Nov 15 2008
‘True’ Conservatives are Truly Clueless
I was trying to write a post on man-made global warming, the fact it has been proven to be a myth and the enormous financial damage the liberals are going to do on a global scale chasing a fool’s errand, when I came across another one of those examples of a far right conservative who feels purity will bring broad consensus and support. Talk about your political morons – purity of consensus requires a small group of like minded people, therefore is political suicide. Here is a flaming idiot with his flame set to full on:
The conservative senator, speaking to a group of GOP officials gathered in Myrtle Beach at a conference on the future of the Republican Party, described how the party had strayed from its own “brand,” which, according to DeMint, should represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government.
“We have to be honest, and there’s a lot of blame to go around, but I have to mention George Bush, and I have to mention Ted Stevens, and I’m afraid I even have to mention John McCain,” he said.
Earth to DeTwit – McCain beat all the ‘pure conservatives’ in the primaries because ‘pure conservatives’ are political poison. Stevens is the only person who deserves to be on this list, but DeMint gets honorable mention for adding to the internal wars and further fracturing the conservative movement and pushing more people out of it than attracting in. It is not lack of agreement on the ‘challenges’ or ‘goals’ (e.g., ‘smaller government’) that have destroyed the conservative coalition, it is the extreme proposals for these goals by purists over the years which have peeled away one issue related group after another.
Let’s back up a second and just get back to first principles of democratic governance. Supporting reasonable diversity of opinion regarding ‘how’ to address a generally accepted ‘challenge’ provides for creating governing coalitions (e.g., ‘how’ to deal with ‘illegal immigration’). When people strive too far into extreme versions of ‘how’ then the larger group of people who agree on the ‘challenge’ fracture into two or more groups. There is infighting and the extreme views of some push many of those who agreed on the ‘challenge’ to conclude the remedies are too toxic or risky to do anything about and they move to the opposing political camp.
George Bush has done NOTHING against conservatives accept deal with the reality that the nation is not far right and does not buy into the far right’s prescriptions for ‘how’ to deal with ‘challenges’. He has to get laws passed through Congress, and that means compromise on the ‘how’. Â Success is moving the nation stepwise towards the grander ‘how’ envisioned by some as the ultimate goal. Â They key here is movement at a pace the nation will accept and support.
Conservatives became impatient even when Bush was leading a nation through war and to the right. their impatience bloomed when Bush was not giving in to their demands as fast as they wanted. Talk about self absorbed. And for the sin of dealing with reality, the ‘true’ conservatives turned on our nation’s leader and their party’s leader. Which said all anyone needed to know about ‘true’ conservatives, their honor code, their connection to reality, their understanding of what it takes to govern America in the 21st century. If you want to repulse people turn on your allies because you are greedy to have your way now. That is a reputation killer any day of the week.
For example, let me pose a serious question to DeTwit: Since I am not personally tied to any religion I have attained my views on the sanctity of life through a broader sense of spirituality and from science itself, which dictates when life begins and allows us to use the engine of evolution to legally determine an embryo or fetus is not ‘part of the mother’ or simply a ‘clump of cells’. DeTwit claims the GOP is for religion-based values, but I attained my values and views through science and knowledge of the law. My approach has broader appeal and can be accepted by those more tied to science than scripture, and has the benefit of reams of legal precedence regarding DNA testing in trials. My approach happens to validate the views of many who, through faith, also believe in sanctity of life and why it is wrong to kill embryos for spare parts.
So, am I ‘pure’ enough because I use science and law to make an iron clad case against destroying embryos – which happens to validate those religion-based values? Will the DeTwits of the world continue their useless battle against evolution as proven science, as solid as the science that dictates the laws of motion and satellites, planets, etc? Will people armed with a high school level grasp of science continue to demean and challenge those of us who spent years learning about the truth of God’s Creation in amazing detail? This is why the conservative movement is totally busted. I am not a ‘true’ conservative and my efforts to support the right to life efforts is usually met with dazed looks and condescension.
Let me pick up on Immigration Reform again as it is my favorite topic to bash ‘true’ conservatives with. I was listening yesterday to AM Talk Radio (rarely do that at all now, given the dominance of ‘true’ conservatives lamenting the end of the world) and a caller called in with an interesting idea on comprehensive illegal immigration reform.
Now before the purists start going off in the comment sections here, the fact is illegal immigration reform is completely out of reach for years if not decades, accept the liberal blanket amnesty kind that could pass this Congress and get signed by the new President. All those who used scream ‘amnesty bill’ are about to see what a real one looks like. And remember, this is what you all wanted when you torpedoed the McCain-Bush proposal twice. This is what you wanted, and this is all your doing. So don’t whine to me about illegals. The next three years are what you wrought when you tanked the best option conservatives realistically had to make a difference in a quarter of a century. (Note the emphasis on the word ‘realistically’).
Anyway, the point of recalling this call was the sincerity of the caller to find a solution, and the idiocy of the ‘true’ conservative host in response. Again, it illustrates what is wrong with the right and why, even if the Dems do screw up like the did in the last Congress, the conservative movement has little hope of leveraging anything off their screw ups.
The caller was exploring higher income tax rates for migrant workers, especially those who are the long term ‘illegals’ which would transfer into a new migrant worker program. The idea was interesting and I realized we would have to do something to the tax code since most low-end migrant worker jobs are well into that class of incomes where people pay no federal taxes. I could see completely eliminating this loophole for transient workers (i.e., non US Citizens) since they need to pay into the government services they and their families will utilize while here (and possibly waiting for US citizenship). It was an interesting topic on how to make sure immigrant workers pay their share of the load.
The AM Talk Radio host was able to spew back a couple of pure myths before I had to change the channel. For example: Millions of illegals are still poring across our borders.
Not true. Since Bush has been President the border has been strengthened in a variety of ways, and last year was the first year the US did not allow a single illegal caught crossing to just come on in after promising to meet their court date hearing. Last year, and since, all illegals caught at the border are turned back. None come in. Bush did this and it is a major change in our border policy. One I am sure Obama will be overturning.
And then the ‘True’ Conservative said another dumb thing: Why not have them leave and then come back in?
Clearly, this person thinks in terms of cartoon TV level concepts. Simple minded solutions many times come from simple minds. Right now our economy is teetering and we cannot afford any large government programs. To make sure all illegal immigrants ‘went home’ would cost 100’s of billions of dollars. To process them back in would cost 100’s of billions of dollars. And the worker shortage would drive food and other basic product costs out the roof. All this over a some misdemeanors (recall, illegal immigration is not a felony in this country). The stupidity of this concept is just jaw dropping astonishing. 20 million illegals to hunt down, deport, and then check back in simply to let some on the far right get some masochistic sense of punishment is truly a waste of my tax dollars.
Illegal immigration is a paperwork and fee related crime. It is not much different from not carrying insurance on a car in a state that requires it, not paying your taxes on time. Misdemeanor crimes have punishments that usually involve fees and financial restitution (with interest). Conversely, very few crimes require you to give up your house and job. Those that result in that kind of impact result from a stint in jail.
When the ‘true’ conservatives went on the ‘deport them’ screed the damage was done to the GOP brand. When people soil their images to such a stark and pungent degree it can take years to correct, and sometimes never gets fixed. The problem with the conservative movement is it repulses more people than it attracts. This is one of many cases where they became too ugly to bear. Look at what a ‘true’ conservative stands for:
- Somehow removing all illegal aliens from the country and putting up massive barriers along our borders. Conveys a nice, warm and friendly view of that city on the Hill? More like a gated community of snobs who cannot be bothered by ‘the masses’.
- Opposition to giving senior citizens in poverty or on the edge of poverty a prescription drug benefit through Medicare/Medicaid, a program that reduces the cost of these programs because it removes the need to go to emergency rooms for basic medications. Those mean old Scrooges on the right will try to keep medicine from the sick and poor! Where is the shining city on the hill in this?
- Opposition to education reform and a desire to pull their kids out of the public school system. I think it is OK to want better than the public school system can provide for kids (we all do). But to also oppose corrective action on those public schools is a step too far. It again looks like those with money are trying to dump those struggling and run to their enclaves. We are a community which does need to fix problems, not hide in gated communities and private schools.
- Bush did not want the war against al-Qaeda to be a war against Muslims or Arabs, but then the ‘true’ right went on a purely religious and race based attack against a company from a moderate allied Arab-Muslim nation that was buying into some of our port operations here in the US. Even worse than the racist and religious bigotry behind the panic was the fact those screaming ‘fire’ were not listening to what was in the deal for national security. The deal included the Arab company paying for and installing Cargo sensor systems in all their international ports that would be feeding products into our port. It was a disaster for the GOP and conservatism.
- The ‘true’ conservatives still moan on and on about the statesman focused process McCain and Lieberman and 12 other Senators used to avoid constitutional showdowns with Bush’s judicial appointees. A very small number of appointees were not able to get on the bench, but conversely there was no repeat of the Bork or Thomas fiascos. Anyone still holding a grudge against the Gang of 14 is out of sync with America. We don’t want FL-2000-like confrontations. We don’t want to see people Borked. I sometimes feel the ‘true’ conservatives are simply jealous about the moderates who pulled off a solution that avoided endless litigation.
- Harriet Miers was the poster child for moderates and ex-democrats to leave the party. She was inside Bush’s inner circle and someone he knew very well. She was an ex-democrat – like Reagan and many other leaders of the GOP in the 80’s and 90’s until the purity wars erupted. Harriet Miers illustrated how a few extreme (and in the case of David Frum vengeance driven) conservatives would tear down the impure moderates if they tried to attain leadership or positions of power. It was the universal signal to RINOS and Quislings that the GOP umbrella was shrinking and only the pure need apply.
As another example from this year’s election look at the circus of the Minnesota Senate race. I can see, just as everyone else can, how the Dems are trying to steal the election there. But the big question is how could the GOP brand be so screwed up that an honorable man like Norm Coleman (and recent GOP convert from a Democrat) could even be challenged by a screw up (screw lose) like Al Franken? How did Obama the neophyte beat McCain the wise man of the middle? How is Coleman the moderate in a fight with a TV Clown?
Let me be clear here on what is happening (and I would love to see polls to ponder this question). If McCain was a Democrat would he have won? If Coleman was a Democrat would he be safely still in office? This is a REALLY important question right now for the GOP. I suspect the answer to both is yes, which is why moderate conservatives are going Blue-Dog instead of RINO (note the respect one moniker has while the other is demeaning) and giving the Dems governing coalitions.
If an individual conservative wants to make a difference, and the voters are repulsed by the ‘true’ conservatives, and the ‘true’ conservatives are attacking other conservatives for not being ‘pure’, the answer is easy. Become a Blue-Dog and have the opportunity to make a difference.
‘True’ Conservatives are ironically proving how right Darwin was. They are not capable of adapting or being flexible enough to succeed, they are not demonstrating to the general population traits that will lead to the population’s success and are therefore being shunned and held back from success. They are showing why evolution is a force to understand and exist with, just like gravity. If you jump of a building in a refusal to accept the force of gravity you are no different than someone who continues down a path that produces more and more failures. The path to death and oblivion is just longer.
The ‘true’ conservatives’ drive to purity is now clearly rejected in ways that could ensure their extinction. Purity is not a force of survival and growth, it is just the opposite. Adaptation is the path to success and long life for your family, their offspring and your values that you instill in them down through time. Me, I am just an observer watching it all play out as it has many times before in our history. Those who went extinct never thought their solution to survival and growth would be the one to fall to the wayside. They never do.
Sorry AJ but I have a different opinion on how Mc ended up as the nominee.
Huck grabbed the religious right vote and held that block of votes and starved the rest of the field for their potential support and the independents chose who was going to be the nominee.
It is all right there in the exit polls.
Mc just happened to be the last man standing after Huck did his lockup nothing more.
We need to stop defining Democrats as “liberals” and Republicans as “conservatives” because that is not really the true nature of the difference between the parties. There are fairly conservative Democrats and fairly liberal Republicans. The difference is based more on how the two sides see the role of government. The Democrats see government as a parent. The Republicans see government playing more of a silent partner role. Democrats believe it is the place of government to “take care of you”, Republicans see government as needed to maintain an environment where people can better take care of themselves.
Americans are people of every possible political and social stripe. What polarizes us is a notion that one group or another wants to mandate social policy from a central government across the entire country without respect to the cultural and social differences of various communities.
American towns, counties, and states should be free to enact laws and policies that reflect the local culture and local values common in that community. Tulsa should build their community to reflect their values, San Francisco should be free to build a community that reflect theirs. Neither should have to worry about the foot of federal government on the back of their neck forcing them to build a community reflecting the values of some Ivy League social tinkerers in Washington DC.
To have diversity in policies among the various communities makes us a happier and stronger nation. No matter what one’s values might be, there should be a place where you can live that reflects those values. One shouldn’t feel that they are being targeted by their government or being “stamped out” or be afraid of electing a party to power for fear of destroying thier community values. When a community adopts something that is successful, other communities can adopt it and the success spreads. When one community tries something that doesn’t work well, the damage is limited to that community. When Washington mandates a mistake from DC, the entire country suffers for it.
Reagan was all about getting federal government off the backs of the people. Let the local communities do their own thing. People can vote with their feet. Places that adopt policies that are unpopular will find their political power wane as fewer people decide to move there. By the same token, places that adopt policies that serve the people well become popular, attract people, and their political power grows. The notion of forcing a monolithic policy across the county is just nuts.
The backbone of our economy are the small businesses and the sole proprietors. The hairdresser, barber, plumber, roofer, mechanic, hash slinger, all make for millions of individual businesses. Rules that allow these businesses to take risks, raise capital, and reward success by allowing people to realize the fruits of their labor and creativity advance the economic state of the nation better than any cash handout of Robin Hood robbery of the “rich”.
The notion that someone who succeeds by working harder than their competitors, or being more competent, or coming up with a wildly successful idea, method, invention or whatever is somehow responsible for raising the standard of living of their neighbors is wrong-headed. If I work long hours to put money away for college for my kids, my neighbors have NO claim to that. The notion that when someone else succeeds in one’s community, they have an obligation to also raise the standard of living of the rest of their community by simply forking over their cash is insane. That government is even responsible or owes anyone a living or a home is crazy. The notion that the people in the country have a “right” to a better job or a “right” to a better home by taking away the fruits of the labor of people who have worked long hours and risked their life savings is destructive. It will stamp out any incentive, and drive for one to want to succeed. Government will kill the golden goose by squeezing every last egg it can out of it until it runs away or just stops laying.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is simple, Democrats believe we are subordinate to the government, Republicans believe the government is subordinate to us. Government is there to help us succeed, not to take the success of others and spread it around to the less successful.
Looked at in purely economic terms, right now illegal immigrants are providing a major “lubricant” to the economy. To send them all packing back home would probably destroy the economy, not help it. I don’t favor giving them citizenship, but I do favor recognizing their role in the economy and providing them with a legal mechanism for working “above the table” and then cracking hard one ones that don’t pay their rightful share. And if they have been working here for 10 years, paying their taxes, being upstanding members of the community, I have no problem with them then applying to be citizens because those are the kinds of people who I *want* as citizens.
For the “pure” Republicans or the “pure” Democrats who define people by their stand on petty social issues, they only act to polarize, alienate, and weaken our country. Those conversations don’t even belong in the national political debate. What belongs in the debate is a serious discussion about what the role of government is. And government isn’t about “taking care” of people. Government is about allowing people to take care of themselves without perpetual dependence on government care.
“Huck grabbed the religious right vote and held that block of votes and starved the rest of the field for their potential support and the independents chose who was going to be the nominee.”
That and Democrats crossing over and voting in the Republican primary in states where registered Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.
I believe Rudy was the best candidate.
man-made global warming, the fact it has been proven to be a myth and the enormous financial damage the liberals are going to do on a global scale chasing a fool’s errand
So you are calling John McCain a fool? He’s one of those global warming fearmongers yet you still worship the guy whilst slagging off liberals who believe the same thing as your hero.
Earth to DeTwit – McCain beat all the ‘pure conservatives’ in the primaries because ‘pure conservatives’ are political poison.
Earth to AJ – McCain got trounced in the election! Yet conservative causes like banning gay marriage won in liberal California!
There were two problems. McCain, a proponent of an unpopular amnesty and a long history of sticking it to conservatives lacked the fight in the presidential election. In the primaries he stuck the boot into Romney at every opportunity but when it came to a black liberal senator McCain had no fire in his belly. He agreed with Obama too much.
Problem two for the GOP is that their brand has been ruined by the Iraq war (what are Dubya’s poll numbers of late?) and the decision to put an airhead bible thumper on the ticket. When your party is all about war and putting down as ‘elitist’ anyone with a brain you are scaring away educated voters.
Of course, this blog supported the catastrophic Iraq war, the ridiculous Sarah Palin, and John ‘global warming is real’ McCain. (BTW how did McCain do with all those Hispanic voters he was grovelling to just days before the election with promises of an amnesty?)
If the GOP take your advice they will never recover.
Jules Roy:
There hasn’t been any “global warming” in the past 10 years. From 1998 to about 2006 temperatures were flat, no trend. In 2007 and 2008 they have dropped considerably.
Basically the problem is this:
The people who would spread fear of global warming claiming that increasing CO2 is causing a disaster are really using that has a “hook” to spread fear, get elected, and then enact their real agenda of increasing control over the general society. In claiming that there is an “emergency”, they would want draconian powers of regulation over industry.
If CO2 is really the issue, then there is a much simpler way of eliminating a huge amount of CO2 without changing anyone’s lifestyle one iota. All they need is an international program to put out the coal seam fires burning in the US, China, Indonesia and India. The CO2 released from those fires in just those four countries represent as much CO2 as is released by all the automobiles on the planet. And the emissions from those fires are much dirtier than any automobile or power plant. They emit mercury, uranium, and all sorts of other metals.
Politicians would spend billions to reduce CO2 by marginal amounts or simply keep emissions stable and yet completely ignore a huge source of emissions. Why? The answer is pretty simple. Putting the fires out won’t give them any additional control. It would also end the “emergency”. They would rather hamstring existing power plant development rather then stop a source of emissions much greater than any power plant on the planet.
It isn’t *really* about environmentalism, it is really about power and control. I favor freedom. Having the nations of the world contribute to a fund to put those fires out would provide jobs, spur the development of new technologies, and result in REAL reductions in CO2 and improvements in air quality along with saving coal resources for future generations that are now literally going up in smoke.
Yes, we had a little warming spell between 1976 and 2006. All indications are that periods like that are normal and cyclical and are a part of a natural cycle having to do with ENSO and the PDO. The cycle peaking in 1998 did not get as warm as the cycle that peaked in 1933. And there is growing consensus that we are currently headed into a period of 20 to 30 years of cooling, just as we did from the 1940’s to the mid 1970’s.
whoa, what a post,
Too much too fully comment on, but I agree 100% on the notion that a person can look at stem cells and be offended on more then a religious basis. Partial-birth abortion is an abomination that offends my humanity and harvesting stem cells is so scary and the slippery slope of such a policy is terrifying in its implications.
Sorry AJ, but you’re about 80% wrong.
A political party has to stand for something. Actually, several somethings…the planks of a party platform. NOBODY will agree with the platform 100%, but good party members should be in agreement with at least two-thirds of it…preferably more.
Part of this process does involve compromise. Planks need to have broad support, which means that some people will get less than they really want. And there are some all-or-nothing conservatives who aren’t willing to compromise…but they are a distinct minority.
Where you run into problems is when the party leaders no longer adhere to the party platform. When they stop representing anything but their own interests.
Now, I’ll be the first to say that DeMint made one mistake…he talks about “religious-based” values. Tactically, this plays into the hands of those who want to portray the Republican party as a gang of religious zealots. We both know that pure reason is a stronger argument…and leads to the same conclusions.
But he’s dead right in saying that the Republicans have lost their way…and in the culprits he names. Remember, McCain was more or less the 2008 edition of Bob Dole…the least weak of a weak field. A-team candidates such as George Allen and Jeb Bush had either been taken out in 2006 or were hamstrung for other reasons.
And yes, George W. Bush deserves a bushel of blame. He started out well, but his failure to go to full wartime mobilization stretched out the Iraq campaign beyond the proven military attention span of the electorate. And he proved himself only too eager to spend money and increase the Federal bureaucracy. Above all, Bush spent almost no time or effort communicating. His attitude was classic top-down management…which doesn’t work well with Americans.
In any event, the Republican party needs to work on the platform. And part of that needs to be to sell it with reason, not religion. We should be friendly toward faith…but refrain from using it in debate. We’re smarter than the Left – it’s time to exploit that advantage.
Let’s not forget about the elephant, or more accurately donkey in the room. Probably at least 8 out of 10 journalists/editors/pundits are democrats, and this year they were especially uninterested in any kind of balance. Imagine how things would have been different if that was reversed, with McCain/Palin getting even 50:50 positive coverage.
Palin gets portrayed in such a way as to focus more on her positives, such as her accomplishments in Alaska. It’s commonly known not as troopergate, but tasergate. When she goes on with the big anchors in interviews, they’re friendly and smiling and on her side, not dour and sour and out to get her.
Obama would have had his past with Ayers/Wright et al exposed in ongoing investigative features. Pundits would have been asked — what does this mean for Obama? “This looks bad, very bad indeed Tom. The depth of his associations with these extreme leftist individuals should really worry everyone.”
As one liberal media guy once said, (Evan Thomas?) the media advantage for democrats is 15 percentage points.
Surely Strata is correct about the need not to embrace too enthusiastically far-RIGHT extremists on issues of immigration and religion. However, let’s not forget just how the far-LEFT media has worked to distort the issues and the people on each side of them.
The left has its extremists, plenty of em, but they’re not focused on and ridiculed. The left doesn’t have to pay much of a price for them being in the party. The environmentalists don’t get properly portrayed as being a big reason for energy dependence, high gas prices, even a distorted housing market due to not being able to develop where rare bugs live. But anyone opposing illegal immigration is generally characterized as being an intolerant bigot, not more properly someone simply expressing common sense.
But, the media is what it is. It didn’t help to have a candidate that basically couldn’t form a coherent basic argument for free-markets vs bigger and bigger government.
I actually think they did pretty darn well, all things considered. Obama was extremely lucky to have such a poor communicator in McCain, and of course all Democrats should consider themselves lucky to always have (most of) the media on their side.
A good bit of the blame of Bush would be for leaving so many Clinton appointees in their posts. Places like HUD and the EPA and even CIA not to mention DoJ should have been purged. But Bush was known in Texas as a man who could work with both parties to get things done.
And I am convinced that the events of 9/11 prevented him from realizing whatever vision he had upon taking office. It changed everything. Also, the vitriol from the 2000 election became cultural in the media. Our media became political cheerleaders for one side and stopped reporting in any kind of objective fashion. But maybe the media never was fair. There were Republican papers and Democrat papers, but by and large the electronic media were more or less balanced before 2000.
Now that the Democrats have become the party of graft and corruption, there is no media pressure to keep them honest. They discovered they could get away with anything and that is pretty much what they have been doing. The media is now actively aiding corruption in our government and that is sad.
The Republican party needs to take a zero tolerance for corruption stand and get loud about it when they see it. Demands for a speedy trial for William “Cold Cash” Jefferson should be spreading far and wide now that the 4th Circuit has cleared the way. Palin is a great example of the “New Republican”. Crush corruption, call out hypocrisy, demand justice for people betraying the public trust.
Democrats in six departments in Ohio looked into Joe the Plumber’s background when he dared express a differing opinion. Those people need to be very publicly fired and charged with crimes. Instead the governor is trying to cover for them.
The Democrats are the party of weasels, liars and thieves these days. It is is time to hold them accountable. Investigate Harry’s land deals in Nevada. Investigate the slum lords and lobbyists that surround Obama. We need a real free press to do these things, not a press just as corrupt as the politicians they are covering for.
Thanks Crosspatch
for taking up the argument.
100% correct nothing more to add!
The Republicans lost everything because they tried to be the nice guys, while their opponents played sewer politics. The first thing they did when they took over Congress in 94 was to pass a rule saying any Rep congressman who had any kind of charges filed against him had to step down from his committee assignments until he was cleared. That gave the Dems the weapon to castrate all the really good Rep leaders like Gingrich, DeLay, etc. One by one, they were relegated to the sidelines on trumped up charges that were later dropped, while the Dems made fools of the leaderless crew of amateurs left in charge. Denny Hassert may have been a nice guy but he was a lousy leader of the House. Can you imagine what the Reps could have done if Gingrich had remained their leader? Yet the phoney charges against Gingrich eventually caused him to give up, while the likes of Jim McDermit, who admitted to illegal possession of taped Gingrich and Rep Conference call phone conversations wasn’t even censured. Nancy Pelosi and her husband’s Company have been implicated in illegal govt. contracts. yet she is still Leader of the House. Harry Reid got a sweetheart land swap deal with the Dept. of Interior that netted him a million dollars, yet he is still running the Senate. Barney Frank’s live in Boyfriend was caught running a call boy operation out of Frank’s residence and he is still a committee Chair. The lesson is, if you are voted in to clean house, CLEAN HOUSE. Instead by their inaction, the Reps gave the impression that they were all a part of the same big fraternity where everybody covers for everybody else’s rear. While the Reps were playing Mr. Nice Guy, the Dems made mountains out of mole hills like Sen. Packwood’s making unwanted passes at women, and someone sending unwanted Emails to former Pages. These actions are on a par with felonies like taping the Speaker’s phone calls, and claiming someone picked them up on their car radio and just happened to have a tape recorder handy? Give me a break. Or selling boys out of your residence? Or leaving the scene of an accident and allowing a passenger to drown.? The Reps were given a mandate in 94 to clean house and they did not do it. After 10 years of waiting and canabalizing their own leaders over petty charges, it’s no wonder the people gave up on the Reps. I personally am totally demoralized by what has happened to our country on the Rep.’s watch. The only hope is that the Dems will be so bad that people will realize that as bad as they were the Reps were better than what we have just elected. God help us all.
Thanks Momdear1
I would add Cold Cash Jefferson bribe money,
Barney Frank, Charles Rangle, Chris Dodd complicit in the Fannie and Freddie affirmative action loan program that brought on the current financial mess.
The fact that the DeFacto leader of the Repub party let stand the false and blantantly political charges that it was capitalism and Republican policies that brought on the mess was a disgrace and fueled the flames of the great defeat of 08! The leader of the party at the time should have voted against the obviously fraudulent bailout and demanded the resignation of Dodd and Frank and demanded Pelosi and Reid step aside as leaders for playing politics in the midst of a national crisis.
McCain pandered to the Dems instead of defending the party he was to lead and putting the blame where the blame was due.
He failed to name, names, thus they will never be held accountable the bailouts will continue, capitalism will take a gignatic leap toward socialism.
John McCain failed on a grand scale yet to be imagined!
I don’t blame Bush. After all what has DeMint done? Has he even run for President much less been one? No, he is just another back seat driver.
If Clinton had taken care of Osama, resolved the situation with Saddam and not allowed Fannie Mae to buy bad loans..imagine how different things would have been for Bush and his presidency. But he had to deal with the world he was stuck with, not the one purists like DeMint like to pretend is out there.
Purists are all about running people off. They are all about laying ground rules, they get to make. I think that is insane. There are a lot of life long Republicans out there who would not fit DeMint’s idea of what a real Republican is like. Who made him the decider?
The truth is Republicans need to convince Americans that they understand their problems and concerns. Laying down the law is not the way to do that. People just might tell you to go to hell.
and they have. Hardliners raised hell about illegal immigration back in 2006. They promised to sit home and pout in the midterms. Now look where we are. Obama in the White House and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. What kind of immigration policy do they think they will get out of these two?
Way to go guys. Keep it up and the Republican party will become a fringe group. And say what you will about Bush: he could win elections. That is what we need.
And Stevens is a crook. It is not fair to compare McCain or Bush to him.
AJ asked: “If McCain was a Democrat would he have won? If Coleman was a Democrat would he be safely still in office? This is a REALLY important question right now for the GOP. I suspect the answer to both is yes, which is why moderate conservatives are going Blue-Dog instead of RINO (note the respect one moniker has while the other is demeaning) and giving the Dems governing coalitions.”
As a Blue Dog Dem with nowhere else to go, I agree completely.
Would McCain have won as a Democrat? Hard to see how anyone could have wedged into the Hillary-Obama nomination fight this year. Ageism definitely worked against McCain as much as his Republican affiliation.
Coleman absolutely would have had a clear win as a Democrat. The Dems did not want Franken to be the nominee. The double-digit votes won by the Independent in this race hurt Coleman far more than Franken. Too bad Minnesota state law does not require a runoff like Georgia.
look on the bright side – Franken would be a great gift to the GOP, though I personally hope Coleman wins.
The “religious-based values” aspect of the current GOP hurts far more than anything Bush43 did in office (except for the huge increase in the deficit and complete politicization of the executive branch).
Crosspatch: Rudy is a myth. He would not have won New York.
He did clean up the crime, but screwed up almost everything else, including the budget. And completely repulsed even the most socially liberal by sneaking Judy Nathan into Gracie Mansion while his wife and children were sleeping in their bedrooms. Extremely divisive mayor. With a post-mayor business record that is so corrupt it is hard to imagine.
People want pragmatic, effective government. Public safety, efficient services like clean water, reliable electricity, and garbage disposal, schools that work, bridges that do not fall down. Not social engineering. Certainly not religious-based values imposed on all by one part of Christianity.
The rest of this is like trying to count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
“Certainly not religious-based values imposed on all by one part of Christianity. ”
Hehe, maybe we should have a candidate that would mandate conservative Hindu values or something. Generally I am suspicious of anyone who gets the popular backing of the “evangelicals” because they tend to support a candidate who would use government to push their values. I don’t like “liberals” because they always use government to push their values. I want a candidate who will build roads and bridges, defend the country, see that the kids learn the three R’s, and allow us just to be us and not try to “make” us be this or that. I certainly don’t want a party in power who will dig into people’s backgrounds if they should ever give a dissenting opinion or publish a picture of your house in the paper with the address if you should support an opposition candidate. Those tactics of intimidation are exactly opposite of what I want for our country.
Wow. What a fascinating conversation you all are having. Ever since the Republican debates started, and I was thinking about the various groups represented by all of the candidates on stage, I began to wonder: “Why are all of these groups in one political party?” Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani, Tancredo, Paul – what do their followers have in common, besides “We hate Democrats”?
I mean – why would social conservatives and fiscal conservatives be grouped under one banner? Why would a group of people that want the government to push its religious agenda be aligned with a group that wants the government to be as small as possible? Aren’t those goals completely at odds with each other?
Now, granted, the Democrats have their own problems (and those will come to the forefront soon enough) – but the Presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have given all of them something to unite under, at least for now. Say what you will about him, but even you all have to recognize that he ran a great campaign (and yes, the deck was stacked GREATLY in his favor – but he did nothing to hurt that, and several things to help it).
So I guess the question you all need to start answering is: what does the GOP stand for? And what do you want it to stand for?
“Now that the Democrats have become the party of graft and corruption, there is no media pressure to keep them honest.”
Now, see – this is the kind of statement that confuses me, and really detracts from what is (mostly) an outstanding discussion. How can you make that kind of statement when the Republicans have Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and Ted Stevens on their “side”?
“The Republicans lost everything because they tried to be the nice guys, while their opponents played sewer politics.”
Okay, again – what?
Saxy Chambliss compared Max Cleeland, a Vietnam vet who lost 3 limbs fighting for his country, to Osama Bin Laden.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann just called for an investigation into which members of Congress might be “anti-American”.
Sarah Palin talked about how Obama liked to “pal around with terrorists”.
“You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
The robocalls against McCain’s “illegitimate black child” in South Carolina in 2000.
The GOP women’s group in CA that circulated “Obama food stamps”, showing a picture of his face on a donkey, with watermelon and fried chicken.
The anti-Harold Ford “call me!” ads back in 2006.
What about any of that said “nice guys” to you?
“Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and Ted Stevens on their “sideâ€?”
Not anymore they don”t. What are DeLay and Abramoff doing these days. And the DeLay affair was a joke. He left because he was ACCUSED of doing something. But as far as I know, nothing ever came of it. He was bad mouthed in the media but never actually committed a crime that I am aware of. It was the result of an activist Democrat AG who tried five different times to get an indictment. He finally got one on his fifth try in a mostly Democrat area (Austin). To the best of my knowledge the conspiracy charge was dismissed and the “money laundering” charge either has already been or soon will be dismissed. DeLay didn’t do anything. He was tried and convicted in the newspapers.
Corrupt Democrats remain in office. Jefferson is still a Congressman from Louisiana. Democrats never have to resign, Republicans must resign if simply ACCUSED.
And Abramoff wasn’t a politician, he was a lobbyist. What you seem to conveniently forget is that Democrats were just as receptive to Abramoff’s gifts as Republicans. Abramoff flew Pelosi all over the place on junkets around the globe.
Stevens is on his way out and Palin was instrumental in having that crook see justice. Democrats NEVER kick out, call out, or in any way “out” fellow Democrats, they just cover for them.
Jefferson was caught red handed with $90,000 dollars in bribe money and he is still in Congress. DeLay was accused of doing something and forced to resign even though charges were eventually dropped. See the difference? Didn’t think you would. Democrats are corrupt and the party of criminals.