "help" someone else for awhile.

Respect because you use threats and intimidation to get what you want? Alrighty then. Myself, I like to get my benefits because I earned them. And I dont have to carry the deadbeat workers with me.

Oh, I get it. You "earn" your benefits--teachers don't, because they belong to a union.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you actually not know the whole reason companies offer health benefits is because UNIONS worked over time to secure that common privilege?

And, to make your statement even more absurd--what about the millions of workers who work just as hard as you, but get ZERO health insurance? What, exactly, should they do? I'm sure you'd say "don't join a union, because everybody knows they're worthless".

It always amuses me to see the bitching and moaning directed at teachers and government employees who have some job security and relatively efficient health-care plans. All of these were negotiated at the bargaining table, and you'd think the free-market crowd would have some respect for that -- not that I expect consistency out of them or anything.

By "efficient" do you mean paid for by someone else?

Their job security and generous benefits are not the result of market outcomes. Labor unions are cartels of labor. What you call "negotiations" are actually attempts to impose market power, monopolize the supply of labor and raise wages above competitive rates. It is easier to extract favors when there is only one supplier. The "free-market crowd" understands that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you actually not know the whole reason companies offer health benefits is because UNIONS worked over time to secure that common privilege?

No, companies began offering health insurance benefits during World War II when, in response to a shortage of skilled workers and government-imposed wage controls, they offered health insurance as a way to compete for workers without offering higher wages.

Oh, I get it. You "earn" your benefits--teachers don't, because they belong to a union.

Some may earn them, but then some dont.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you actually not know the whole reason companies offer health benefits is because UNIONS worked over time to secure that common privilege?

Yes, I know that. And they are not needed any more. All they are now are corrupt organizations that dont give a crap about the workers.

And, to make your statement even more absurd--what about the millions of workers who work just as hard as you, but get ZERO health insurance? What, exactly, should they do? I'm sure you'd say "don't join a union, because everybody knows they're worthless".

How about "Change jobs?" And "dont join a union because all they care about is your money."

There will not be a middle class in our lifetimes, with or without organized labor. Our manufacturing sector is gone - companies cannot pay the wages Americans have become accustomed to and make a product that is competitive with one manufactured in countries with cheap labor (i.e. China, Vietnam, India etc.)

Without a manufacturing sector, those young people who are not college material (and not everyone is college material whether we like to admit it or not) have much less hope of finding a job that will pay a decent wage.

There are a number of exacerbating factors for the loss of the manufacturing sector, some "liberal" and some "conservative" but in any event, there was little that could be done to stop it anyhow - it is driven by technology.

As far as unions, there needs to be a distinction between private sector unions and public employee unions. The rise of the middle class was the result, in part, of the efforts of private sector unions. Of course, this was during a time of very limited government interference with employment relations, making the unions an indispensable part of labor relations. But to claim that public employee unions played a role in the rise of the middle class isn't true. In fact, the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act did not become law in Oregon until 1973, long after labor's most important decades in the early 1900's.

Moreover, the problem with public employee unions in a state like Oregon is that there is no tension between the employer and the employee, and hence no true "negotiations." Do you think Ted Kulongoski "negotiates" with SEIU? Hell no, he used to represent them, and they make the main contribution to get him and his party elected. What interest does he or his negotiating team have in ensuring that the taxpayer is represented, or that the citizens of Oregon receive a fair value for the taxes they are paying?

Unlike the private sector, where the negotiating parties are truly adverse, the public employee unions have been smart enough to figure out that your negotiations go much more smoothly when you pay to elect someone from your own team to "negotiate" with.

Private unions have played an important role in this country, but public employee unions should be treated differently, and we should design a system to ensure that all collective bargaining agreements between public employees and federal, state, and local governments are negotiated between parties that are truly adverse to one another.

But to claim that public employee unions played a role in the rise of the middle class isn't true.

Who claimed that unions created the middle class?

Moreover, the problem with public employee unions in a state like Oregon is that there is no tension between the employer and the employee, and hence no true "negotiations."

Wow. My friend, you have no clue about how teachers interact with school districts when it comes to employment. Here's a tip--talk to a PPS teacher about the past three years, for example.

Here's something that bothers me--lumping all "public employees" into one bag. teachers, for example, are treated *very* differently than a government employee working for the State of Oregon, for example.

Eco:

Go up a few posts and read rural residents post.

And actually, I have a spouse, mother, and grandmother who is/was a public school teacher, so I know quite a bit about teacher/district negotiations, albeit from the labor side. I'd say, although this is just my opinion and you obviously have your own, that most private labor would love to be negotiating on the points of dispute between PPS and the teachers union. I'm not taking anything away from the teachers - they deserve what they can negotiate - but to claim that the negotiations are comparable to those between a private sector employee and union seems like a pretty big stretch to me.

And I'm not your friend - nor your enemy. I don't know you.

I'd say, although this is just my opinion and you obviously have your own, that most private labor would love to be negotiating on the points of dispute between PPS and the teachers union.

If you believe that, and you've had the personal experience you've claimed, I don't know what to tell you. teachers in Oregon routinely have to scrap just to make the wage they already have, to get a 1% or 2% cost of living increase every several years, and to keep their health benefits (which keep getting worse).

But obviously, you already should know this, given what you've said.

And I'm not your friend - nor your enemy. I don't know you.

Get over yourself.

Eccohuman, get over YOUR self. I would think Life would be hard without a sense of irony, but you probably don't miss what you never had.

Yes ... just continue to talk amongst yourselves ... all you liberal Ds. 2012 is coming quickly ... and the Cs are plotting and planning. Go to sleep ... go to sle-e-e-ep ....

Blue Collar Libertarian,

I apologize if my description from the self-described Libertarians that I have met and known outside of Portland, OR do not fit the way you describe yourself. Then again, no one Libertarian like any other partisan or ideologue gives the same, pat answer on how their personal political philosophy is in line with their party's platform. Again, I apologize because I was describing what I have heard from individual Libertarians who come from more well to do backgrounds.

For all the NW Republican Anons,

Where have you all been. I see that you are playing just like your leader, I Am Coyote AKA Ted Piccolo, with the Democrat and union red herring. Please, spout your brainless platitudes from Rush and Hannity over there. I don't have the patience for it.

Otherwise, if you have enough liquor in you to summon up the balls you otherwise do not have in your pants, then try your anti-union crap over at BlueOregon. Many others and I are just waiting to collectively hand your azz back to you.

Jack,

Can we keep the threads on track. I have been guilty of derailing threads on tangents, but this is just ridiculous.

What was supposed to be a discussion about the future of the Republican Party has become a back and forth between union lovers and union haters.

Take people to task please with the first being myself.

"What was supposed to be a discussion about the future of the Republican Party has become a back and forth between union lovers and union haters."

What's so off-track about that -- convincing people that they love America while hating most of the people in it IS all the GOP has.

Matt Taibbi's latest Pulitzer-worthy blast ("Obama's Big Sellout") shows why it would be very helpful to have a sane GOP -- as long as they are being dominated by the Palintards, there is nothing forcing the supposed Democrats to be Democrats, and they're cutting deals with Wall St. that rival the worst of Paulsonism. It's like having the fire department come to your house and start spraying gasoline on your roof and nailing shut all the exits.

"Otherwise, if you have enough liquor in you to summon up the balls you otherwise do not have in your pants, then try your anti-union crap over at BlueOregon. Many others and I are just waiting to collectively hand your azz back to you."

Yes go to Blue Oregon and Debate with all the Master Debators!

Reading BlueOregon and commmenting there is more lively than @ NW Republican where Ted Piccolo allows anons to gutter snipe along the lines of, "BHObama is a socialist who hates America!" All the while, those who disagree substantively with the Ted Piccolo have their comments deleted with a gutter snipe from Ted Piccolo himself.

Conversely, you can get into it with others at BlueOregon to a certain extent. So long as your argument is not completely ad hominem or seriously critical of Kari Chisholm's clients, you have a lot more freedom, you know the thing Neoconservatives use to justify preemptive warfare, to speak your mind and disagree.

Just my two cents.