This is an excellent article. It puts the whole issue into perspective. Republicans ought to copy it and hand it out every place they go.

I think it would be more important if Democrats copied it, but I fear that the author will be decried a traitor, for not sticking to the party line.
Tragic.

In 2008, there will not be a unified Democratic candidate for President.

Write that down.

Write it down? Well, okay... (scribble scribble).

Okay, but, now, what the hell does it mean?

Sybil in '08?

No, Dean, I think he's implying that the party will split as in 1860.

I disagree, I think we'll see an exodus of the loonier faction to the Greens.

:) (chuckle,chuckle) Are you sure you got it down Dean?

The article is excellent. I read it once, I read it twice. All those people we are to trust.
I just don't know.

Dean,

Write it down because I fully expect to be lauded within two years as one of the most keen observers of politics extant. I am quite sure of my prognosis..the patient is past saving.

Robin,

Correct, the looney section of the Democratic Party makes up about 55% of the Democratic electorate.....

I expect the Greens or some latter-day formulation of that type of party to absorb a bit more than half the Democrats with the rest going independent or gravitating to the Republicans altogether....this will, by and by, make a GOP majority of about 55-60% in the American electorate. It will remain to be seen if an overtly leftist party can have serious power in the United States.

I don't think that many Mark.

Its been a long time since the last time we saw a major shift in parties in this country. Over the last 4 or 5 decades we saw both the Republicans and Democrats shift from regional coalitions to ideological ones - as the two parties exchanged interest groups.

But in the middle of the 19th Century, leading up to the Civil War, the party structure fractured over a shorter timeframe. The most obvious casualty was the disappearance of the Whig party and the formation of the Republican party.

Its possible that we would see a period where the Green Party grew into a stronger third party at the expense of the Democrats - but it going to take the creation of either a very charismatic leader or a huge single wedge issue to do it. ( See the Reform Party for an example of the aborted creation of a third party ). And I don't see the probability as high as you do Mark. Three parties are not stable in our constitutional structure, so if one formed then within a decade or two something catastrophic would occur. Of course, the disappearance of the Democratic Party is one possibility among several potential outcomes.

Um, folks, unless the Dems get control of the House there will be no successful impeachment. They'd need a large majority, as moderate Dems simply won't go along with this sort of nonsense. Such an effort would damage the Dems a great deal, far more than the Republicans were damaged by the Clinton impeachment nonsense.

I don't see it happening. As I recall Bush Sr. and Reagan saw bills calling for impeachment introduced against them. They were promptly referred to committee and tabled. That's what would happen this time.

Regards,

What demogogery? "Saddam is a dangerous despot that may still have weapons of mass destruction and needs to be contained/disarmed/killed as time, circumstances and international political will allow" vs. "We must immediately, pre-emptively and unilaterally spend our nation’s lives and treasure to invade and conquer Iraq because Saddam's WMDs pose an imminent security threat."

The deception is even grander - I'm attacking Iraq because Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz believe it will lead to a better world (and ‘cause Rummy and Uncle Dick said I should) and I'm gonna scare the bejesus out of the electorate and bluff the Congress with a hyped WMD threat to get their support (Karl says it will also win me a Congressional majority and synch it for me in '04)

Is there an ability to understand a multifaceted or nuanced thought (or a cynical Republican president) anywhere on the right?

What demogogery? "Saddam is a dangerous despot that may still have weapons of mass destruction and needs to be contained/disarmed/killed as time, circumstances and international political will allow" vs. "We must immediately, pre-emptively and unilaterally spend our nation’s lives and treasure to invade and conquer Iraq because Saddam's WMDs pose an imminent security threat."

The deception is even grander - I'm attacking Iraq because Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz believe it will lead to a better world (and ‘cause Rummy and Uncle Dick said I should) and I'm gonna scare the bejesus out of the electorate and bluff the Congress with a hyped WMD threat to get their support (Karl says it will also win me a Congressional majority and synch it for me in '04)

Is there an ability to understand a multifaceted or nuanced thought (or a cynical Republican president) anywhere on the right?

Okay, Robin's saying there'll be, I gather, more than one claimant to the Democratic Party banner in 2008 -- not unlike the disputed Perot Party nomination in '00.

So who will the disputants be? Hillary and...?

No, I think that's Mark's claim.