I DON'T Want The Republican Party To Fail.

After careful observation of the forums recently, I've noticed a nasty trend amongst many DUers.

They are becoming militant in their dislike of opposing opinions. They hate republicans. They hate conservative democratic's. They hate the concept of compromise. They are calling for purity within the party.

I am here to state my side. Maybe I'm biased because, even though I'm now a progressive socialist, I use to be a registered republican.

First off, simply because you disagree with the ideology of the republican party does not mean you have to hate it or wish for it's destruction. It does not mean the members of the republican party are any less human than you or I. They are not evil. They do not have ill willed intentions; or at least no more ill willed than democrats.

I say that because I think it's terribly important to keep the political process civil and humane. After all, the point of politics is to affect humanity in a positive way. By turning towards hatred and divisiveness, we are damaging the political process. Now that doesn't mean we must be polite and sip tea with each other. It means that we can have honest discourse with people of opposing political views and at the end of the day still have respect for them as fellow human beings. No matter how misinformed you may think or know they are.

The reason why we need civil politics is because it allows for the construction of better ideas and the more efficient application of them. Having an opposing viewpoint allows us to question our own views and make them stronger. If we can keep communication between opposing sides, it will benefit all of us. I for one know that when someone treats me with respect, even if I know they dislike my political views, I am more willing to listen to their own views.

So I'd like to say that I don't hate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. I refuse to stoop to their level of inhumanness. I may not respect them because they do legitimately hold ill will against me. But I will never grant them the same treatment. I also don't hate Republicans, Conservatives, Conservative Democrats, etc. I respect them for holding their own beliefs even if I believe they are absolutely wrong. I will try and explain to them why I believe what I believe in hopes that they will learn a thing or two. And I hope that they are willing to do the same for me. But I refuse to simply label them as hopeless tools that want to do me harm.

That's it.

eh? :shrug: Maybe I'm listening to to much of The Beatles.

Peace and love.

Some here don't understand that. They are as rigid and uncompromising in their beliefs as the Republicans are in theirs. Democracy REQUIRES the consideration of and compromise with, opinions you personally detest. It is NOT a pure, unsullied system. It actually requires a lot of sully.

I am happy because my own agenda is being furthered. But then again, I do not like the idea of one party control of the country even if it's my party.

if you haven't noticed.

Democrats are of a few minds, and tend to vote how they wish, not how they are told. That's the difference.

IN addition, many Republicans ARE uninformed haters and bigots!!

In all honesty, those tea party protesters were a small minority relative to the size of the republican party.

Plus, I saw what George Bush and Dick Cheney did to this country,
and the world during the last 8 years.
I saw how they stole the 2000 election,
and then didn't keep us safe!

Seriously thought,
We do not have a one party rule. period.
Hell, the Republicans stopped one of Obama's nominee
from getting through committee just 3 days ago!

I wasn't born yesterday....
so I ain't buying what you are selling.
Sorry.

Even with GWB and Cheney, I do not wish for the destruction of the republican party. It's just a sad result of ignorance.

And I understand your stance on the party system, but I think you are wrong. Yes, there can still be dissent in congress, but in reality the democrats can basically do whatever they want, assuming they have party unity. They don't have to listen to the republicans at all. Democrats stopped a couple Bush nominees, but I doubt you'd suggest that they had control of anything before 2006.

Hey it's alright. I'm not selling anything. Take it or leave it.

Does indeed wish for the end of not only the Democratic party but liberalism in any shape or form.

How do you deal with people who would see you destroyed?

How do you deal with those who would like it if you were destroyed? You do nothing militant until they actually try to destroy you. Until that point, you act in a way that they will not. You respectfully disagree and try to persuade them to believe your side.

and followed by a widely powerless minority looking for some sort of foothold.

The sooner they vanish the better.

Their tactics can be a little raw but what about their beliefs do you oppose? I can certainly tell you what I oppose about both Republican belief and tea baggers beliefs.

The form of speech they are utilizing may seem like hate speech to you. But it's perfectly legal and I will defend their right to say it no matter what. However, I will also counter their positions with better and stronger positions of my own. That is the real way to win. You don't fight to silence the ignorant. You fight to get good information to them.

and even before that, I was surprised to find that he and his wife are two of the finest people I know.
Nice, warm, friendly, respectful, self-controlled, thoughtful people. I am a little stunned at how well I like them.
I haven't liked very many Republicans since 2000, honestly.
I don't understand the authoritarian personality but this particular couple seems pretty darned accepting of everyone around them.

A common thread that I see among some of these new friends (there's a few couples I've gotten to know this year) is either a fear that government will take over their lives and interfere with independent choices (i.e., economic choices or consumer choices such as consumption of cigarettes or soda or gas-guzzling cars); or conversely that it is GOOD for government to be the rulebook or regulator of individual and community morality. The latter idea seems stifling to me; and the former idea seems unrealistic in comparison to the extent the Fascist Republican politicians are ready to interfere with our lives.

It's an odd experience.

Yeah, I like that guy too!

You're so low-key about what must have been a life-altering event, though thank goodness not as life-altering as it could have been. I'm so glad nothing terrible happened!

(And to add to what you were saying--two of the sweetest, nicest, most humble, salt-of-the-earthiest people I know watch Fox News, and their teenaged son parrots the talking points too. Yet they're all nice people. When I hear their son saying the butt-crackiest stupid things that he's learned from Fox, I could just scream, because these are good, decent people being lied to, and being made to look ignorant when interacting with the reality-based world.)

Again--I'm so glad to hear everything is okay with your son!

A healthy democracy needs a "loyal opposition" or several...to keep the ruling party honest and present alternatives...hopefully constructive ones.

The GOOPs problem is of their own making. Years of political games are coming home to roost, the Southern Strategy that worked for 40 years, no longer does. All this party has to show for their years of power are corruption, division and the destruction of civil liberties and the middle class. With this track record, who'd want to be a rushpublican??

Despite thoes who think otherwise, many of the Democratic gains in recent years was due to the rushpublicans and their inclusiveness...driving away anyone who isn't a white christian male. Until they realize their "platform" no long holds up, they will continue to shrink and be a regional party. Maybe getting their asses kicked in elections a couple more times may do the trick.

And I have no problem saying that. I hope the Republicans, in their current form, die off. We need to move past them. There can and should be an opposing voice but it doesn't have to be that one.

But I will always disagree that you should hate people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc.

In fact I have more pity for them than anything else. Their the ones living in a delusion. What a miserable existence.

But I don't. They exist as vessels for their message. It was their choice. I hate what they have to say and thus them since they have chosen to be their message.

OTOH, I know people who believe and say the same things. Them, I pity. But because I am acquainted with them and because they have not chosen to use their lives to advance that agenda, I do not hate them.

really are evil. They're killers and they're dangerous. You shouldn't underestimate their evilness. Others in that party are a lesser shade of the same, like the propagandists who provide the ideology. Then you have the dangerous run-of-the-mill fools like Palin who believe the Iraq War was God's will. Again, real evil. It would be good for the country if that party disappeared. No loss, big gain.

Your point about showing respect to other DUer's is well taken. And I think that was your main point.

that there are fellow travelers of that ilk in our party as well that are/were willing to sell their stated ideals to remain in power or at least are willing to be silently complicit.

I think I am cynical when it comes to politicians. I don't truly trust any one of them because power corrupts.

And I think that might account for some of the division on DU. Like you, I don't have a lot of respect for politicians. I don't see them as saviours or kings, but as servants at best, more likely slaves. I'm committed to principles not personalities. That applies to Obama and all Democrats. Others on DU obviously have more of a personal commitment to certain Democratic politicians.

And given the current campaign funding/bribe taking that's operative, I view all polticians with few exceptions as crooks. Still, I will give credit to someone who does the right thing. For example, the President who sets a firm date to be out of Iraq completely and then follows up and does it. But dosn't half step it. He would have my full support. Or the President who would say Afghanistan is an immoral war and a waste of lives and money, we're getting out and we'll let those people decide their future, while we still track down Bin Laden and Al Qaida. That President also I would support.

politicians with the stones to pledge complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq was a Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Both are widely regarded as crackpots but at least they have balls.

A differing ideology. A massive misunderstanding of the situation. Even an intent to manipulate voters does not mean that someone is evil. Sorry that isn't how it works.


There have been very few truly evil people in the history of the world. And I don't see any in the republican party.

because he's evil. period.

cheney is most definitely evil. he shat on the constitution and screwed the u.s. out of billions - billions that we could sorely use right about now. of course, that was his intention, he signed the PNAC, along with his evil cohorts. even in his incapacitated condition, he attempts yet more shenanigans. you have to wonder about the mindset of someone who would do this, don't you think?

Not everyone here is a hater. There's room for all kinds.

If what repubs stand for falls from favor, at least in how those ideals are packaged and sold propagandistically, and that party, which has clearly made plenty of room for a fascist prototype within its character, goes by the wayside, than so be it. I'll not shed any tears...but than again I'm ALL in favor of having third/indie parties having an equal slice of the pie.

Frankly, as human nature goes I wouldn't actually look for such types to disappear or "fail" anytime soon - their ilk are deeply entrenched within Establishment power structures, and their ideology drives the overarching aims of those systems.

Within the next 4-5 years I see the republican party changing wildly towards a much more progressive stance.

Gay marriage will be fully legal in this country within that time. Hopefully more civil rights legislation will be put in place. The republican base will eventually get on board with us, even if it's a few steps behind. That will force the republican party to get on board as well.

I believe that the hardcore evangelical movement in the republican party is dying out and the latest things we've heard from them is their death throes.

so do you think the dems and repugs are going to make a switcheroo again?

I do want the Republican Party to fail because I want America to succeed. I think the Republicans have messed up this country to the extent that we will need a new New Deal to fix things. I think another generation out of power for the Republicans like the post Hoover Republicans had is just what this country needs now.

More specifically I want the Republican Party to fail because:

I want health care available to all Americans.

I want science and reason to return to our government.

I want a return of civil liberties to all Americans.

I want American government whose first priority is Americans and not the enrichment of the wealthy of the World.

I want a return to fiscal sanity and while more spending is required to dig out from the hole Bush left us eventually fiscal sanity I think might return with Democratic control but given the past 30 years history will never return with borrow and spend Republicans in power.

I want, when I retire, for my pension checks not to bounce.

Like the original poster in this thread I was a Republican for a while (1978 until 2002) but I do want the Republican Party to fail because I want America to succeed.

Yet it's so very hard for me. Most of my family and my husband's family are Republicans so I have a hard time hating on them. I try to look for common ground and discuss things we agree on. Health care in this country is in serious need of reform, yet we differ on how to achieve that goal.

"Taking Over The Republican Party" (page from Theocracy Watch)
http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm

And I, for one, will never forget that real NAZIS (who were clandestinely given identities and employment as Americans in "national security") found their political home in the RW of The Republican Party, an "influence" that is still prevalent in The Republican Party.

Economic conservatives and national-defense conservatives, I can tolerate them. We may not agree on a lot of issues (i.e. taxes, Iraq) but you can at least engage in rational debate with them. At the very least, they are rational people.

Social conservatives, on the other hand, they drive me nuts. You can't rationally debate or reason with them...they are automatically right and everyone else is automatically a Godless heathen. Social conservatives are bigots, against gays and lesbians for sure. But also against women, Jews, Muslims, and more times than they'd like to admit, against minorities; lest we forget, social conservatives are vehemently anti-feminist (giving rise to "men's rights" nonsense) and often believe that Muslims are out to take over the world. I absolutely, positively do want to see social conservatives fail. And I absolutely love the fact that the Republican Party is trying to distance themselvevs from them so they can become competitive again. Social conservatives are just a bunch of straight white male-only bigots fighting a losing battle.

frankly I find it damned entertaining! :D

one more liberal than the Democrats?

If the republicans fail it is their own fault, they do not need our help and neither do they need us to keep them afloat ... or give them credit for just being the opposing party.

Let's get a better opposing party :) why shouldn't we go with another party more attuned to the needs of our citizens instead of the republicans (who aren't that popular anyway).

I'm thinking more Bernie Sanders than Ralph Nadar.

:)

it could be decades before another party comes to significant power.

That's a big gap.

This situation would be different if we had a significant third or even fourth party. But we don't.

that it would take decades and I don't think it's a big problem.

Assuming it did take more than one presidential election, why would having more than two parties battling it out be a problem?

But in an election where the republican party was dismantling, we all know who would win. The democrats. There wouldn't be multiple parties fighting because no one would have remotely close the amount of power the democrats would have.

You would want the Democrats to win for a while, wouldn't you?

And I need to add again, I do not agree that they automatically win.

As a matter of fact, I think it might shake the foundation of our election $y$tem for politicians to realize (if your scenario was true) that voters might not overwhelmingly vote for Democrats just because they would have the most financial backing and/or power at the moment.

I think it would be a very interesting event!

makes it difficult for a third party to grow.

Both sides know that third parties just split their vote without haveing a chance to succeed.

I do think right now a Ross Perot type character could start a new party and quickly put the Republicans out of business.

I don't see who that guy would be though, but I think many Republican voters (most?) are sick of their party and would like a new home that would more effectively represent their views.

One party rule is almost never good thing. And the times where it could be a good thing, like right now when the gov't needs to act quickly, do not last long.

There are Democrats like Nelson who will fill their shoes. We will never have one party rule. Once the GOP is gone, there will be more room for progressives to be progressive and moderates to stake out their positions.

Dream: No more Party of No. No more lockstep Republicans. No more using obstructionism as a political ploy.

See ya!

I think the republican leadership needs a complete overhaul.

Let another rational party form in its place. I didn't say anything about destruction. They will become irrelevant, and I hope they vanish. Good riddance.





edited typo.

A complete overhaul isn't the Republican Party. Overhaul is rational, the GOP, not so much.

Simply because they have a completely different ideology does not mean the republican party is built on irrationality.

They simply have poor leadership. Let them get a good leader and watch the party turn around. I'm willing to bet it will happen within the next 4-5 years.

I have no desire to see a resurgence of the Republican Party in four or five years. They have a lot to do to become credible.





edited typo.

A conservative party and a socialist party (labour party).

I think this can happen. It will just take a while. The republican party will come back embracing views closer to democrats. This will force democrats further left. And so on and so on.

what I said here. Another party will emerge.

planet with rational.

Much as I understand you wanting the GOP to be nonexistent, a look at the other 2 major political parties to go extinct shows how that's sort of a dangerous wish. Take a look at two former US political parties that were once big, the Federalists and the Whigs.

First the Federalists, early on they were dominant, and basically had Washington on their side for everything even though he was never officially a member of their party. The federalist's opponents had a view of limited government, and the US being a society of farmers. The federalists had a view of a bigger more powerful Federal government that was VERY darn similar to the one we have today. They were for having a strong judiciary, and they're strong today because of the Federalists. The whole banking system was created by them, pushed by them. A lot of the ideas used to expand government were originally a part of their platform. The federalist vision of America won out in the end, even though the federalist were a radical extremely pro-rich people party in their time.

What caused the death of the Federalist party is their opponents started to steal all of their good ideas, and realize "hey this makes it easier to govern", while the Federalists largely stayed the same, other then getting more radical after their opponents stole their ideas.

The other party to go extinct was the Whigs. Back then the democrats were a more proSouth party, and the Whigs were a more proNorth party, and because of slavery the north and south were like two different societies. The slavery issue ended up destroying the Whigs, when they failed to satisfy either side. But when the Whigs went away the democrats became the only party in the south, while the Republican party was founded in the North East as a radical pro-north antislavery party that wasn't even going to try to compete in the south. The result of the proNorth Whigs going extinct was that the Republican party soon largely dominated politics at the federal level from the Civil war all the way until the great depression, with their party only losing the White House to two democrats who served 2 terms each in that time.

The Republican Party is completely dysfunctional. The electorate is more informed.

This Republican Party can vanish, and life will be better for it.

Really, it is unforgivable. And, yeah, there are plenty of moderate, semi-sane ones, but they enable the wackjobs who pull the levers.

I think our "oh well everybody is different" attitude has not served us well. They walk all over us, even when WE are supposed to be in power.

but get their hands slapped back by the repugs. talk to THEM about this.

that ignorance will still be around even if the republican party fails.

We want to destroy ignorance. Letting the republican party fail won't do that.

Please. The Republican Party in its current form is useless. Look at the RNC chief, a complete joke.

Don't be so quick to dismiss them as a complete failure.

Denying it every step of the way. In fact, they're still denying it.

for the GOP being a viable opposition party. Why else would you be worried about strongly worded expressions of antagonism towards Republicanism in its current form?

Obviously there should be an opposition party for democracy to work and for most citizens to feel they have a stake in government. But it's not my responsibility to make sure the GOP fulfills that opposition role. It's not my job either to pretend the GOP in its current batshit insane/evil incarnation constitutes any kind of reasonable, respectable political opposition. We are talking about a political party that annointed Rush Limbaugh their leader, thereby affirming they are the party of clownish assholes. Not. My. Responsibility.

I also can't imagine anyone who witnessed what's happened during the past 8 years, making this statement to democrats: "By turning towards hatred and divisiveness, we are damaging the political process." We didn't turn towards hatred and divisiveness, we were pushed. Leading GOP operatives and conservative pundits asserted we were Saddam-loving traitors who were "objectively pro-terrorist." They've made similar charges against President Obama. Influential party members and media leaders, not private citizens grumbling on a message board.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I guess there's one of each of us of us here, isn't there?

Thanks for playing.

It almost seems like you are "turning towards hatred and divisiveness."

And it didn't long to prove it, did it...new boy?

But I don't do things because they are easy.

Didn't Clemens have a quote that went along the lines of "the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"?


In Politics, Nature definitely abhors a vacuum

That doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to think the same way.

and that every Democrat should support.

A vague term like "progressive thought" has as much meaning "affordable health care" (which all politicians say they support, but never define). There are a lot of members of Congress who call themselves Democrats who haven't had a progressive thought in years, if ever.

But we don't need to support all those stances just to be a democrat.

If someone shows a general ideology that follows the democratic party, I don't see why one or two key differences is the end of the world.

And this is coming from someone who basically supports all stances of the democratic party.

but any politician who puts corporate interests before the people's (i.e. interest rates, bankruptcy rules, the health insurance companies) has no business calling him or herself a Democrat.

But if that is the litmus test, than our own president shouldn't be a democrat.

who once upon a time would have been called moderate Republicans.

moreso every day.

If the "Republican Party" rises from the ashes, it will have to be as a different creature altogether, their ideas and policies having failed so miserably in practice.

Why would I defend and wish success upon a party that wants me, my country and my party to fail?

After the last 8 years I do believe that the republican party IS "evil" and have ill willed intentions, they have proven to me that much. I understand where you're coming from but I cannot and will not wish success to a party that does absolutely nothing to help the poor and middle class in this country or help America in general. The US would be a much better place without them, with that being said I DO hope they fail and get replaced with a party that is'nt as useless. I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect, far from it but at least they aren't as 100% useless as the repukes.

And I hope they burn in hell.

I'm going running peeps. Don't tear me apart to much while I'm gone.

I want their putrid party and all its -isms to fade mercifully into the sunset.

In 20 years, they might not even be Conservative.

There should be a right-leaning party to provide a check on the Democrats. There's no particular reason that the Republicans should be that party. The Republican Party stands for disdain for the poor, encouragement of regressive elements, and a war economy, and has done for nearly forty years; it is without value. If a new rightward party that believes in a stingy government and a isolationist foreign policy and a polite hands-off tolerance towards the diversity of Americans can be organized, that would be great. To hell with the Republicans. Conservatism is valuable, but there's nothing special about being a Republican that we need to preserve. We need opponents; all we have right now are enemies.

Remember if you give your honest opinion that goes against the hive mind and you have under 1,000 posts you're a Freeper Troll!

Such bullshit, but I guess you got pay your dues.

After eight long years of bush tyranny, what would you expect from it's citizens. Until there is a truth commission or something to the sort, there will be hate. bush was an embarrassment to most Americans except for the relics of the GOP, but that's understandable, them repubs are dorks... As to the four-some fox no-news group you mention above, they are funkin idiots...Thanks for reaching out but, I can't forgive the bush admin for the 8 yrs of shame, can't and won't...

Good try. I imagine it's a little confusing to (ex?) Republicans, since "republican" is both an adjective (as in "republican government") and a proper noun ("government by a Republican"), whereas Democrats are afflicted with a suffix appropriate to the part of speech, e.g., "conservative Democrats" not conservative democratics (or "democratic's", which suggests the possessive form of a nonexistent noun, not plurality), "Democratic party" not Democrat party. I'm sure one of your fallen compatriots will decrypt this shibboleth eventually; not bothering to learn the local customs is like clearing a minefield by brute force. Here's a little quiz to find out if you're prepared for DU's (note: democratic (adj.) underground (noun, in this case, although "underground" can also function as an adjective, as in "underground railroad")) grammatical gauntlet:

Which of the following sentences contains an appropriate direct object?

1.
a) They hate conservative Democratic's.
b) They hate conservative Democrats.
c) They hate conservative Democrat's.
d) They hate conservative Democratics.

2.
a) We support progressive socialists.
b) We support progressive socialistics.
c) We support progressive socialist's.
d) We support progressive socialistic's.

I never even noticed that I put democratic instead of democrat.

Give yourself a pat on the back for finding it.

Could you demonstrate your lack of ignorance by taking the simple quiz? If we're talking about the same "high" it shouldn't affect long term memory anyway, so I'd work on a new alibi like "can't be arsed", although it still wouldn't explain the apparent strangeness of the jargon. Between boasting of intoxication and "progressive socialist" you come across as a caricature of a Democrat (or DUer) as one might be portrayed in right-wing circles. Good luck on the quiz!

Progressive socialist from the ideologies of progressives and socialists. It's not that hard to figure it out. It's also a political party in Lebanon.

And if you insist on making the claim that I am some sort of "hack" or "troll" then I suggest you back it up with some fact. Otherwise you're just another example of why I made my OP.

I support single payer, federalizing education and making it free for all through college, restructuring welfare to help more, civil rights explicitly claimed and implied in the constitution. I think that's why I'm a progressive socialist. Not that you care. Since you only seem to care about grammar.

I like pot. So shoot me. According to many experts, Marijuana is no worse than alcohol. It was a Saturday night and I was bored. Should I have waited to post this until I was sober? Possibly. Should you be giving me an argument of substance instead of an English lesson that I already learned? Yes.

an English lesson that I already learned?

The correct answers are in bold:

A for effort, 0% for reading the provided link. Ganja isn't an excuse; I've smoked more kind bud than you'll ever read about on Facebook, sonny boy, but I still see the word "Democrats" spelled correctly by people who've been Democrats longer than 5 minutes, even among inveterate stoners.

And if you insist on making the claim that I am some sort of "hack" or "troll" then I suggest you back it up with some fact.

"Progressive socialist" is a clue, since there is no such thing in the US ("It's also a political party in Lebanon."... at least you're trying to Google what you are), and I imagine you'd be hard pressed to define a "socialist" much less play the part of one (first result on Google doesn't count). If you're 19 years old and a registered Republican, well, how long could you have possibly been anything else? Anyway, back to your subtopic:

So I screwed up the singular/plural rule. Again, shoot me. Grammar has never been my strong point. Fortunately I'm fairly strong in everything else. Which is probably why I'm a student of one of the best honors colleges in the nation. ;)

I don't believe I have to identify with a specific party to be able to label myself under a political ideology. It's a free country. As for the party in Lebanon, I got bored one day and searched the possibility of there actually being a progressive socialist party, since it seemed logical that someone would identify themselves as that, and I found that party. I don't see how that invalidates my label. If anything it makes it stronger. To me, it's an inevitable spin off of democratic socialism.

As for my RKC affiliation. I also don't see the relevance. I was a part of that community a good while ago and have a good friend who's a leader in the RKC. I use to be a car buff before politics took over my life.

I was a registered republican for about 5 months. I was a republican long before that. But as I gained a true understanding of politics, I leaned wildly to the left in a short period of time.

Socialism, as far as I'm concerned, can be an economic system that gives control of essential industry to the government. In modern socialism, it does not eliminate private industry but simply forces it to be non-essential markets. Health care, emergency services, military, education, energy production, essential food industries (certain crops) are all under government control. It also does away with a federalist system in favor of an almost completely centralized government. This puts power back in the hands of workers who would normally become a slave to massive private industry that only cares about profit.

But you know, political definitions are debatable and I'm sure you KNOW how wrong I am and will be back to explain my mistakes.

You say: "They are not evil. They do not have ill willed intentions; or at least no more ill willed than democrats."

I don't see it that way. They are evil. They have expressed that they hope(and even pray)that President Obama fails. On any online message board you read the most scathing and horrible bigoted racist hateful things said about both President Obama and Democrats. Party spokesmen constantly mischaracterize Democrats and their intentions. And these spokesmen are embraced by the Republican rank and file. The Republican Party deserves little respect. I'm all for a multi-party political system. The two party system isn't adequate. But The Republican Party has gone too far in promoting an alternate reality.

You expressed it very well. Thanks.
GAC

It's that alternate reality that bugs me. Most of us are forced to face the facts in life, we don't have the luxury of living a fantasy.

Apparently no one runs into them these days. Even when I was counter-protesting the tea-party protest, I had a few people treat me with respect. I even got free lemonade from one family. And that's from a crowd of people that most would consider really "pissed off" and ignorant.

I understand and belive your point about running into some nice repubs.

But, the problem is more systemic than whether one of us runs into someone nice who votes R.

The systemic problem is that these people have bought the "message". They haven't rejected their spokespeople.
They haven't replaced their party leadership. They haven't wrested the soul of their party from the radical right. They haven't eradicated the influence of the hyper-religious right.

Those few, as with whom you've interacted, are as much a problem as the Limabughs, Becks, Hannitys and Coulters. They have failed to take their party back.

They might believe a few of those things, but the mean spiritedness and willingness to lie and obfuscate is not excusable.
GAC

and Limbaugh.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. To suggest that good willed republicans are just as bad as limbaugh, beck, hannity, or coulter, simply because they aren't screaming from the rooftops, is a bit radical and, to me, stupid.

To suggest that not taking back their party, if they are truly people of good will, is not a huge problem, would be the stupid part.
GAC

But I do agree that they should now be standing up to show dissatisfaction over their leadership.

The sooner the better!

Sympathy can be found in the dictionary, between shit and syphilis...

Wanting a toxic way of thinking to fail and disappear from American politics is not the same as personal hatred towards any individuals. I've got plenty of Republican friends and acquaintances who would do a hell of a lot better for themselves if they didn't buy into what the hucksters were selling.