May 21 2007

Political Suicide Left And Right

Published by at 10:39 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

I am among a small number of small blogs who have voiced a lot of disgust with the hard right and their responses to issues of the day. Immigration is the most recent debacle where the answer from the hard right is to demean those who find their arguments wanting. So from wanting arguments we go to childish name calling – and these people have the nerve to wonder why people are abandoning them? RINO is just one of many demeaning names used by those who cannot lose gracefully on these issues. The left is in a death spiral because their anger with Bush has caused them to ally with our enemies and push for failure in Iraq when there is no failure there – yet. But the right has decided to follow the leader and implode as well. Harold Hutchison says it well in this post when he asks are these hyper partisan responses all these people have left in their bag of dumb partisan tricks?

Nowhere can the lackof perspective and inability to prioritize be reflected more clearly. When House Democrats are starting to try to squelch debate, both with Pelosi’s attempt to kill the motion to recommit and their push for the Fairness Doctrine, when they are slow-walking funds for our troops in harm’s way, and when 61% of Democrats seem open to the possibility that President Bush had advance warning on 9/11, these conservatives are more interested in asserting philosophical purity, or throwing a fit over a committee assignment. Rather than try to form a coalition with the 39% of Democrats who reject the [9-11] conspiacy theory – a task that would be very doable with either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, who have won elections in very Democratic areas, these conservatives reject those out of hand.

The talking heads and pols have made everything a zero-sum game. All or nothing. With us or against us. OK – I am against. I am against the lack of mature debate and humble concession to losing in a democracy. There was a time losing the debate was still a win because it was a democratic loss, not a military one or a vendetta driven loss, etc. The loss was a win because it was played in the public arena and resolved with democratic processes. Not any more. Now it is their way or nothing. The name calling is the first sign of bankrupt policies and ideas. The Dems have been at this trough for some time because they have not had a fresh, good idea since the 1950’s. But the far right ran out of popular ideas as well, and so went into brow-beating mode to try and go beyond their support mandate. And they lost their support. Duh!. Harold also has a good post on the result of the invective used on immigration:

If you disagree with some of them on immigration, they insinuate treason. If you objected to the stridency of others, you were a party hack. That’s from the tamer of the two sites. The other site allowed users to label those who backed a comprehensive immigration plan Quislings constantly, even an otherwise conservative candidate got the label.

If the powers that be at those sites expect people to sit down with them after they were called traitors and soul-sellers, they must be smoking some very interestingly flavored tobacco.

The damage is done. The anti-immigrant forces cannot repair the damage because it requires admitting they screwed up. So instead they will sling invectives and lose more ground. I am not worried though.

The result of the implosions left and right have created a new balance center-right. It will be weaker on some issues than I want, but it will avoid the disasters the two fevered swamps have in store for us if we go too far left or too far right. Guiliani or someone like him will win in 2008. The President needs to be a Rep because of the disaster the Dems sowed in the few short months they have abused their time in power this year. But it will not be a Tancredo firebrand type, no one has the stomach for his screwed up priorities. And the Dems and Reps will need to field more moderate and less strident candidates to win seats.. The Lieberman’s will trounce the Lamonts and the Romney’s will beat out the Gingrich’s. And the nation will moderate has we move from hot heads to hot ideas.

37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Political Suicide Left And Right”

  1. Aitch748 says:

    I am among a small number of small blogs who have voiced a lot of disgust with the hard right and their responses to issues of the day.

    Yeah, I’m about at my limit with the Angry Right myself. I think my list of blog links needs a pruning. Even Hugh Hewitt seems to be going slightly off the rails, at least concerning this particular immigration bill. I need some new blogs to read in addition to this one. “The Anchoress” is always good, and “The New Editor” looks nice (he picked a fight with the “Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler”, LOL).

  2. conservativered says:

    Sorry but people that walk down the center of the road end up being run over.

    I can’t agree with you on allowing millions of illegals to stay in this country.

  3. Jacqui says:

    I can’t agree with you on this bill AJ. Any bill structured in a backroom and then shoved down everyone’s throat without reading and debating it concerns me. The proponents went around the legislative process – no committee meetings, no ability for Americans to come before Congress and debate their issues….

    Compromising your core beliefs is surrendering ….

  4. colin says:

    They’re going to debate the bill. Amendments will be offered. If you know of any way the bill can be made better, and be brought into line with your core beliefs, send those suggestions off to your senator. If you don’t trust your senator on this issue, send your suggestions off to John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, or Jim DeMint. Just don’t give up on the legislative process because you don’t like the initial draft. If you feel so strongly about this issue, don’t just sit in opposition, think up ways the draft bill can be amended to suit your beliefs and opinions, and send those suggestions in. Who knows? If enough people do just that, you may end up will a bill that you actually like.

  5. coffee260 says:

    Debate? Ok, lets debate securing the borders. I agree the “undocumented” immigrants in the country needs to have a pathway to regularization. In fact, I’m open to a guest worker program. The only thing I ask is first secure the borders.

    Show a genuine effort to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country by building a wall in the necessary areas, beef up other monitoring devices, and hire the needed border guards to patrol effectively both the northern and western borders.

    Once the borders are secured I’ll be all for regularizing the illegals here who are deserving.

    The problem with your argument is that you aren’t serious about securing the borders. It’s an afterthought and your opponents understand this.

    As for border security in the new bill, no one believes this will have any priority on the things to do list.

  6. AJStrata says:

    Jacqui,

    The elements of this bill have been discussed for years and years….

    My guess is the American people will not tolerate any more delays due to debates on the margins. The Guest Worker program polls very high – always has.

  7. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: just for the record, despite my vehement disagreement with you on this issue, I have never called you a “RINO”; nor anything else for that matter!

  8. For Enforcement says:

    So from wanting arguments we go to childish name calling – and these people have the nerve to wonder why people are abandoning them?

    An example would be? Hard right? hardliners? others? purity pustche,

    firebrands, do-nothing crowd, Drama Queen.

    Name calling by the right?

    .
    .

  9. AJStrata says:

    LOL! FE, you have zero room to complain….

    And yes, it is over. I am simply mimicking the hard right!

  10. For Enforcement says:

    Colin, since you repeated this from the other thread,
    If you feel so strongly about this issue, don’t just sit in opposition, think up ways the draft bill can be amended to suit your beliefs and opinions, and send those suggestions in.

    I’ll repeat what I said in response to that statement.

    “We agree here. It’s about 700 pages at present. Take the title page, then throw away the other 699, then on the title page change the name of the bill to “illegal aliens registration act” write up about 10 sentences telling them they all have to be registered within 6 months or get the hell out. That should work nicely.”

    .

  11. AJStrata says:

    Dale,

    calling me a RINO is oxymoronic. And I am not talking about what people say to me. I am talking about how people discuss those who disagree with them – even in general terms. The tone has been set. It is ugly and over. Been to the well of the peace offering too many times with the far right (which is now an insulting name to some). No reason to offer up peace again. None. When the result is zero what is the point?

  12. colin says:

    FE,

    I know I repeated this in the other thread. I’m just trying to think of ways to deal with this issue, on both sides of the issue, without blowing up the entire conservative coalition that is so vital on a number of other fronts. I don’t seem to be making much progress with anyone, but I’ll keep trying.

  13. For Enforcement says:

    Ok, AJ, but I don’t call anyone names. I try to put forth rational (in my opinion) arguments.

    Did you see that link to H. Hewitt? he has a fairly lengthy lists of all the exceptions to everything in the bill. It is clearly written so that every single item in it can have an exception.

    If they would take out all the if’s, ands , and buts and make it mean what it says without all those, it would be a reasonable start. But since no immigration laws have ever been enforced, I guess I don’t see what the incentive in this one is that will make anyone enforce it. Especially since every single requirement is offset by more exceptions than there are requirements.

    It is not even written to be passed, it is written to give the Dems a political advantage, without being passed, and that’s what will happen.

    .

  14. AJStrata says:

    Coffee260,

    And if you get the fence in parallel to identifying and processing the illegals here you will walk away? Honestly, what is it that makes doing them together so we get to the end quicker so bad you would live with the crap we have today indefinitely? Please tell me you could live with both being done together. Otherwise….

  15. AJStrata says:

    HH is listing reasons to live with the crap we have. Anyone can find reasons not to act. Leaders find ways to act and make a difference. I guess you see where that puts HH. He is now firmly for the status quo. Who cares how he rationalizes it?????

  16. AJStrata says:

    FE (and others),

    I can only address the general group on the right opposed to the plan and how they are acting. The fact any of you are trying a civil approach doesn\’t negate those you align with. The fact is the name calling started immediately in many corners of the right. And it had its desired resut. Now the entire immigration movement that opposes the plan are tainted by the Tancredo types. One day the Reps will stop losing ugly.

  17. AJStrata says:

    FE,

    If your position is it will never be enforced then why resist it? But really, why even be in this debate since any proposal would fail to be enforced. That really is a poor excuse to live with what we have.

  18. coffee260 says:

    AJ–I have no confidence that our elected leaders will secure the borders. Their track record leaves much to be desired. If for example, the administration and our leaders would have taken serious the bolstering of the border guards to 20,000 like was previously approved, I wouldn’t be so skeptical. But that isn’t the only reason I’m not confident. In 2006 the republican lead congress passed a bill that authorized the building of 700 miles of fence. As of now they have 2 miles built. That just doesn’t build my confidence. However, if I see serious efforts to secure our borders, I am all for doing both border security and regularization.

  19. Jacqui says:

    We have talked around immigration – but we have not debated or know the details in this bill. And the proponents of this bill do not want people to know the details or to debate them.

    Pelosi won’t introduce it in the House without 70 Reps because she wants cover. McConnell says it will not pass this week even though King McCain has said it must be done.

    Cornyn is my senator – they are getting so many calls and emails against this bill they can’t keep up with the traffic

  20. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: okay, let me try one more time!

    Dale,

    calling me a RINO is oxymoronic.

    I have NEVER, at any point, called you a “RINO”, nor any other name! PERIOD!

    Besides, you proudly write that you are NOT a “rep”; so whoever is calling you a “RINO”, is not paying attention, and if you are NOT a “rep”; why would you get upset anyhow, if some idiot calls you a “RINO”, when you clearly say you are not a “rep” to begin with??

    I’ve only ever said I disagree with you on this issue, for many reasons!

    I have NEVER said, anywhere, anytime, “deport them all…”

    NEVER! PERIOD!

    “The fact any of you are trying a civil approach doesn\’t negate those you align with. ”

    There you go with that tactic again!

    IF we disagree with YOU, you paint us as some nutbags on the Right!

    I’ve told you, time and time again, you CANNOT categorize me, and I suspect LE, and Bikerken, and others that post here, are the same.

    And yet, you insist on lumping us in with the crazies, from either end, because we disagree with You, on this issue!

    What’s wrong with wanting strong border enforcment for your country; enforcing the laws we currently have on the books, asking people NOT to engage in illegal behaviour, asking people wand to come to work in our country to do so Legally; asking them to respect our rules and laws; and IF they want to “assimilate”, then they must learn the language, the Constitution, and our history?

    What is wrong with that?

    And if they came here illegally; then I want them to pay fines, come out of the shadows, pay back taxes, and be required to go home, and get a LEGAL permit to come back and work; and I don’t want them to have a “free pass”; and their illegal behaviour rewarded!

    I don’t understand why, when MY WIFE, had to do it LEGALLY, and I had to pay money, and endure a 19 month seperation as a result, if I had to do it, why it isn’t the law for everyone??

    What’s so wrong with wanting the Laws and Rules to be enforced, and to apply to everyone, Equally?

    What’s so wrong with that?

    “Note, I never said deport them all”; I never said “I don’t want any Mexicans here…”; nor anything like that!

    I DO, what our laws to mean something; I do want our borders to stand for something, and I want the immigrants, who come here, to be here because they respect America, and realize they can have a better life here, than at home!

    I don’t want them to come here, as a way to destroy us!

    Frankly AJ, I don’t think those basic things, are “radical”, and I don’t think they make me one of the “crazies”.

    So don’t “lump” me in with them, please!