Dump Palin AND McDermott

McDermitt is the left equivalent of Palin.

Assuming we win this one, the new Dems will have two challenges in addition to governing itslef.

The first will be dealing with a viper. The R^4 (Radical Religious Republican Remnant) is as dangerous as a poisonous eel in a cave. Assuming "they" come together under some sort of leadership tied together by Ralph Reed, Dobson, and Palin the Republic will be in real danger. For starters .. do you feel comfortable with these nuts having security clearances?

The second will be holding the dems themselves together. Bill Clinton's greatest achievement may have been moving the party to the center. Other than a few real kooks, the Dems are largely free of any equivalent to the radical remnant.

On the other hand, depending on how weak and how irrelevant the R^4 is, history teaches us that single party systems, esp in the US, always evolve into what Washington called "fractions."

The recent debate on the rescue plan has certainly demonstrated that the Dems have the potential of themselves splitting of a fraction or even a second party more meaningful than the R^4.

My guess is that such a splinter would not survive because it would be too far to the left, but there is another more worrisome scenario. If the Obama leadership is not careful, McDermitt and his ilk could alienate enough blue dogs to create a fraction in common cause with rational republicans.

While the numbers initially in such a fraction would not be large enough to comprise a party, consider the attractiveness of the following list:

Lugar, Lieberman, Spector, Webb, Baird, Snegger, Lindsay, McCain, Hagel, Hutchinson, Snow, Powell, Rice, Inslee, Cantwell, Patrick ....

then maybe add Petraeus, Meg Whitman and the idea of a thrid party or a party able to replace the R^4 seems .. to me ..plausible.

How could McD and his ilk cause this? They need ot forfend making too much of issues they will disagree with Obama on, The US needs rational leadership and some of what is rational is not "progressive." Protectionism form either wing is a bad idea, alliances wit fascist entities like Malaysia, China, and Russia are probably necessary, all children are not equal, black schools fail for many reasons not do to bad honkeys, we probably will need to bribe Boeing to stay in Seattle, illegal immigrants at some point will loose their jobs, etc.


The biggest dangers for a split come from the "peace" wing. Obama has, from the beginning, advocated a rational end to Oraq. I suppose he might even agree to declare victory to keep the right happy. He has also bought fully into the need to exterminate the virus of islamacism and the need for an aggressive policy toward Pakistan and Iran. Thes positions likely mean more war-war. Can the peace movement adapt to a pragmatic foreign policy?