Seriously, that isn't a reference to what should be done with republicans, but a fair diagnosis of the situation in the U.S.
Bush and his cabal set out to irreversibly break our system of representative democracy and a regulated free market that has existed in its present form since the Roosevelt Administration (Teddy that is) with the intent of taking us back to the good old days of the gilded age, or perhaps simply feudalism.
And, judging from my last visit back to the U.S. a couple of days ago- they have succeeded.  Things are way broken, more so than I thought.  Previously I hadn't really noticed and retained a lot of hope, but now I think I was, like many other Americans, the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot of water.  With a few months perspective a trip back to America leads me to notice the rapid boil of malaise and systemic failure that is cooking our nation.
What to do?  Maybe repeal the Constitution, end the Federal government and let the smart states join Canada or the EU and let the rest go ahead and finalize their descent into Anglophone, protestant recreations of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's nightmare vision of malaise in the American continents.


If you seek peace and fulfilment rather than wealth and power you must take up the reins of government or else you will be ruled by tyrants

I'm more pessimistic than anyone so far- we need an entire cultural shift, at a time when mass communications are hostile to progressivism.  

What is more important - getting out of Iraq or affordable healthcare for the tens of millions who don't have it? Election integrity or restoring the Constitution? Keeping the United States adequately protected from natural disasters (let alone terrorism) or reversing the environmental standards that have declined over the past few years? Helping the middle class or dealing with the declining overall health of this country's citizens or making sure that Medicare will be able to take care of all these people? Fight the lies and hatred of those on the right to shine a light on reality or keep up investigations that will shine a light on the crimes of the past six years but will probably not result in the removal of anyone from office? [emphasis added]

imho, if we don't restore the constitution, an effort in which i INCLUDE not only removing the bush administration from power but also rolling back and officially REPUDIATING the levers of unfettered power that they have put in place, NONE of the rest is going to matter... this absolutely MUST be done, btw, BEFORE the next president takes office..

visit my blog - http://www.takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

People have a faulty understanding of the motivation of the hallowed "Founding Fathers". They were in no way committed to a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." Far from it. The 55 delegates who attended the constitutional convention were virtually without exception members of the economic elite of that period. (You can review their personal biographies here.)

People who have attained wealth and power invariably have a strong motivation to protect and preserve what they have, not to mention enhance and expand it whenever possible. These colonial aristocrats were no exception. As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, put it rather succinctly:

"The people who own the country ought to govern it.

I believe that pretty much summed up the mindset of those who drew up the blueprint under which our government and society operates. The dilemma they faced is not hard to understand. While the upper class to which they belonged unquestionably enjoyed a great financial superiority over ordinary citizens, they were at the same time clearly inferior from a strictly numerical perspective.

The obvious solution was to create a governmental model that gave more weight to economic power than to raw numerical power. This was accomplished not only in how the constitution was written, but also in the manner it was implemented. In fact, in the earliest days of the Republic, only a relatively small sub-set of citizens was even allowed to vote at all. As our history has unfolded, old mechanisms designed to protect the wealth class have been discarded, only to be supplanted by new, and arguably more effective ones.

The essential problem facing the framers was summed up in the following remarks by James Madison, generally recognized as the constitution's primary architect. And keep in mind that Madison was the leader of the populist faction of the convention delegates.

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

-- James Madison, from Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, taken by  delegate Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York

People have a tendency to believe what it serves their own self-interest to believe. The men who crafted the constitution were certainly not evil. To a large degree they were visionary and idealistic. They merely saw themselves as part of a natural aristocracy, based partly on birthright and partly on merit, whose destiny was to rule benevolently over their lesser brethren, for the mutual benefit of all.

Unfortunately, when political power is so unequally distributed, it's never a good thing. Power is somewhat like the ballast of a ship. When it's equally distributed, the ship is stable. When it is overweighted in the bow, a negative dynamic occurs where everything starts sliding forward, and the imbalance becomes progressively worse, until such time as the ship becomes vertical rather than horizontal. I believe we are not too far from that point in America right now.

What our forefathers in fact created was an oligarchy masquerading as a Republic.  In this they were not so much different from their counterparts in the republic of ancient Rome. To quote from the Oxford Press:

Although it was thus nominally a democracy in that all laws had to be approved by an assembly of citizens, the [Roman] republic was in fact organized as an aristocracy or broad-based oligarchy, governed by a fairly small group of about fifty noble families who regularly held all the magistracies.

The further you're removed from the visionary founders, the more craven, corrupt, brutal and generally dysfunctional an oligarchy typically becomes. This is because the personal attributes that lead to success and domination among members of the aristocracy tend to be antithetical to the interests of the lesser classes. Invariably it is the most ruthless, craven, dishonest and pathological personalities who come to the fore. In Roman times it was individuals such as Caesar, Pompey and Crassus -- in the modern age, men like Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are their natural successors.

The whole theory of a benign and benevolent ruling class is based on what I like to call the Fallacy of the Wise Few. This from a very wise and perceptive observation by Gilbert Chesterton:

There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob.

One thing you can say about those founding fathers: They succeeded spectacularly in their aim to protect the minority of the opulent from the uncouth and unwashed majority. Through various provisions embedded within the constitution, through statutory law, judicial interpretation, and practical realities, they have indeed given rise a mighty citadel of privilege, the walls of which no mere plebian can ever hope to scale.

I don't believe for a millisecond that working through the proscribed mechanisms -- fund-raising and registration drives, supporting "progressive" candidates, voter education, get-out-the-vote efforts, and the like -- will have the slightest impact in advancing our aspirations for a society based on justice, freedom, equality and brotherhood. The game has long been hopelessly rigged in favor of the Optimates (as the Roman patrician class used to be called), and attempting to beat them at their own game is akin to attempting to beat a casino by playing a crooked roulette wheel.

I'm firmly convinced that the solution, if there is one, lies in making people understand that a new set of rules (i.e., a substantially revised and updated constitution) is required if those fine-sounding words in the pledge of allegiance -- "one nation... with liberty and justice for all" -- are ever to become anything other than a cynical and empty slogan.

What's really needed is a united front political advocacy group, modeled perhaps on the African National Congress, to develop a draft of a new constitution, and begin to create an alternate reality in which people can begin to perceive a coherent, viable and superior alternative to the status quo, in terms of the overall rulebook under which our society and government operate.

Of course, many people have correctly pointed out that getting "progressives" to agree on anything, including the time of day or season of the year, is an exercise akin to trying to herd cats. I don't disagree. But it is that very mentality of extreme individualism and contrariness that our enemies are counting on to ensure that we stay weak, divided and ineffectual, and thus completely irrelevant to the entire debate.

I suppose I'm both an optimist and an idealist at heart -- otherwise, I wouldn't bother posting here. And both my heart and my mind tells me that what happened in South Africa conceivably could happen here, but not until and unless would-be reformers, such as the participants in this forum, begin to demonstrate a sense of discipline, unity, dedication, and singleness of purpose that heretofore they have never shown previously.

There was a saying among the ringleaders of the American Revolution to the effect that we must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately. How many more generations of Americans must live under the boot heel of oppression before those who would stand in opposition take to heart that simple and eloquent truth?

Step by step the longest march
Can be won, can be won
Many stones can form an arch
Singly none, singly none
And by union what we will
Can be accomplished still
Drops of water turn the mill
Singly none, singly none

-- Ruthie Gorton, from the preamble to the constitution of the United Mineworkers of America

also in orange

My Three Cents - 50% more opinion for free

My answer is while this cancer is massive and keeps spreading, it's still treatable.  But there's going to be some ugly side effects, and it's got to start with some pretty heavy tumor removal work, starting with Gonzo.

Enough digging and the entire house of cards goes down, I figure.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

I concur with Zandar1. And I think it has begun. Gonzo will go. The rest will follow. The Dems know that this time it has to be more than cosmetic.