Today Mark Steyn, filling in for Rush Limbaugh, rebuts this. He says that this concept suggests that we must have an express lane and a regular lane to liberalism -- and that it is wrong. He says a two-party system must have two parties -- not one and a half parties. We must make the case for liberty and let the Dems be the one party that supports big government. We don't need "Democrat Lite." I agree.
On KSFO Radio this morning, guest Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ.com said the same thing. He said that if you want to sell a product, you must differeniate your product from all the rest. A second Democrat Party is neither needed nor does it provide the consumer with a clear choice. As a result, there is little motivation to make a switch.
It is foolish to project all of our tomorrows on what the situation is today. After the 1994 Republican Revolution, when we achieved majorities in both houses, many Republicans predicted the end of the Democrat Party. It was a vain hope, because politicians have a great talent for shooting themselves in the foot. Right now, Obama is shooting himself in both feet with a howitzer. Bad policies will come back to haunt him and a reaction will eventually set in. Or, as I said when Obama was elected, the tide goes out but will come back in again. Politics tend to be variable.
Remember when the GOP's fortunes were at a low ebb with the resignation of President Nixon? The American electorate reacted with a vengeance to Watergate and Nixon's pending impeachment (which wasn't pursued because President Ford granted him a pardon). They reacted and voted in the second most leftwing President in our history (Obama being the first), i.e. Jimmy Carter. Many pundits said then the GOP was all washed up. However, Carter fouled things up quite thoroughly and was booted out by a landslide for Ronald Reagan.
The political situation in this country is never static and it is foolish to believe that it is. We'll be back, count on it.