GOP meltdown — and who will make the ice cubes?
Jun 26, 2007 Politics and Poker
Glenn Reynolds reads our very transparent minds and ponders:
WHAT SHOULD REPUBLICANS DO as the GOP seems to be committing suicide? I dunno — saving the GOP isn’t my job, and if the Democrats weren’t worse on national security I wouldn’t mind much. (And the GOP advantage there seems to be shrinking anyway).But you’ve got three basic choices: Exit, voice, and loyalty. …
Problem is, people have been exercising “voice” a lot and it’s clear that President Bush, Trent Lott, et al., don’t care and aren’t listening. … I think the GOP’s vulnerability to a third party challenge has just gone way up.
I’ll say. I’ve never been more disgusted, and that’s from a lifelong Republican and occasional activist who still voted for Clinton in 1992. Yes, I’m more disgusted than I even was then.
I never liked Trent Lott, and the fact that he was elected the Minority Leader in the Senate was a red flag. GWB has lost me completely on the immigration issue and his utter lack of leadership, right now, on just about anything. Not only that, but I am so disgusted that what I once willing to overlook for what I believed to be the Cause, I retroactively do not. The unbridled spending… the cronyism (which I have not hesitated to criticize before)… the complete surrender of the message on the Iraq war and, yes, the failure to communicate effectively about just about anything, certainly since the 2004 election.
What a squandered, ugly moment for Republicans conservatives like me. What a shame for America.
And, yes, what an opportunity for a third party candidate. And what an interesting moment for, in my view, Rudy Giuliani to ask himself if he might, perhaps, be that candidate — an idea so daft for the front-runner it just might work.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Obviously, you were never a person who cares about capitalism. More, than anything, the Democrats will try to socialize this country. This scares me as much as there willingness to cut & run. If you think a third party candidate will help, think again. Only if that candidate guts either Hillary or Obama.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Ross Perot. Ralph Nader. You can’t vote for the 3rd party.
You have to make a new party to replace the old. It has to stand for something, rather than be a protest against. The Whigs don’t exist anymore. The GOP can die, too, and that’s fine, but you need a new party with maturity in its platform, and “reform” or “independent” isn’t it.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
It’s just about time to forget politics and start putting heads on pikes.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:06 am
A simple axiom – The GOP is not conservative, and conservatives aren’t automatically Republicans.
The Hillary/Obama boogeyman does not scare me.
I survived Carter, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2. I’ll survive Hillary/Obama. The GOP might not, and given their weasaly proclivities, probably shouldn’t.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:11 am
If anyone thinks we are trying to ‘replace’ one party, with another they should realize it ain’t gonna happen. Maturing a party can happen. Can we find 44 Libertarian candidates to send to the House? Can we find 10 Senators to call Libertarian?
If neither chamber has a 50% +1 majority, who rules? It has to start somewhere. How about our House?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Bush never was a conservative. Never. He was a liberal Republican who wanted to oust Saddam because Saddam tried to kill his liberal Republican father. Who had been President only because he had been vice-president, and had been that only because a conservative GOP nominee wanted to balance his ticket with a liberal Republican in 1980.
Everybody got that?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Bush never was a conservative. Never. He was a liberal Republican who wanted to oust Saddam because Saddam tried to kill his liberal Republican father. Who had been President only because he had been vice-president, and had been that only because a conservative GOP nominee wanted to balance his ticket with a liberal Republican in 1980.
Everybody got that?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Mary Lou – its over. Bad times are coming and cannot be avoided. I’ve supported the President on Iraq, and I think that we are “winning,” but the war is lost. Republicans in Congress simply don’t have the same fortitude as the guys in the field, and the Democrats think that a defeat in Iraq will be a defeat for Bush, not the United States. When we pullout from Iraq, Iran will step in, control the Gulf. Within 5 years, Israel will cease to exist and Europe will be lost as an ally as it needs oil from the Gulf and will be in range of Iranian missiles.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Time for a Third Party?
Over at Likelihood of Success, I was pleased to see the following statement:
And, yes, what an opportunity for a third party candidate. And what an interesting moment for, in my view, Rudy Giuliani to ask himself if he might, perhaps, be that candida…
June 27th, 2007 at 8:22 am
George W Bush is our GOP version of Jimmy Carter, an embarassment.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:39 am
#6 is exactly right. Just because someone is overtly religious and dislikes abortion does not make them conservative. For those who have been paying attention, it’s painfully obvious that Bush’s political godfathers are Nixon and Carter, not Reagan.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Destroy the Republican party to save it? It’s beginning to sound like the only way to go. Maybe something can be rebuilt on the smoking ruins. In years to come, even Wall Street will see the mistake it made persuading GWB to throw the borders open to all. Reducing the middle class and growing the lower class here by exporting good jobs and importing cheap labor will be seen as historical insanity.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Where were you when JFK was shot?
Where were you on 9/11?
Where were you when the USA was sold to Mexico on June 27th, 2007?
That is exactly the feeling I have of yesterday. I also support 100% our efforts in the WoT, Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not buy the theory that you have to elect a Democrat as President to get them on “our” side in the WoT. They are hopeless and anti-captilist, anti-national security (at any costs, anti-tax reform, anti-religion, anti-gun ownership, anti-patriotism, etc. But the Republican party has lost me for the moment. Until they can show some real backbone on spending, taxes, full offense in the WoT (ie. taking on Syria, Iran and Hamas/Hizbollah)then not another dime. I will still vote based on my criteria of national security/defense, taxes, spending and immigration. But I believe, unless the House stands up and someone in the party can speak sense to Bush, the immigration battle is lost. God Bless America. Please?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:50 am
You voted for Clinton?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:50 am
You voted for Clinton?
June 27th, 2007 at 9:04 am
I’ll no longer carry water for the Republican Party.
When they hit me up for money this year or support for the 2008 nomination, I’ll remind them of how Bush and Lott sold out the base in order to support Kennedy’s amnesty program.
We need to take a lesson from the Leninist playbook: It needs to get worse before it gets better.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:05 am
[...] a comment elsewhere: GOP meltdown — and who will make the ice cubes? « Likelihood of Success A simple axiom – The GOP is not conservative, and conservatives aren’t automatically [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Yeah, Paul, because I kind of reached this point with George I, especially with Baker in the foreign policy driver’s seat. I don’t always believe that what’s good for Israel is good for America, nor that what American Zionists think is good for Israel is even good for Israel. But Baker’s contempt for Israel was palpable, and not justified in the context of his friend Arafat. Also, GHWB was completely out of it, much as his son is today — justifiable, perhaps, for a man of his age, but not for GWB. Clinton ran as a centrist, and I was ready to buy. It’s true, my stomach lurched when they started playing Fleetwood Mac at the nominating convention, but I had made my choice.
OTOH, I do not believe you can say GWB was not, on paper, a conservative. His judicial appointments: Conservative. Abortion: Anti. Yes, religion and society issues: Pretty much the conservative (not libertarian) line. Taxes: Conservative. Affirmative action: Pretty much conservative. Foreign policy: I would call it conservative, especially on the Middle East — I don’t consider “pragmatism” a conservative foreign policy (<i>see</i>: Ronald Reagan). No less importantly, I did believe that his administration would, and for a time did, bring an adult sensibility to government.
Now it’s just, yes, an embarrassment.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I too have usually voted Republican but have never quite brought myself to register as such. My registration varies between ‘independent’ and ‘libertarian’ (the lower-case el indicates a political orientation, not a party affiliation).
In response to GHWB’s failed domestic leadership, I too voted for Clinton in 1992.
The Rove/GWB Republicans have a repertoire of three political arguments: brandish the cross, wave the flag, and claim the Democrats would be worse.
Enough is enough.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:16 am
It has never been so clear that the GOP is dominated by lobbyists, corporations, and a business elite that have manipulated the party’s grassroots. Well, our eyes are opened now. Roll on, Nov 08. I intend to vote for any non-incumbent. Goodby, GOP. It may take a little while before you realize what you have kicked to the curb. Try to win elections now. Jerks.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Don’t you get it. It’s both parties against the people. Those inside the
Beltway live in a parallel universe. It has nothing to do with the rest of
US.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Ron:
You and I don’t agree on much, but on this we agree completely. I used to be an independent and became a Republican when I saw the Democratic Party abandon all its supposed liberal principles to rally behind Bill Clinton when Bill disgraced the office of the Presidency and shamed this country in front of the entire world. I was so disgusted with the Democrats that I became a Republican in large part because I felt that was the best way to put Democrats out of power.
George W. Bush has not done anything that I consider to be as disgusting and shameful as Bill Clinton, I certainly don’t think he has disgraced himself or his office, but he has dragged the Republican Party so far to the left with his feel-good agenda, that I am no longer feeling like I belong in the Republican Party either. I am once again considering becoming an Independent just so I am not associated with either party any longer.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:28 am
[...] don’t agree on much, but on this I think he has expressed some of my own concerns quite well. GOP meltdown — and who will make the ice cubes? « Likelihood of Success What a squandered, ugly moment for Republicans conservatives like me. What a shame for [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Forget the third party thing. At most, all it ever accomplished in the US is causing your former party to lose, ususally to no good lasting effect. See Teddy Roosevelt (1912), Ross Perot (1992, 1996) or Ralph Nader (2000) for examples. Most often, third party candidates made no difference — Strom Thurmond (1948), John Anderson (1980), for example.
What does work is taking over a party from within. In 1960, I was near the far left end of the political spectrum. The Democrat party was oriented toward strong defense and big labor. It was the party of John Kennedy, Stuart Symington, Albert Gore, Sr., Scoop Jackson, etc. By 1968, the Vietnam war had divided the Democrat party, much like the Republican party is today. The rightmost part of the New Left decided to take over the Democrat party. We ran candidates in primaries, worked for and contributed to incumbents who switched allegience and so on. We were misguided fools, but we succeeded. By 1980, we had taken over the party and created the Democrats you see today.
It takes sound strategy, organization, hard work, and long-term commitment, but the opportunity is there and it can be done. I think the Repulican party is in the same shape the Democrats were in 1968. The Bush administration has split the party as deeply and as surely as the Johnson administration split the Democrats.
By the way, by 1980 I recognized the monster that we created and voted for Reagan. I have been a conservative ever since.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:35 am
It’s both parties against the people.
And the only answer is Ron Paul! You heard it here first.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Whenever the answer is “Ron Paul,” the question has, at best, been phrased incorrectly.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:42 am
We need real conservatives, like Ronald Reagan. He would never give amnesty to illegal aliens.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Hate to say it, but gunga’s opinion is beginning to look more and more compelling.
Bush, Lott, Reid, McCain, Graham Kyl and the rest are behaving like autocrats, the farthest thing from elected representatives of the citizens of this country. If they try to throttle the will of the people they run the risk of serious civil disobedience —and worse. If ten million citizens were to converge on the the Capitol Building and White House baying for blood — REAL blood — we might get our overlords to reconsider.
Does anyone think America can continue to hold itself out as a “Shining City on a Hill” if this bill goes through?
Me? I got my pitchfork and torches right here………
June 27th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Electrolux, nice point, but remember: Fool me once, shame on you…?
We know now what a debacle that was. Today, too, the scale of the problem is far more massive, and the bill being contemplated is far more offensive.
And this time, the GOP base is dead-set against it.
So let us beware easy comparisons.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I for one am not too enamored over third parties. I did vote once for a third party.. Harry Browne in 1996, but I have never voted for a Democrat.
It is sad to see the melt down of the Republican party. There was so much hope in 1995, but the Newt too melted, and retirements wiped out the core in the house. Dick Armey, ETAL.
Unfortunately the Senate has been a mess for many years. The Senate claims to be the deliberative body, but are anything but. It is basically the “Let’s Make a Deal” caucus now.
McCain-Feingold was really poor legislation. If they wanted reform it is not in campaigning, but in patronage. It should be made against the law for any representative or senator, or their staff to direct funds to any project of there liking. i.e. – No Earmarks Period.
Both parties cater to there own groups; Democrats are tied to government unions (teachers, AFSCME, etc.), unions leaders, lawyers, criminals, and most any deviant group you can name. So if you don’t like those organizations why would anyone vote for a Democrat.
Republicans are claimed to be for big business, but really they are pro-capitalist, which is how it should be. Also in general, pro liberty, But they get side tracked by way too many issues.
It is too bad that Pres Bush did not expend as much energy on Social Security reform as he has on the immigration issue. Unfortunately he is very mis-guided on this one.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Forget the third party thing.
Actually, there is an historical analogy that is apt: in the 1850s, the Whig party broke up, largely over slavery, and the Republican party emerged from the ruins, to win the election in 1860.
Illegal immigration is as divisive an issue as slavery, for similar reasons – it cuts across party lines and reflects a very fundamental concern for the nature of our political and civic institutions.
The Republicans have utterly squandered their mandate – Congressionally through a combination of corruption and timidity in the face of the Democrats, and Presidentially through a combination of an utter failure to communicate to the American people on the most important issue of our time – the War – and an utter failure to listen to the American people on the second most important issue of our time (and really a subset of the first) – illegal immigration.
The current Republican party will not regain control of either house of Congress, and is very unlikely to win the Presidency in 2008. The only question is whether a new party emerges this year as an alternative or we wait until after a disasterous 2008 to reorganize.
(and I’ve worked for every Republican since IKE in 1956!)
June 27th, 2007 at 10:52 am
More, than anything, the Democrats will try to socialize this country. This scares me as much as there willingness to cut & run. If you think a third party candidate will help, think again. Only if that candidate guts either Hillary or Obama
No. I’d rather just pull the arrow through my back than let it fester. I registered as an independent last week, and will no longer be donating my money/voice/time/energy to the GOP. Fearmongering over Hillary et al is no longer enough to keep me in the GOP camp.
I’ll come back to the party when they build the border security we were promised back in 86. No more broken promises, no more loopholes.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I’m not quite as pessimistic on the GOP as some of what I’ve read.
The current President is in free-fall, mostly of his own doing. If the surge succeeds in Iraq it just further damns the minimum-forces-minimum-casualties-minimal-effectiveness policy of the last four-plus years.
Bush is somewhere between Porky Pig and a lava lamp in his ability cogently to explain policies to the American public, and his misguided efforts at trying to carve an Iraq-free legacy for himself have left most of his backers wishing they could drop him down a hole, push a big rock on top, and forget he ever existed. He’s made common cause with Harry Reid (D-Foster Farms) and Ted Kennedy (D-Nuevo Leon) and such GOP leadership as the meatpackers could buy, against the preponderance of the voting public.
That said, and as bad as Senatorial behavior has been, the root of the problem is in the White House. And this time ’round we have several GOP candidates who are far better men than the waffling, spendthrift, mush-mouthed buffoon that currently occupies the Oval Office. And that I voted for twice.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Beyond salvation?
I wrote last night about my utter exasperation with the Republican Party after years of close affiliation, water-carrying, money-sending and even some fairly advanced footsy playing between them and me. My piece
June 27th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Beyond salvation?
I wrote last night about my utter exasperation with the Republican Party after years of close affiliation, water-carrying, money-sending and even some fairly advanced footsy playing between them and me. My piece
June 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Can you imagine Ronald Reagan referring to one of his core constituencies as “the so-called Porkbusters”?
Even if the Porkbusters had opposed something Reagan felt was necessary, like say a military program, Reagan would talk to them, not speak with contempt about them.
I’ll call myself a “conservative” and “libertarian” and even “right-winger” but rarely a Republican. I’m for solving problems effectively, not partisan cheerleading.
Democrats are self-defeating, navel-gazing losers so riddled by guilt they actually feel like we deserve to lose the war, pay higher taxes, sign unfair one-sided treaties, choose selectively enforced political correctness over free exchange of ideas, appease Islamic radicals, etc. No help there.
That doesn’t mean we let the bad Republicans slip in with the good. That’s also why until we’ve whipped them into an army of Tom Coburns I’ll not call myself a Republican.
I honestly don’t understand the big furor over immigration, but I do recognize the disdain of Republican politicians for their base as the danger sign it is: the “so-called Porkbusters” mentality.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Can you imagine Ronald Reagan referring to one of his core constituencies as “the so-called Porkbusters”?
Even if the Porkbusters had opposed something Reagan felt was necessary, like say a military program, Reagan would talk to them, not speak with contempt about them.
I’ll call myself a “conservative” and “libertarian” and even “right-winger” but rarely a Republican. I’m for solving problems effectively, not partisan cheerleading.
Democrats are self-defeating, navel-gazing losers so riddled by guilt they actually feel like we deserve to lose the war, pay higher taxes, sign unfair one-sided treaties, choose selectively enforced political correctness over free exchange of ideas, appease Islamic radicals, etc. No help there.
That doesn’t mean we let the bad Republicans slip in with the good. That’s also why until we’ve whipped them into an army of Tom Coburns I’ll not call myself a Republican.
I honestly don’t understand the big furor over immigration, but I do recognize the disdain of Republican politicians for their base as the danger sign it is: the “so-called Porkbusters” mentality.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am
I agree with Simon. Voting “third party” or sitting out is questionable, passive aggressive behavior at best, and foolish, cowardly, and damn near un-American at worst.
If you’re not happy with the direction of either party, get active, and get involved NOW! Primaries are still months away, and this is the ideal time to be heard. Opportunities for individual influence are probably higher now than at any other point in the process.
I’m a bit more liberal/libertarian than Ron, especially on social issues. I was a devoted Republican for many years, but I left the party in the mid 90’s when I felt it no longer represented my ideals. I tried the “L” thing, but that was a complete joke. I finally settled on the “I” thing.
But I eventually realized that as an independent, I had practically zero influence on either party. Yes, I could vote in the general elections, but by then, it was always too late. The candidates I liked never made it that far.
So I just became a Republican again. And I am working hard to have my voice heard right now. At this point in the process, the candidates are much more willing to listen to what I have to say.
Yes, this is still America, and you are all free to voice your opinion any way you see fit. But I hope you will consider my experience with “independence” and third parties.
Been there, done that, and completely wasted my time.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:20 am
2008’s political bumper sticker slogan:
Vote for ____! No worse than the rest!
June 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am
[...] Quote of the DayPosted by: MichaelFrom the comments on this post: We need real conservatives, like Ronald Reagan. He would never give amnesty to illegal [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I think next year’s candidates will be Rudi Giuliani for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Both centrists. Rudi is the only Republican likely to be able to take back states from the Democrats.
I like Giuliani because his candidacy, and even better, his presidency, if he wins, will at long last unhood the fingers of the religious right from the framework of the Republican Party that have been grabbing control of over much of during the past 30 years. (Or at least, the resolutions committees of the republican national and state parties.)
For me, I want to get back to Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelpt and Dwight D Eisenhower Republicanism as quickly as feasible, and stuff religion back into the crypts of the churches, synagogues and mosques from which crept out some 30 years ago.
For the rest, my funadmantal priority is a military defense system along our border with Mexico that will insure the death of anybody who tries crossing our border illegally. This to me totally outweighs any consideration about the Middle East, Europe, southeast Asia or any other foreign policy consideration.
Then I want a restoration of careful controls upon who can immigrate to this country and acquire permanent status. Which means that nobody has any automatic right to come here. If you wish to live in this country, you can do so only if you fit into our culture and into our economy, and if you and your family and learn to do that exclusively in the English languge.
Along with that, I want a termination of whatever rule allows these wetbacks to bring a pregnant woman across our border so that she gives birth to a baby with US citizenship.
Do I want to protect the private enterprise system in this country? You bet. But I also want nothing more imported to this country, especially manufactured goods, from anyplace to which we do not sell a comparable amount of our own goods. Thus, I am more interested in restoring well-paid and union-protected manufacturing jobs for Americans, than in protecting the investments of a pack of internationalist capitalists.
Finally, I want this country to be totally free of any need for foreign energy sources. And I don’t really care what steps the US government and US industry have to take to achieve that. As far as I’m concerned, this is a priority as great as any wartime obligation.
I’ve been an activist local level Republican since 1952. But nobody on any other level automatically gets my vote.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
June 27th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
The whole purpose of this bill, from the Republican perspective, is to import cheap labor – whereas for the Dems it’s immigrants, who have tended to side with the Democrats since the Civil War. So the RNC, Bush and minority leadership have no problem cutting a deal with their ideological enemies like Kennedy and Feinstein. After all they don’t care about ‘08 – yet – and they need the cash from the corporations NOW.
They’ll take advantage of the fact that the rank & file will forget this issue in Nov ‘08 when they vote. After all, what’s the likelihood I’ll vote for Obama? About the same chance that Jimmy Carter will say something critical of al-Qaeda, Hamas or the Taliban.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
1) Sitting out is useless.
2) Third party ain’t happening.
3) Democrats aren’t going to change their stripes.
4) Republicans are all there is.
The current crew doesn’t care for voters and openly holds them in contempt. Elected representatives trashed nearly every single principle held by conservatives. (I include taxes because profligate spending will lead to higher taxes.) So what do we do? Stop acting like a bunch of Nancies and play ball. Politics is a dirty game and it’s time to hit these guys where it counts: in the pocketbook and the ballot box. We don’t need a party, we just need influence. Here’s my idea for how to get a lot of it:
We need to lead. It’s time to stop following the leadership and make them follow us. We write our own Contract with America, ones with broad Republican appeal. Here are some ideas:
1.) Secure the border. Increase ICE budget and illegal immigration sweeps with a focus on locating potential terrorists.
2.) Restore Social Security and Medicare to solvency without any tax increases.
3.) Major tax reform of some kind.
The war is a big one and it can’t be ignored, but plenty of Republicans are pissed about nation building, so it needs to be handled with care.
How do we enforce the Contract? Simple. We no longer donate any money to the GOP. Any money you would donate to the party you instead send to the group. Not only that, we pledge money for conservative candidates. I think $100 is a decent amount for most people, and I’d put that up to get real conservatives elected. Also, we no longer vote for GOP candidates. We vote for candidates who sign the contract, Democrats included.
There are kinks to work out, but I think that’s the way to go. We have to do something NOW, while we can still choose the candidates. Once the candidate is chosen, it’s over and you’re stuck with the lesser of two evils.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“Don’t you get it. It’s both parties against the people. Those inside the
Beltway live in a parallel universe. It has nothing to do with the rest of
US.”
I completely agree. And we need to not only give the political parties a makeover, but Congress as well. Here’s how it should work:
1) Term limits. A maximum of two for senators and four for representatives. And one would have to sit out at least one election cycle before moving from one body to the other.
2) A lifetime ban on ex-members of Congress becoming lobbyists (can we ban lobbying outright? I’m not sure, but this would be a good start).
3) A ten-year term limit for bureaucrats; imposing term limits on Congress won’t help us if their underlings are still around. With the exception of the military and partially-privatized entities like the Postal Service, nobody should be allowed to feed from the government trough for the duration of his/her working life.
And hopefully, it won’t come to Gunga’s solution to actually impose something like this. Taking over the parties from the inside is the only real way to do it.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
As long as the voters can be persuaded/conned into voting against their own interests, what chance does a reworking of election laws have to improve government?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Rosie’s work of Art vs Congress’s sellout of their constituents
I’m not sure which to write about today, so I’ll mention both.
Rosie’s at it again, dressing up her daughter Vivi with a bandolier full of bullet and calling it art. I expose the subtext
June 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Rosie’s work of Art vs Congress’s sellout of their constituents
I’m not sure which to write about today, so I’ll mention both.
Rosie’s at it again, dressing up her daughter Vivi with a bandolier full of bullet and calling it art. I expose the subtext
June 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Rudy Giuliani or Vampire Ghouliani?
June 27th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
For the first time in my life I am considering not going to vote. What-the-hell, the deals are made, the contracts signed and the envelopes stuffed with cash – so, in this one-party situation, what difference does it make whose name goes on the door?
Too cynical? Perhaps.
So, maybe send a letter to all incumbants informing them that you’re contributing to their opposition and voting for that opposition caring not at all about that opposing candidate except as a way to rid us of you! (And, when their term is nearing its end, do the same again with their opposition). Send the same letter, (cc), to the opposition with your contribution enclosed. The new guy should know that he’s there only because the other guy was worse. Or, in the words of Don Imus, “They all suck anyway!”
Oh, and regarding Rosie? Who cares?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I sort of look at GWBs goofball insistence on his amnesty legislation in the same light as his father’s goofball amazement at the way a grocery scanner worked.
Look, the guy’s just a clueless elite and always was. He’s gotten all his cronies together to shove it down our throats, true, but he really doesn’t see the problems we do – he’s certainly never seen anybody lose a job to an illegal. Some of the jobs an ordinary joe would value are jobs that he thinks “an American won’t do” for pete’s sake.
He was the lesser of 2 evils last election, so I don’t regret voting for him, although I didn’t really like either. I just want a better field to pick from this time.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
We will need to do something about perpetual Congressional staff as well. They determine much of what gets done/seen by congressmen.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Yes, I can hardly imagine the reasoning of those of you who believe the problem is only at the top of the ticket. Congress is so absolutely an equal or greater part of the problem and yes, it is not only the elected representatives but the K Street culture, bipartisan in the true sense of the word — for it is entirely dependent on and subservient to one thing, the “Benjamins,” which know no political party — that must be uprooted.
And yes, McCain Feingold was the worst possible approach to doing that!
Reform from within? I think it’s impossible. Money is all that talks. You know, before I rounded this bend I’ve spent months trying to volunteer for the Giuliani campaign. I’m decently well connected, for someone who’s not really a politico; I’m a B-list blogger who can get his message in front of thousands of people on a given day (i.e. through Dean’s World, where I am a contributor); I’m a lawyer in New York and… and…
I cannot get any traction. I haven’t even been contacted to lick envelopes, which I will admit is not what I was shooting for, but — nothing. The “Campaign” is interested in one thing, and one thing only from me: Money.
The same thing the GOP is interested in.
Am I a guy with so little to contribute?
Yes, I am, where “contribute” means only one thing, So why would I even try to participate in such a system?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Ron
Maybe you’re blogging for the wrong side. The MSM have feted the power of liberal bloggers, even trumpeting how the likes of Sen. Harry “I Surrender” Reid kowtows to them.
No one on the right gives a rats @rse about us.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I feel your pain, but I am not willing to give it up to the Democrats.
Post 22 states:
“22. Forget the third party thing. At most, all it ever accomplished in the US is causing your former party to lose, ususally to no good lasting effect. See Teddy Roosevelt (1912), Ross Perot (1992, 1996) or Ralph Nader (2000) for examples. Most often, third party candidates made no difference — Strom Thurmond (1948), John Anderson (1980), for example.
What does work is taking over a party from within. In 1960, I was near the far left end of the political spectrum. The Democrat party was oriented toward strong defense and big labor. It was the party of John Kennedy, Stuart Symington, Albert Gore, Sr., Scoop Jackson, etc. By 1968, the Vietnam war had divided the Democrat party, much like the Republican party is today. The rightmost part of the New Left decided to take over the Democrat party. We ran candidates in primaries, worked for and contributed to incumbents who switched allegience and so on. We were misguided fools, but we succeeded. By 1980, we had taken over the party and created the Democrats you see today.
It takes sound strategy, organization, hard work, and long-term commitment, but the opportunity is there and it can be done. I think the Repulican party is in the same shape the Democrats were in 1968. The Bush administration has split the party as deeply and as surely as the Johnson administration split the Democrats.
By the way, by 1980 I recognized the monster that we created and voted for Reagan. I have been a conservative ever since.”
Do any of you think that Fred Thompson could be the candidate pulling together all the fragments within the GOP with a decent amount of credibility?
It seems to me he just might be the man who could.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
This illegal alien legislation is far, far more important than the war. One hundred years from now, Iraq will be a historical footnote, but illegal immigration will have poored-down, made bilingual, and changed the fundamental nature of our society. Also, much sooner than that, legalizing millions of uneducated, poverty-stricken aliens will inevitably pull the GOP to the left as those politicians struggle to survive. Bush claims Hispanics will turn Republican because of “family values.” Balderdash. That statement just confirms what few of us are willing to admit–the President is DUMB!
Fred Dickey
June 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I’ve never believed the President is dumb, but he’s sure doing something based on a political calculus that sounds absolutely wrong here — courting an Hispanic vote that will never come the GOP’s way.
Gigi, I’ve asked continuously why there is an almost religious belief in Fred. Maybe you can tell me why you think he can be the savior: I have yet to see it.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Ron: “Gigi, I’ve asked continuously why there is an almost religious belief in Fred. Maybe you can tell me why you think he can be the savior: I have yet to see it.”
I don’t see him as a savior as much as someone who could change the path the party has gone from within and perhaps attract some crossovers and undecideds. Quite frankly, I had never heard of him either as a senator or as a movie star, then I caught a glimpse of him in an interview on Fox and it piqued my interest. Come to find out he seems to be a man of integrity and even if he came down against the “our side” of the party on a few things, his explanations seem reasonable and thought out. His young wife is not a result of him dropping the first one to run off with a young sweet thing. His ex-wife and old girlfriends are even willing to campaign for him. The only people I can find that loathe him are hard core libertarians who are for Ron Paul and the hard core conservatives from the John Birch Society.
For many years I have not considered myself politically savy, nor even interested in politics, since I got excited about Reagan many years ago. I don’t think Thompson is a Reagen, necessarily, but could very well blow some collective sunshine up the disgruntled majority in the GOP. IMO.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/fred-thompson-takes-on-cair/
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTQzYWY1MGM5NTkyZTM2YWVlMDMzMDlhMzQwNThhNDU=
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272614259.shtml
Fred Thompson’s Inner Circle
.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/06/inner_circle_fred_thompson.html?nav=rss_blog
June 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
My theory is that the leaders of the Republican Party would like to go back to the good old days in the Seventies when they lost and lost and lost, but the Social Conservatives and the Libertarians were safely either out of politics or totally marginalized.
Its time for a SoCon/Tarian aka Big Dog/Little Dog alliance to take out the Country Clubbers aka Inbred Dog, and marginalize them. SoCons and Tarians have a huge amount in common, and even when they disagree, they disagree on principle. The only principle that the Country Clubbers have is Principal Donors. Its time to cleanse the moneylenders from the temple!
Would it not be a better world where the R party agreed that Immigration Law was to be enforced, and guns were for concealed carry, and taxes needed to be dropped, and agreed to compromise along the lines of “We hate abortion and will federalize the issue/We’re willing to allow California to try soft-core drugs” than the world we have now where Immigration Law is a joke, concealed carry is not nation-wide, taxes are a constant threat, and the abortion holocaust continues to bedevil the nation and its conscience, and the war on drugs continues with what many think of as terrible effects. Would this SoCon/Tarian alliance not be a good thing for the Party and more importantly the Nation?
June 27th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Not dumb, eh? Are we we believe the moment Bush drops (figuratively) the microphone he becomes razor sharp? There are probably as many dumb rulers in history as smart ones, but we are loath to surrender the king-has-no-clothes syndrome. We shudder to think that there are five guys on our street smarter than him, or who at least would not have made the unholy mess he has.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Fred, I think it is a big mistake to state — as you seem to be saying, though as smart as you are you are not quite clear — that because GWB is not a good extemporaneous speaker, he is dumb.
In terms of making a mess, did he make a bigger mess than Woodrow Wilson? Almost certainly not. Yet Wilson was anything but dumb — why, he was head of the best college ever, for starters. Making policy decisions that turn out bad is an even worse criterion for evaluating intelligence, absent anything more, than equating it with glibness.
And it is so entirely beside not only the point of this discussion, but the big point.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It’s possible that President Bush actually holds a number of positions opposite to those of most Republicans, and that his advocacy of these is not for expediency’s sake or for the party’s sake at all.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Intelligence has to be gauged according to the demands of the task. A mathematician might not be able to fix his lawnmower, but he sure better be able to do algebra. So it is in politics: persuasiveness, articulation, a knowledge of and sense of history, and the ability to forge compromises are the measures of intelligence, and would anyone care to champion Bush is those areas? Name one thing–one thing–that he as succeeded at as president. No, not Roberts and Alito. He was forced into those appointments. Everyone knows he preferred his cronies, Gonzales and Miers.
I mean, let’s look at the life of the man who has done more damage to my Republican Party than either Clinton ever could: When we examine his lengthy parade of catastrophe, he does evoke some grudging sympathy. We have to wince for the man who brags he can dance, but then stumbles all over the ballroom floor. We are not embarrassed by him, but for him. There must be no mirrors in his house. He is so used to shouldering the backpack of failed expectations that he is no longer aware of the weight.
I’ve read several accounts of Bush’s time at Harvard Graduate School of Business. He obviously did not belong there among smart, high achievers, so, as one fellow student said, he sat in the back of the class dressed in blue jeans, spat tobacco juice into a cup and cracked jokes.
In prep school, he was the smirky towel-snapper who teased other boys, but who stood behind the football players when the going got rough. Of all the things he could have inherited, he ended up with the family tangle-tongue curse. Can you imaging the poor kid trying to deliver a talk in speech class without a teleprompter?
What does that say? Here’s a spoiled rich kid with semi-destructive behavior who doesn’t see it as risky because he knows he’s got the family feather bed below him to cushion any fall. He intuitively knows he’s of slim talent, and that gives him feelings of failure because he can’t live up to the family image. So, in the manner of a high school sophomore who can’t measure up, he engages in bratty behavior as a form of protest. Risk-free rebellion. And then he chooses easy, safe ways to minimize chances of failure while looking “bad.” Instead of joining the active-duty military, he joins the Vietnam-era National Guard where he can strut in a snappy uniform and defend Texas from Oklahoma. Then he puts on a cowboy shirt, jeans and boots and swaggers around his ranch, doing “cowboy things” but avoiding real cowboy work such as stringing barbed wire, castrating bulls, and mucking stables.
He decides to become a big oil man, and despite luxurious access to capital and contacts, he becomes a human dry hole. Then he becomes front man for a big-league baseball club. His handlers don’t expect much of him–just drop his name as needed to get taxpayers to build a stadium, and fuel his fantasies by playing catch with Nolen Ryan.
Whereupon, Carl Rove discovers him. He’s looking for a lump of clay to sculp, but when he meets Bush, he realizes he’s stumbled onto Carrera marble.
Why, then, did we choose such a wee man for our leader? Easy. Countries do it all the time. Always have. Mediocrity does not frighten us, challenge us, and does not ask things of us we would rather talk about than actually do.
So, when he makes horrendous mistakes, and even his own party rebels, he turns pouty and, stubbornly says “I’ll show you” as a form of politically spitting tobacco into a cup.
We understand Bush because he is one of us. We lifted him from the political-store shelf, bought him, and took him home. We admired the way he snapped salutes at Marine guards; the way he said “freedom” with such feeling. But most important, we liked his chosen route because it skirted steep hills.
However, we have to be fair–we cannot say he failed his potential. We simply failed ours.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
[...] GOP meltdown — and who will make the ice cubes? Glenn Reynolds reads our very transparent minds and ponders: WHAT SHOULD REPUBLICANS DO as the GOP seems to be […] [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Fred, interesting little essay! It’s more than I can wrestle with, except to say I disagree with a lot of it… but I’m not in much of a mood to defend GWB.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:04 am
I wonder if Fred Dickey would like to read his own life story as written to show only the bad.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Bob, that would be fair if I would presume to be president of the United States.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Libby sentence commuted
Hat tip to the left-wing loon who haunts my alumni email lists, but this time what he sent around is true:
President Bush commuted the sen…
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Libby sentence commuted
Hat tip to the left-wing loon who haunts my alumni email lists, but this time what he sent around is true:
President Bush commuted the sen…