Do Repukes complain about the "Republican establishment"?

I just read an old post where someone said the DLC and "Democratic Establishment" wants to select our candidate for us instead of we the people doing it ourselves.

I agree with this complaint. But I am wondering, do Repubs feel there is a battle within their own party, against the likes of people such as Buchanan and his bigotry, the whacko Christian-right, racists, objectivists, Libertarians, etc?

With that list, I see potential for an in-party civil war, but there doesn't seem to be one. We have a major one, it may have even cost us the 2000 election...my theory is that some of us just refuse to settle for anything but the best, and while I desire a "big tent" for the Dem party, it's sometimes hard to swallow the moderate/DINO "establishment" for some lefty Dems, and far-lefty Dems are hard to swallow for some of the more moderate Dems in the party.

But...I don't see the lashing out, and casting away, and disregard/disrespect for the far right-wingnuts within the Repuke party with the degree of intensity that I see on our side (not that I pay too much attention to whatever they're doing over there on the far-right. A good example of where my confusions stems from is that some Dems really despise Nader, whereas even the more moderate Repubs tolerate Coulter. (I know Nader is not a Dem, but he would make a good Democrat, in my opinion.)

That's not the best example, but Coulter-fans are welcome in the Repub party, whereas Nader fans are almost lynched. Even though Coulter brings absolutely nothing of value to their stupid party, she appeals to enough of them that they welcome even the tiny faction of voters her drivel brings to Bush's side. It seems to be a study in just how much they are willing to overlook. Nader, however, has actual virtue, and his supporters would bring some goals of value to the Democratic Party, as well as younger voters, but we treat that faction of the left like they have leprosy, especially after 2000.

I don't know what's going through the Repukes' heads when they choose to gladly accept the "nuttier" factions of their party, but they seem to have grasped the concept of "strength in numbers" in a way that the Dems don't, even though we need to. I am envious.

I want a "big tent" for the Democratic party, but it would mean including the far left (like myself), and the Dems seem so unwilling to do that, from my observation. (I am a Democrat by the way, not a Green.)

So my question is, how are the Repukes able to unite so well when the spectrum of the right-wing is as vast and varied as it is on the left-wing? (And how can we learn to do the same without compromising our individual values?)

It's their strength. (well, that, and their ruthlessness)

And their weakness.

Because new ideas aren't allowed to come into the party if the "establishment" doesn't like it. And they never do. So they can't evolve beyond the same stupid message, over and over.



As for the Greens. The wingnuts didn't get together and split the ticket by voting for Bauer, did they? I don't think the rethugs would be so welcoming if they pulled that shit.

...that require a "group mind" to do their thinking for them. It's clearly a mental disease, or perhaps some genetic disposition to be a self-serving bastard willing to excuse crime as long as it's in service of their agenda. And if the law doesn't suit you, buy a legislator and have it changed...

This is a well studied and understood social phenomenom.

Thankfully or not, we don't practice the same level of group think and unification as the Repukes.

I partially blame the Dem leaders.

And screw the Republicans out of an election.

Right-wing extremists still support the Republican Party. Left-wing extremists generally act and talk as if they want to destroy the Democratic Party. We'd be happy to have them if they could drop the "no difference between Republicrats and Demicans" stuff. If not, why should we embrace our sworn enemies?

I think you have the whole "inclusion" problem backwards. The Green left (or at least a lot of them) refuse to be included, unless we do everything their way. Even the nuttiest right-wingers seem to grasp the advantages of working with their party - when was the last time you heard Ann Coulter mean-mouth the Republicans or Bush?

unlike the Democratic establishment. It's pretty obvious, to me, that the Democratic establishment have been poor leaders.

So I'm not sure I see your point. And please don't respond with the meme about Clinton and Gore not getting a clear majority of the popular vote. Neither did Reagan. A win is a win, unless the Supreme Court steals it from you.

up until 2002 when they slided back down again. Now we have hackable voting booths throughout the country, a stolen election in 2000 and probably in a few places (including Georgia) in 2002. The free trade bills and the media mergers during the Clinton presidency gave *massive* economic and propaganda power to the huge multi-national corporations.

Good leadership would have recognized these problems and nipped them in the bud. Unfortunately, the Democratic establishment has been lead by poor leadership that has been dismissing everything that is now coming to pass as conspiricy theories or as "far left" ramblings. These guys don't know how to *really* fight, IMHO. They need to be shown how to fight. In their defense, they seem to be learning.

to dismiss three consecutive presidential elections as "small and weak gains." In your arguments, the Republican leadership figures as an inanimate object - every gain the Republicans make is due to poor leadership of the Democrats.

9/11 hurt us a lot because 1) paranoia and panic fuel conservatism, and 2) Bush had the dumb luck to be in the White House (illegitimately) when it happened, when the public would have rallied around anyone who was President at the time. That's not the Democratic leadership's fault either.

Thanks for reminding me, however, of the real (if small) damage that has been done to our party by a left wing that refuses to work with us and overlooks no opportunity to attack us.

The "Democratic establishment" controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years from 1955 to 1995 and controlled the senate for the same years except for 6 years during the 80's. We also held the White House for 8 years under Clinton and we definitely would have won in 2000 if people didn't vote for "anti-establishment" Nader. Republicans have control of the White House because conservatives united around Bush, not Buchanan, because they thought Bush was better than Gore. If liberals did the same thing and united around the party and its leaders, and put aside our differences, than we would be doing a hell of a lot better than we are today.

Just because the Democratic party has been going through a rough time for the past few years doesn't mean that they don't win elections. You have to look over a period of decades not a few years.

The wealthy have been getting weathier and the middle class have been getting poorer. More power has conglomerated into fewer hands. The last 22 years or so have been a total failure for the economic interests of the Democratic Party.

were in control of their party. They did it with much success actually.

already overthrew their establishment.

Their establshment were the Gerry Ford, Bob Michel, Bob Dole types.

Staring in 1988, Pat Robertson organized their "true believers" at the precinct levels to begin taking over the party. It happened from the bottom up.

It hit Washington in 1994 when many new Christian coalition types were elected to the House and Senate. Michel was deposed as Republican leader, and Newt took over as head of the:true believer" party members.

Most of us know that but don't know that at the same time that was happening all the establishment Republicans were being voted out as state party leaders one after another.

The Republican Party was pretty much taken over from the ground up.

Democrats should take some lessons from what Robertson did.

From the ground up, the establishment leaders should be thanked for their years of service asked for their opinions, and then voted out of office, starting at the precinct convention, and then the county convention level.

They did it. It should be even easier for Democrats because union members can provide the numbers to take over precinct conventions. Around here if you brought three people to a precinct convention, you could take it over.