In a classic children's story, now considered too non-PC to be widely read, Joel Chandler Harris created a fictional character with the name of Uncle Remus.

Uncle Remus is a fictional character, the title character and fictional narrator of a collection of African American folktales adapted and compiled by Joel Chandler Harris, published in book form in 1881. A journalist in post-Reconstruction Atlanta, Georgia's West End, Harris produced seven Uncle Remus books.

Uncle Remus is a collection of animal stories, songs, and oral folklore, collected from Southern United States blacks. Many of the stories are didactic, much like those of Aesop's fables and the stories of Jean de La Fontaine. Uncle Remus is a kindly old slave who serves as a storytelling device, passing on the folktales to children gathered around him.

The Republican brand is not tarnished. It is not trashed. It is in the toilet. This is not the conclusion of Liberal Bloggers. The Weekly Standard quotes  McCain campaign officials:

McCain's pollsters point to the findings of other surveys on party identification. That they would do this suggests just how damaged the Republican party brand is heading into the 2008 general election.

.. The average advantage for Democrats in the ten surveys the McCain campaign cited was 9.3 points.

The bold 50 state campaign strategyof Obama reflects this new reality.

So what is their solution? Rebrand the Republican Party as   `bipartisan'. When in trouble obfuscate. So, why does  Obama, who would be  the beneficiary of differentiating, obfuscate  his own  brand?

[Cross-posted at The Left Coaster.]

However much I am displeased with the agenda and behavior of Senator Barack Obama at times there is no doubt that, in his way, he seeks progressive incremental solutions is a classic liberal governance worldview.  The "new" in this framework is the Millennial Generation agenda, devoid of Vietnam and Watergate and raging cultural tactics based upon sexism and racism, but more critically in my mind is absent fear as a motivating tactic.

Senator John McCain, however, is a classic right-wing authoritarian, as outlined so brilliantly by the incomparable Sarah Robinson of The Big Con.  Authoritarian intellectual structures inherently defy change, the Republican Party is full of big oil interests who won’t even acknowledge global warming, for instance, let alone help to solve it.  These general characteristics alone garner an instant vote for Senator Barack Obama, irrespective of any other single variable.

"Kerry with a tan."

Gordon Smith (R, OR-Sen) is advertising as being in line with Obama in Oregon.  Lincoln Chafee (who lost his Republican RI Senate seat in the 2006 midterm) has left his party.  Today he published a short piece on TPM today which got me thinking of 1980.

Democrats in Congress developed their "Stockholm Syndrome" after Reagan swept to power, caving to him on issue after issue.  It was infuriating.  Chafee's got me thinking that maybe that pendulum is swinging the other way.  President Obama's gonna get bipartisan votes passed in Congress.  The Republicans are going to get thrashed with Obama's coattails.  Mitch McConnell's not going to get iron-fisted discipline out of his caucus any more.  Even if he's still got 42 or 43, I'm thinking filibusters are going to decline dramatically.

I think we've got signs of some really good news here.

With the Republican brand in tatters, the President's approval ratings below freezing, and an angry electorate demanding change, the toxicity of the current political environment for Republicans is one not seen since the days of Tricky Dick:

Just 29 percent of voters say they have a positive view of the [Republican] party, compared with 51 percent who say the same about the Democrats; just 24 percent of voters say they have a positive feeling about Bush.

It is of no surprise then that the Republican candidate for president has chosen not to run as a Republican at all.

It's typical and indeed expected for a candidate to lurch to the "center" when the general election begins.  Candidates routinely shed the rigid, tough talk used to appeal to the base and adopt the fuzzy, gee-I'm-so-moderate-and-reasonable-and-mainstream exterior that is traditionally more palatable to the general electorate. It is intrinsic in their nature that candidates (with rare exceptions) will adapt to the political landscape to survive.

But what happens when a Republican candidate is running in an unquestionably progressive environment? What happens when the "center" looks more like the "left"?

These are poll numbers that make the GOP's blood boil: 66% of Americans support health coverage for all, even if it means raising taxes; 76% of Americans think global warming in "a proven fact"; only 16% of Americans think abortion should be completely outlawed; 77%of Americans believe we should meet with leaders who are hostile to the United States; 57% of Americans support either gay marriage or civil unions; and 85% of Americans say a candidate's position on Iraq is "extremely important" or "important" to their vote.

Thus, the core beliefs and principles of the Republican Party are held generally by a minority of Americans. How then does a Republican candidate win a majority of the votes in the fall?

For John McCain, the answer is to do what he has always done in his political career: adapt and survive.

Every Democrat in the United States should know precisely whom we're running against this year. In my opinion, it's really not John McCain and the GOP. It's Karl Rove's and Ari Fleischer's current boss, "Sheldon Adelson III," the wealthiest gambling entrepreneur in the U.S., and the person Forbe's Magazine has listed as the third richest man in America. It is Adelson's deep pockets that are behind Freedom's Watch, the 501(c)4 organization that's pouring upwards of $250 million into issues media in support of Republican congressional candidates and John McCain's candidacy this year. NOTE: the influence of 501(c)4's over our election results this year will probably be as big as, or bigger than, 527 influence on the outcome of our 2000 and 2004 elections--with one major difference: contributions to 501(c)4's have little or no regulatory requirements as far as public disclosure is concerned!

There's an outstanding piece about Adelson in the latest edition (June 30th, 2008 edition) of the New Yorker, "The Brass Ring. A multibillionaire's relentless quest for global influence," by Connie Bruck. It's a must read for all progressives serious about victory in November, too.

I recently received a "Republican Party Census" document in the mail.  The "census" is obviously a fund raising and propaganda tool, but to me the content was just another example of the wrong-headed and lop-sided priorities of the Republican Party.   I don’t know what list I am on to have received it, as I have never contributed to the Republican Party nor registered as a Republican.  Perhaps this "census" was sent to all residents in my area for the purpose of identifying supporters.

There is more . . .

It’s been comments like this one that have got me wondering about the fate of the republican party. With so many loser ideas (virtually on the wrong side of every issues from domestic to foreign policy) what’s it gotta take to stick a fork into this dead elephant?

I quite dislike that John McCain
For reasons easy to explain
It’s not at all his death’s head grin,
Nor his oratory made of tin
Not so much his corrupt cronies
Nor his morals, so very phony.

The problem I’ve with John McCain
Has more to do with his refrain
In which he does us all entreat
To fear the prospect of defeat
Of the Republican nominee
Who just happens to be he.

This is cause for trepidation
Rather than for celebration
Because, says McCain himself,
If we return him to the shelf
And elect that other guy
Without a doubt we all will die.

It's official, we are in a Recession. Yes, Ireland was riding high on the back of the Celtic tiger, and he got shot down, felled primarily by outsourcing jobs to India & China (sounds familiar?) and rising prices of just about everything you care to name. That, and a panoply of economic ills will ensure a return to frugality, energy conservation and long hours will be spent working out solutions instead watching the idiot box or playing Nintendo.

According to Wiki:

"in macroeconomics, a recession is generally associated with a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth. According to one widespread definition, a recession occurs when real growth is negative for two or more successive quarters of a year".

In yesterday's post, I noted how the Assemblies of God are rallying around Kenneth Copeland's latest attempt to derail Sen. Chuck Grassley's investigation of nonprofit groups.

There's a very valid reason why the Assemblies may be quite concerned, should Congressional attention focus on them.

Namely...not only is illegal electioneering rife within the denomination, but there is some troubling evidence to suggest that violations may be crossing over into direct contributions to Assemblies-favoured candidates--possibly the most blatant 501(c)3 violations ever documented.

People who've followed the hijinks of the Assemblies of God in regards to televangelist scandals--and the history of televangelism, for that matter--know that the denomination has a long association with televangelism--and as the Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard scandals have shown, often a quite unsavoury one at that.

So today's news that the Assemblies are hip-deep in the latest televangelist scandal is no shocker--the thing is, they may have tangled themselves rather deep, as the latest association is with an explicit defense of Kenneth Copeland--one of six televangelists targeted in a Congressional investigation.

Even worse, the Assemblies are now trying to use the very scandal as a wrecking-ball to knock down the separation of church and state and scuttle all attempts to require accountability.

Bleeding Heartland has been sparring with some Iowa Republican bloggers about the appropriate policy responses to the recent catastrophic flooding (see this post and this follow-up).

Here are some things I have learned.

I know too many people who are voting Republican because they think that the Republicans will uphold their family values, protect the holiness of their marriages, protect their dubious freedoms, keep them employed at healthy corporations, make the price of gas come down, keep their stock dividends high, cause the sun to shine and the birdies to tweet, and bring back "Morning in America."

How do I tell them that it ain't so, Joe? How do I tell them that the Republicans in office and running for office hold only their own values - getting money and power for themselves - in esteem? This video might help.

It's refreshing during the whirl of a Presidential campaign to take a step back and look at history being made. Win or lose, what we're witnessing is the death of the old "Reagan coalition" of religious conservatives, Southern whites, Catholics, white working-class voters and the (then) young.

You have to look at the "Republican Revolution" to find the roots of the change that's happening now. It's a MAJOR realignment that Obama represents and it's as fundamental as the 1980 governing consensus change!

Following this election over the past year has made me more aware of many problems we have in this country.  

But the most worrisome part of this whole campaign was how identity politics came back to bite us in the bum.

A week or so back, I created a bit of a stir with a diary whose title referred to SCOTUS overturning Roe.  And while I make no apologies for the title, I did only talk about McCain’s "fondness" for judges like Alito, Scalia and Roberts, and how he would like to appoint SCOTUS justices in their mold.

McCain’s positions on abortion have been, even for someone who is firmly on the anti-privacy and choice side of the ledger, all over the road.  But the least odious of the miserable positions that he takes is that he would like to see the decision revert back to the states, where a good number of states already have "trigger laws" on the books, which would effectively ban the right for a woman to have control over her personal private medical decisions.