When did the fundies, neocons and other wingnuts take over the Republicans

Originally I thought that it was during the Clinton administration behind closed doors but now I keep hearing that Reagan was the template for these nutjobs? I will say that I believe that once upon a time the Republicans were respectable, even if you don't always agree with them but they are now the most dangerous people in this country.

A tremendous power vacuum formed when Nixon resigned and everybody went to jail. The sane members of the GOP died off, or were turned off, and the punks took over. They got their first taste of power by locking Jimmy Carter in the Rose Garden over Iran (with the help of the Bush regime, the first generation). And it's been a hair-raising ride ever since.

The damage has been unmeasurable

This web site is produced by TheocaracyWatch
a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University

"We are talking about Christianizing American. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context."

The Christian Coalition is certain to make 1992 much more interesting and disturbing than the conventional wisdom is ready to believe." So investigative journalist Frederick Clarkson warned us after attending one of the first Christian Coalition "Road to Victory" gatherings in 1991.

Clarkson was talking about the 1992 elections. Just two years later, the Christian Coalition gave the Republican Party majorities in both Houses of Congress for the first time in forty years. Four years after that, a sitting President was impeached for a sexual indiscretion. Is the conventional wisdom ready to believe that the Religious Right could gain control over all three branches of the federal government? Is it conceivable that the United States could become a fundamentalist Christian theocracy? The facts speak for themselves.

www.theocracywatch.org

Truly I think just from asking around GOPers that I know -- that so many of them are disgusted with GWB and what their party is catering to. I REALLY think that a lot of them will vote Libertarian or whatever rather than vote GWB this time. A lot of them voted GWB on the "centrist" lie, and now see what insane extremists are pulling the strings. I have a lot of faith in the good center GOPs out there.

The Republican party needed to get a new political base after the civil rights movement. I attribue this to two elements:

- Part of the GOP expansion into the fundamentalist and hard-right voter bloc came as a result of the famous "Southern Strategy." Democrats, who had been the entrenched party of the south, became the party of minorities, in the sense that Democrats had to manage the transition from a segregated society. The Republicans did a good job at marketing themselves as "The Party that Hates the Black People Just as Much as You" by painting the Democrats as coddlers of black people, spending too much money on welfare for them and being soft on dangerous black criminals. It was an attempt, and a successful one, to get fearful, hard-right voters involved in politics.

- The 70's also saw the beginning of the fundamentalist backlash against what Republicans saw as the "social decadence" of the 60's. The 60's brought tolerance for homosexuals, more concern with women's rights and so on. Hard-right Christians, who before were politically ambivalent, were enraged that progressive people who seemed to share these "decadent" cultural values were getting into office. The GOP extended an olive branch to them, starting with President Reagan or so. Before, the party was mostly for the wealthy and for businessmen. By playing to their fears of decadent, secular authority, the right brought the fundamentalists in as a solid voting bloc. Unfortunately, the fundamentalists took control of the local party appartus in many parts of the country, casuing the current schism between the two parties in which compromise of any sort is impossible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1047850,00.html

Every Tuesday morning during the Iraq war Washington's opinion-makers and journalists knew there was only one place to be: at the "black-coffee briefings" held at the American Enterprise Institute, a fortress-like building on M and 17th streets, opposite the main offices of the National Geographic magazine.

Technically, AEI is a thinktank. More than that, though, it is the headquarters of the intellectual movement known as neoconservatism. Its staff includes famous names such as Richard Perle, Irving Kristol and Newt Gingrich. The magazine Weekly Standard, the neocon bible, is published at the same address.

<snip>


Right stuff: the main players
By Julian Borger

Paul Wolfowitz


The most visible neocon in Washington, whose power transcends his modest title of deputy secretary of defence. Like almost all neocons, he is a former Democrat, combining a liberal sense of mission to spread democratic ideas with a traditional conservative readiness to use military force. But he is now at loggerheads with the "paleocons" about how long to stay in Iraq

Richard Perle


Wolfowitz's mentor and veteran cold warrior from the Reagan administration, where he was known as the "prince of darkness". Like many a neocon, he began his career working for the hawkish Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson before defecting to the Republicans. Forced to step down as chairman of the defence policy board in March after his many business connections raised questions of conflict of interest


<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1047850,00.html

even though he himself wasn't one. He wanted their votes, promising school prayer and other goodies, but gave them nothing in return.

Prior to that, the Republican party wasn't all that bad, really. The religious whackos were all way, way underground and we very rarely heard from them. I remember when they were considered to be "holy rollers," just a joke.

There are millions of people who vote republican who would abandon the party if they knew more about the amount of influence and control the Reich wing has on it. The RNC constantly works to create the impression that the democratic party represents only the most liberal voters and liberal extremists. The democratic party seems to have no problem with this but that is a serious mistake.

I mean, Reagan was as dumb as a fence post but the excuse was he was so . . . "LIKEABLE". :puke: