"Interesting -- I thought the conventional wisdom was that it's the other way around?"
I think the current political situation is looking a lot like the movie Casablanca, with the Democrats being shocked, shocked! at the horrible things that the Republicans are saying.
Sticking to this one problem I have with the Republican party (amongst several), I don't think that historically speaking, Republicans have had much of a stomach for the fight. Contemporary American politics is waged on several levels; in the newspapers, the courts, the legislatures, the elections, the alternative media, the churches, etc. etc. Until the past few years, you've seen the GOP back away from those engagements, except perhaps in the alternative media and then again during the election cycle.
For example, how quickly do effective Republicans get thrown to the wolves when there's the first whiff of scandal? Contrast what happened with Gerry Studds versus what happened to Newt Gingrich. Do you honestly think that the Democratic party would be so hasty to pull a Newt Gingrich on one of their own? Especially one that was such an effective voice for the party?
No, the Republican Party (until very recently) has been the conscientious objectors of American politics. Shying away from from most political engagements, and essentially ceding the field to their opposition.
As I've noted, this election might force me to reconsider. But until I see some sustained intestinal fortitude out of the GOP, I'm going to prefer to have a Democratic division in front of me than a Republican division behind me.
I do not know if you realize that Republicans are winning much more elections than democrats. We are Winners, the democrats are losers. If you are looking for delusional fake mental orgasms where you see yourself all powerful then stay with the democrat party, they are only powerful in their own delusional world but the bitter reality is that they are utterly defeated.
Ah -- here I disagree. That, to me, is an example of why the Ds are not up to a down-n-dirty political fight.
I believe the *right* thing to do in that situation is for the individual to 'take one for the team'. What the Ds do, like with Clinton, may benefit that one individual and damage the entire party.
To me, that's evidence that the D party is a collection of individuals, going against a 'team'.
Believe me, I have many, many problems with the R party. About the only thing I *do* agree with them on is support for the war.
But I'd say the success of the Rs over the last 12 years proves they're the ones who handle the infighting of politics better.