Hi, Elizabeth. I agree with you absolutely. These days the Republicans can't even wrap themselves in the mantle of patriotism as most of them in Texas actually want to secede from the US. Palin, incidentally, has strong ties to the secessionist movement in ALaska. (Hmm, what is the opposite of patriotic?) Their vision of free markets blew up in their face, as well. Back in the old days, Republicans could actually put together a credible argument about investing in a strong military and the efficiency of unregulated free markets. Voters in good faith and considerable intelligence could justifiably choose Republican. That is no more. These days, we are witness to the sad spectacle of hysterical white men in denial who can only say No to everything.

All that is left is the core bigotry that has always been a part of Republicanism. Reagan and Bush I flirted with this element, but refrained from all-out pandering to them. Bush II openly embaced them (though noting he was far more enlightened than his base regarding Hispanics and race and gender on which he was willing to take principled stands). But on everything else he sold his soul. For instance, Bush II engaged in a war against science against the national and world interest to appease the religious right and his friends in the oil industry.

There is an equivalent nutjob element in the Democratic spectrum, as well, but Obama in 2009 is more like Reagan in 1981. That is, he may welcome their vote but he is not catering to them. He is not implementing their extremist agenda as public policy. For instance, Obama bailed out GM to save it from disaster and keep it viable as a publicly traded company, not to run it as a government-owned socialist enterprise as many on the left strongly advocated.

Similarly, any Universal Health Care plan will disappoint those pushing for an all-out European type system. Like the rest of his domestic agenda, he is simply pushing for economic viability - which in itself is a huge reform. Get the US economically viable again - it's not rocket science. It's something that reasoned people on the left and the right should be able to reach a ready consensus on.

Domestic agendas have been the undoing of many many Presidents. We can't predict the future. Obama could very well go down in flames. Keep in mind, Obama is proposing getting things done. This is much more difficult than Reagan's agenda, which was essentially negative - of doing nothing. Ironically, Reagan was regarded as a great success. He proposed nothing (no healthcare, no next step in the space program, no equivalent of an interstate highway system, no energy policy, no environmental policy, no war on poverty, etc etc) and admirably succeeded in his goals, ironically busting the budget in the process.

Get this: Had Reagan actually proposed getting things done and wound up with the same result of doing nothing, he would be regarded today as a collosal failure. Go figure.

Meanwhile, what is Obama's political game? You will note that earlier this year, Obama's camp literally anointed Rush Limbaugh as de facto head of the Republican Party. Around the same time, Limbaugh's political stock rose dramatically, with elected officials kowtowing to this extreme nutjob blabbermouth. Now we see a situation where the nutjobs are running out the moderates, who now have no choice but to join the Democratic camp.

The strategy is that although the nutjobs are highly vocal their numbers are too small to ever put together a majority. But it is also a dangerous strategy. Charismatic nutjobs have a way of winning elections, particularly when domestic policies fail. Germany back in the early 1930s is a classic example.

Also, keep in mind how dramatically things turn around in politics. In 1964, LBJ and the Democrats won the biggest landslide in history over Goldwater. In 1968, the public repudiated LBJ and Nixon was elected President. The 1964 election put Reagan on the map. In 1980, running on essentially Goldwater's 1964 platform he easily defeated Carter.

For the US system to work, we need two moderate parties - one slightly left, the other slightly right (but neither unafraid to implement visionary agendas) - to keep the other honest. One could argue that this has not existed for at least three decades (with the Democrats historically rolling over and playing dead and with conservative Congressional democrats who traditionally sided with Republicans) and is certainly not the case today (with the nutjobs on the right calling the shots in Republican ranks). So Obama's political strategy right now - assuming this is what he is working on - will only achieve short-term gains.

Because the Republicans are currently not a viable loyal opposition, Obama's domestic agenda has a much better chance of becoming law and the Republicans will probably go down in flames in the next one or two elections. This is a strong positive short term gain for the country.

But it could be a long term disaster. The last thing we need is some successor to Obama - the Democratic equivalent to Bush II - who openly embraces the nutjobs on the left and drives the country off the edge of a cliff. For the good of the country, we need a strong Republican party - one true to its roots of free enterprise and other virtues and one that offers voters not only a viable choice but the prospect of responsible government.

That's my rave for today. We are living in highly interesting times ...