From Joe Klein:
"Sen. Bob Bennett is a standard-issue conservative, a reliable, down the line Party-of-No voter...who, on occasion, bestirred himself to cast a bipartisan vote--or, in one extremely admirable case, co-sponsor a bipartisan health care reform bill that was simpler, more equitable and more radical than than the mish-mosh that Congress passed (the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act). For this, and for his longevity in office, he was defenestrated by the Utah Republican party today.
I never met the man, but his statement today certainly was classy:
"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," an emotional Bennett told reporters, choking back tears.
"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."
We are in a moment when anger seems more important than experience or wisdom. Sometimes anger is justified. Right now, a sober review of the problems we face in a very unstable world requires something more: it requires a judicious national conversation about the decisions we make as a people. Are we spending too much or too little? Are we taxing too much or too little? If we're spending and taxing too much, which services need to be curtailed--and I mean, real services that cost real money, like defense and entitlements. If we can't decide what to cut, then perhaps we need to tax ourselves more--if so, how and what should we tax?
The fact that we can't seem to have this sort of conversation right now, that's it is ripped away from the vast majority of decent Americans by telecharlatans and infotainers, does not speak well for our ability to survive as the greatest nation in the history of the world. The departure of Senator Bob Bennett is a small event in a national tidal wave of witless extremism and thoughtlessness.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/08/bennett-tea-bombed/
TW: The combination of highly motivated voting minorities and the apathetic/tired/distracted amidst the rest of the electorate have elected poor candidates since our republic was founded. The world changes many are afraid of it but Glenn Beck/Ms. Palin et al. ain't gonna make it better of that I have no doubt.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose (cont.)
TW: Folks get frustrated, agitated and generally sour during tough economic times. The media takes these moods and extrapolates away. I do not think the Dems are going to lose either half of Congress. The Scott Brown victory in Mass will be seen as the apex of the wave against Obama. FDR's Democratic coalition was done by 1982 although it was not 100% clear. The Dems will take losses in '10, then the big test will come in '12.
From David Broder (circa 1982) via Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"It is customary in the second January after each inaugural ceremony to write a midterm assessment of a presidency. That is what I set out to do. But it quickly became clear that in the case of Ronald Reagan, something else is required.
What we are witnessing this January is not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency, but its phase-out. "Reaganism," it is becoming increasingly clear, was a one- year phenomenon, lasting from his nomination in the summer of 1980 to the passage of his first budget and tax bills in the summer of 1981. What has been occurring ever since is an accelerating retreat from Reaganism, a process in which he is more spectator than leader.
One measure of that transition was last week's Gallup Poll showing Reagan trailing two leading Democrats in trial heats for the 1984 election. Former vice president Walter Mondale had a 52-40 percent lead, and Sen. John Glenn of Ohio had a 54-39 advantage.
Such leads for opposition candidates are extremely rare at this stage of the cycle when all presidents, including Reagan, enjoy an aura of authority. But presidential polls change. Much more significant is the way in which power is moving away from Reagan in the ongoing work of government. What began as a process of delegation is rapidly approaching abdication."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_1982_election_and_pundit_f.html
From David Broder (circa 1982) via Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"It is customary in the second January after each inaugural ceremony to write a midterm assessment of a presidency. That is what I set out to do. But it quickly became clear that in the case of Ronald Reagan, something else is required.
What we are witnessing this January is not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency, but its phase-out. "Reaganism," it is becoming increasingly clear, was a one- year phenomenon, lasting from his nomination in the summer of 1980 to the passage of his first budget and tax bills in the summer of 1981. What has been occurring ever since is an accelerating retreat from Reaganism, a process in which he is more spectator than leader.
One measure of that transition was last week's Gallup Poll showing Reagan trailing two leading Democrats in trial heats for the 1984 election. Former vice president Walter Mondale had a 52-40 percent lead, and Sen. John Glenn of Ohio had a 54-39 advantage.
Such leads for opposition candidates are extremely rare at this stage of the cycle when all presidents, including Reagan, enjoy an aura of authority. But presidential polls change. Much more significant is the way in which power is moving away from Reagan in the ongoing work of government. What began as a process of delegation is rapidly approaching abdication."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_1982_election_and_pundit_f.html
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
My Fellow Americans...Such As They Are (cont.)
From NBC:
"A new Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 Republicans...has some eyebrow-raising findings:
-- 63% of them believe President Obama is a socialist
-- 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama is
-- 39% believe he should be impeached
-- 36% believe he wasn't born in the United States
-- 31% believe the president hates white people
-- 24% believe the president wants the terrorists to win
-- 23% believe their state should secede from the union"
TW: That any sane person believes Palin is qualified to be POTUS much less more so than Obama frames squarely the challenges of democracy in America. I realize many Dems wanted Bush impeached (not including me btw) but that was after he transformed a huge budget surplus into a deficit, invaded without cause Iraq, initiated torture as national policy and was overwhelmed by the Katrina disaster amongst other gems.
And that Obama who is in fact half "white" and was raised by his beloved "white" grandparents would hate "whites" in the minds of many Republicans speaks to them more than him.
Some on the left are pissed that Obama has not moved faster but ponder these stats first, he is not emperor. He is playing the cards he is dealt in terms of the American populace.
Bruce Bartlett's comment on the poll (and yes he worked for that deity of the right Mr. Reagan):
"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."
TW: I know many on the right feel condescended to but if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck then yeah you are fugging stupid. This does not mean opposition to Obama is stupid only support for ignorance and folks like Pence, Palin and Chambliss is.
"A new Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 Republicans...has some eyebrow-raising findings:
-- 63% of them believe President Obama is a socialist
-- 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama is
-- 39% believe he should be impeached
-- 36% believe he wasn't born in the United States
-- 31% believe the president hates white people
-- 24% believe the president wants the terrorists to win
-- 23% believe their state should secede from the union"
TW: That any sane person believes Palin is qualified to be POTUS much less more so than Obama frames squarely the challenges of democracy in America. I realize many Dems wanted Bush impeached (not including me btw) but that was after he transformed a huge budget surplus into a deficit, invaded without cause Iraq, initiated torture as national policy and was overwhelmed by the Katrina disaster amongst other gems.
And that Obama who is in fact half "white" and was raised by his beloved "white" grandparents would hate "whites" in the minds of many Republicans speaks to them more than him.
Some on the left are pissed that Obama has not moved faster but ponder these stats first, he is not emperor. He is playing the cards he is dealt in terms of the American populace.
Bruce Bartlett's comment on the poll (and yes he worked for that deity of the right Mr. Reagan):
"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."
TW: I know many on the right feel condescended to but if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck then yeah you are fugging stupid. This does not mean opposition to Obama is stupid only support for ignorance and folks like Pence, Palin and Chambliss is.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
So You Think You Want To Be POTUS
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Big Dems On Obama's War Plan...Almost uniformly negative. And the GOP will do all they can to destroy this commander-in-chief."
TW: The joy of being a Democratic POTUS. The Dem base is largely pacifist (in a Euro kind of way). The Republican base rabid jingoists (but for the libertarian wing). As a Dem your base will not carry your water, whilst the Republicans circle waiting (or not even waiting) to pounce at the inevitable challenges of a complex conflict.
In a way it frees Obama to do whatever is right as politically it is a no-win situation. So all in all doing the right thing has an actual chance.
"Big Dems On Obama's War Plan...Almost uniformly negative. And the GOP will do all they can to destroy this commander-in-chief."
TW: The joy of being a Democratic POTUS. The Dem base is largely pacifist (in a Euro kind of way). The Republican base rabid jingoists (but for the libertarian wing). As a Dem your base will not carry your water, whilst the Republicans circle waiting (or not even waiting) to pounce at the inevitable challenges of a complex conflict.
In a way it frees Obama to do whatever is right as politically it is a no-win situation. So all in all doing the right thing has an actual chance.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)
TW: Sound familiar? Fear has always been a very powerful force in American politics, usually for the worst. Paranoia will destroya...and the rest us if we are not careful. I grew up in and around small towns, they are nice but they hold no moral highground even if many of their occupants feel otherwise.
From David Halberstam's Coldest Winter:
"...the other wing of the Republican Party was very different: it was essentially more grassroots; it reflected old, abiding, small-town American...fears...where among the governing circles in many small towns and cities there was a fundamental hatred of almost everything Roosevelt was doing on the domestic scene, of his New Deal, which these critics passionately believed was, to use their favored word, socialistic...
...but the small-town wing knew that they were the real Republicans...that their values were the truer ones because they were the more American ones...
...The more it lost, the angrier it became. Each time, its representatives had come to the national conventions confident of their greater truths, only to the nomination hijacked by an elite...
...[in the successful Republican 1946 elections] Republicans had campaigned not so much against the Democratic Party as against Communism and subversion..."
From David Halberstam's Coldest Winter:
"...the other wing of the Republican Party was very different: it was essentially more grassroots; it reflected old, abiding, small-town American...fears...where among the governing circles in many small towns and cities there was a fundamental hatred of almost everything Roosevelt was doing on the domestic scene, of his New Deal, which these critics passionately believed was, to use their favored word, socialistic...
...but the small-town wing knew that they were the real Republicans...that their values were the truer ones because they were the more American ones...
...The more it lost, the angrier it became. Each time, its representatives had come to the national conventions confident of their greater truths, only to the nomination hijacked by an elite...
...[in the successful Republican 1946 elections] Republicans had campaigned not so much against the Democratic Party as against Communism and subversion..."
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Scozzafava'ed
From Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"The Washington Post ran a...piece today on Dede Scozzafava and the events that led her to drop out of the congressional race in New York's 23rd, and soon after, endorse her Democratic opponent. Of particular interest was the disappointment she feels about high-profile members of her own party endorsing Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.
"How can Sarah Palin come out and endorse someone who can't answer some basic questions," Scozzafava asked. "Do these people even know who they are endorsing?"
Well, on the first question, since Sarah Palin can't answer some basic questions either, I suspect Hoffman's ignorance didn't bother her much. On the second question, it's likely that Palin, Pawlenty, and others had no idea who they were endorsing, but figured, "If Glenn Beck and the GOP base are excited about him, that's good enough for us."
Scozzafava also noted the larger effort to purge the GOP of moderates.
"There is a lot of us who consider ourselves Republicans, of the Party of Lincoln," she said. "If they don't want us with them, we're going to work against them."
"The Washington Post ran a...piece today on Dede Scozzafava and the events that led her to drop out of the congressional race in New York's 23rd, and soon after, endorse her Democratic opponent. Of particular interest was the disappointment she feels about high-profile members of her own party endorsing Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.
"How can Sarah Palin come out and endorse someone who can't answer some basic questions," Scozzafava asked. "Do these people even know who they are endorsing?"
Well, on the first question, since Sarah Palin can't answer some basic questions either, I suspect Hoffman's ignorance didn't bother her much. On the second question, it's likely that Palin, Pawlenty, and others had no idea who they were endorsing, but figured, "If Glenn Beck and the GOP base are excited about him, that's good enough for us."
Scozzafava also noted the larger effort to purge the GOP of moderates.
"There is a lot of us who consider ourselves Republicans, of the Party of Lincoln," she said. "If they don't want us with them, we're going to work against them."
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Republican Happy Horse Dung On Healthcare
TW: I have been pounding the table since Obama took office about folks needing to participate in solutions rather than just bitching. The Republicans have adopted an electoral strategy of nearly blind opposition. I am passionate about health care reform and in particular universal care. The Republicans have stated repeatedly that they would offer alternatives, the latest is cynical schmutz. It practically ignores universal care whilst trumpeting tired old saws about limiting medical malpractice liability and allegedly cutting costs for the "average" folk.
Their plan would cover 5% of the folks currently without care, "save" $5 billion a year in malpractive liability and maybe (assuming all of their own highly dubious projections were accurate) save the "average" folk a small fraction of the massive increases everyone faces in medical costs over the coming years. Things like mandating coverage for folks with pre-existing conditions etc. ignored.
This is a lame ploy to claim they are trying when they are most definitely not. Their entire bill amounts to about $6 billion a year. We spend that every two weeks in Iraq. This is a multi-trillion issue for those with serious intentions not hollow populist rhetoric.
From Politico:
The House Republicans health care plan only provides coverage to 3 million uninsured Americans, about 33 million less than the Democrats bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The GOP alternative, which has no chance of becoming law, would leave about 52 million Americans without coverage.
Republicans sought to lower premiums for the most Americans possible while covering far fewer uninsured Americans because they wanted to keep the costs down. They also chose not to end insurance industry practices that discriminate against the sick or the most expensive to insure in order to keep premiums low.
And it looks like they achieved that goal, according to the CBO; the Republican legislation would cost $61 billion over the next 10 years - nearly $1 trillion less than the Democrats' bill - and cut the deficit by $68 billion over its first decade.
The Republicans also save nearly $50 billion over the next decade by creating new restrictions in medical liability lawsuits.
But perhaps the most important number the GOP will are tout are those that show the plan would lower insurance premiums for many Americans. CBO estimates that the average premiums for small group plans, which includes companies with roughly fewer than 50 employees, would decrease by 7 to 10 percent by 2016. Premiums in the individual market would decline by 5 to 8 percent. While employees with bigger companies would only see a slight decrease..."
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Republicans_only_cover_3_million_uninsured.html
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent. But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder..."
Their plan would cover 5% of the folks currently without care, "save" $5 billion a year in malpractive liability and maybe (assuming all of their own highly dubious projections were accurate) save the "average" folk a small fraction of the massive increases everyone faces in medical costs over the coming years. Things like mandating coverage for folks with pre-existing conditions etc. ignored.
This is a lame ploy to claim they are trying when they are most definitely not. Their entire bill amounts to about $6 billion a year. We spend that every two weeks in Iraq. This is a multi-trillion issue for those with serious intentions not hollow populist rhetoric.
From Politico:
The House Republicans health care plan only provides coverage to 3 million uninsured Americans, about 33 million less than the Democrats bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"The GOP alternative, which has no chance of becoming law, would leave about 52 million Americans without coverage.
Republicans sought to lower premiums for the most Americans possible while covering far fewer uninsured Americans because they wanted to keep the costs down. They also chose not to end insurance industry practices that discriminate against the sick or the most expensive to insure in order to keep premiums low.
And it looks like they achieved that goal, according to the CBO; the Republican legislation would cost $61 billion over the next 10 years - nearly $1 trillion less than the Democrats' bill - and cut the deficit by $68 billion over its first decade.
The Republicans also save nearly $50 billion over the next decade by creating new restrictions in medical liability lawsuits.
But perhaps the most important number the GOP will are tout are those that show the plan would lower insurance premiums for many Americans. CBO estimates that the average premiums for small group plans, which includes companies with roughly fewer than 50 employees, would decrease by 7 to 10 percent by 2016. Premiums in the individual market would decline by 5 to 8 percent. While employees with bigger companies would only see a slight decrease..."
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Republicans_only_cover_3_million_uninsured.html
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent. But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder..."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Doug Hoffman Summarizes the Current State Of His Party
TW: This is Republican/Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman's website missive:
"I'm running for Congress because I sense the America I love is being taken away from us. I want to tell Washington: No more bailouts. No more taxes. No more trillion dollar deficits. That's what I'm fighting for...My opponents are a liberal Republican who voted for gay marriage (twice) and was endorsed by ACORN. And a Nancy Pelosi Democrat...In 1980, I helped Lake Placid with our Olympics when the US beat the Russians in hockey – the same year Reagan was elected. It’s time to send Washington a new message now."
TW: The above is his entire message (but for inserts asking for money). The "liberal Republican" has now dropped out. This guy will likely be elected in a the strongly Republican 23rd district in upstate NY. What does the message say in not so many words:
1) he is afraid...of what is not spelled out but I suspect it is the fact the Ozzie and Harriett days are over, which scares many folks
2) No bailout and taxes and he would suggest what as an alternative? This is the Hooverian B.S. which if actually implemented would really create an economic crap storm.
3) Gay marriage-"ooo gay people ick"
4) And by god I worked on the Olympics when we beat those damn COMMIES.
It is all fun to bitch about deficits and fret about change and lament that the world is changing but where are the solutions? WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
"I'm running for Congress because I sense the America I love is being taken away from us. I want to tell Washington: No more bailouts. No more taxes. No more trillion dollar deficits. That's what I'm fighting for...My opponents are a liberal Republican who voted for gay marriage (twice) and was endorsed by ACORN. And a Nancy Pelosi Democrat...In 1980, I helped Lake Placid with our Olympics when the US beat the Russians in hockey – the same year Reagan was elected. It’s time to send Washington a new message now."
TW: The above is his entire message (but for inserts asking for money). The "liberal Republican" has now dropped out. This guy will likely be elected in a the strongly Republican 23rd district in upstate NY. What does the message say in not so many words:
1) he is afraid...of what is not spelled out but I suspect it is the fact the Ozzie and Harriett days are over, which scares many folks
2) No bailout and taxes and he would suggest what as an alternative? This is the Hooverian B.S. which if actually implemented would really create an economic crap storm.
3) Gay marriage-"ooo gay people ick"
4) And by god I worked on the Olympics when we beat those damn COMMIES.
It is all fun to bitch about deficits and fret about change and lament that the world is changing but where are the solutions? WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Newt Gingrich: Too Liberal For the Repubs?
TW: Continuing on the theme from Monday' post, the Republicans are amidst the internal soulsearching common amongst tired, out of power parties (see Dems 1968-1992). The NY 23 race promises all upside for the Dems- if the conservative wins then the Palineolithic wing will be ascendent and hopefully well on its way to marginalizing the overall party. If the Dem wins, the Dems get an extra vote until giving the seat up next year.
The Newtster endorsed the actual Republican party candidate in NY 23, hence he is now subject to abuse from the Palineolithic wing. When the Newtster has become a "RINO"/too liberal, one should know Palineolithic wing has jumped the shark.
From Taegen Goddard:
"Since former House Speaker Newt Gingrich floated the idea of running for president over the weekend, the backlash from conservatives has been breathtaking. Combined with the reaction to his endorsement of the Republican in the NY-23 special election race over the Conservative Party candidate, it's clear Gingrich -- once the firebrand of the right -- is now considered a moderate.
Michele Malkin: "The conservative base is wising up and pushing back. And constantly invoking Reagan isn't going to erase the damage Gingrich has done to his brand over the years by wavering on core issues and teaming up with some of the Left's biggest clowns."
Dan Riehl: "Unless someone got the nomination and picked Newt for VP, there's no way I see him as viable. I don't think he'd make it through a Republican Primary given some of his stances over the years."
David Keene: "The fact of the matter is -- and I happen to like Newt personally -- he's a Republican gladiator, not a conservative. He's done a lot of good for conservatives. His ideas tend to be conservative. But Newt's a Republican first."
Atlantic Wire: "The man who led the GOP to a 1994 revival is now dismissed being by some on the right as a RINO -- Republican In Name Only. "
The Newtster endorsed the actual Republican party candidate in NY 23, hence he is now subject to abuse from the Palineolithic wing. When the Newtster has become a "RINO"/too liberal, one should know Palineolithic wing has jumped the shark.
From Taegen Goddard:
"Since former House Speaker Newt Gingrich floated the idea of running for president over the weekend, the backlash from conservatives has been breathtaking. Combined with the reaction to his endorsement of the Republican in the NY-23 special election race over the Conservative Party candidate, it's clear Gingrich -- once the firebrand of the right -- is now considered a moderate.
Michele Malkin: "The conservative base is wising up and pushing back. And constantly invoking Reagan isn't going to erase the damage Gingrich has done to his brand over the years by wavering on core issues and teaming up with some of the Left's biggest clowns."
Dan Riehl: "Unless someone got the nomination and picked Newt for VP, there's no way I see him as viable. I don't think he'd make it through a Republican Primary given some of his stances over the years."
David Keene: "The fact of the matter is -- and I happen to like Newt personally -- he's a Republican gladiator, not a conservative. He's done a lot of good for conservatives. His ideas tend to be conservative. But Newt's a Republican first."
Atlantic Wire: "The man who led the GOP to a 1994 revival is now dismissed being by some on the right as a RINO -- Republican In Name Only. "
Monday, October 26, 2009
Republicans=Democrats(circa 1980's)?
TW: I posted on this theme shortly after last year's elections. The Dems lost their coalition post 1964 and fought mainly amongst themselves for the next 25 years before tacking decisively towards the center with Bill Clinton et al. In the mean time but for the Watergate imbroglio bringing in Carter the party would have been out of the White House for that entire time. These shifts take time, the incumbents want to return to the good old days and the ideologues do what ideologues always do push for even more ideological purity.
The Republicans may benefit electorally over the next few years from temporary exogenous events (severe economic recessions, terror attacks etc.) but will have to re-define a more moderate positioning in order to re-gain broad power.
The kerfuffle in the upstate NY 23rd district special election is a great metaphor. The district is solid red but the Republicans have split between a centrist and an ideologue (running as a 3rd party candidate) such that the Dem may win (understanding if the Dem does win next month, the Dem will likely lose next year in the next general election when he likely faces only one Republican).
From Josh Marshall at TPM:
"Michael Smerconish, the Philly-based radio talk show host, has a column in the Inquirer today arguing that the GOP needs to seriously restructure its primary system in order to have any hope of nominating a potentially winning candidate in 2012 as opposed to one that will appeal to the party's base and ideological purists. His suggestions include regional primaries, moving up the dates of some high-population swing states, giving more of a stay to New England or key Western states, even giving more power to party bosses who have an institutional/professional interest in winning in addition to ideological aspirations.
On its face, it all makes a decent amount of sense if your angle is getting more electable Republicans. What struck me more though is how the arguments could have been lifted almost verbatim from the same conversation going on among Democrats through the 1970s and 1980s. Almost word for word, with the exception of the West and Northeast possibly playing the role of the South for the Dems in decades past. That strikes me as the most revealing thing about it.
The Republicans may benefit electorally over the next few years from temporary exogenous events (severe economic recessions, terror attacks etc.) but will have to re-define a more moderate positioning in order to re-gain broad power.
The kerfuffle in the upstate NY 23rd district special election is a great metaphor. The district is solid red but the Republicans have split between a centrist and an ideologue (running as a 3rd party candidate) such that the Dem may win (understanding if the Dem does win next month, the Dem will likely lose next year in the next general election when he likely faces only one Republican).
From Josh Marshall at TPM:
"Michael Smerconish, the Philly-based radio talk show host, has a column in the Inquirer today arguing that the GOP needs to seriously restructure its primary system in order to have any hope of nominating a potentially winning candidate in 2012 as opposed to one that will appeal to the party's base and ideological purists. His suggestions include regional primaries, moving up the dates of some high-population swing states, giving more of a stay to New England or key Western states, even giving more power to party bosses who have an institutional/professional interest in winning in addition to ideological aspirations.
On its face, it all makes a decent amount of sense if your angle is getting more electable Republicans. What struck me more though is how the arguments could have been lifted almost verbatim from the same conversation going on among Democrats through the 1970s and 1980s. Almost word for word, with the exception of the West and Northeast possibly playing the role of the South for the Dems in decades past. That strikes me as the most revealing thing about it.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)
TW: David Halberstam was one of my favorite authors- "Best and the Brightest" and "The Teammates" amongst several others. Am reading "The Coldest Winter" which examines the Korean War and the surrounding period. Came across a passage that resonates pretty profoundly relative to today's political environment. Understand as well the book was written in 2006 and Halberstam tragically died in an auto accident the following year (he was not young 72, but I bet he had 4 or 5 more good books left in him, a real loss). Hence, Halberstam would not have been familiar with the tea-baggers or for that matter only vaguely aware of Barack Obama.
The context of the passage relates to the division in the 1940's Republican Party between their Eastern elite wing (the old Rockefeller Republicans) and their populist Midwestern base (recalling at the time the South was still heavily "Democratic" or more accurately Dixiecratic).
From "The Coldest Winter":
"...the Republican Party was badly split, caught in divisions that were deep, unhealable and profoundly geographic. Part of its leadership represented a wing of the traditional internationalist elite, reflecting the views of Wall Street...financiers...
...the other wing of the Republican Party was very different: it was essentially more grassroots; it reflected old, abiding, small-town America...
These feelings were rooted primarily in the Midwest, where among the governing circles in many small towns and cities there was a fundamental hatred of almost everything Roosevelt was doing on the domestic scene, of his New Deal, which these critics passionately believed was, to use their favored word, socialistic...
...the small-town...wing, the people who knew that they were the real Republicans and that the party should be theirs, and that their values were the truer ones because they were the more American ones..."
TW: This wing of the Republican Party of the 1940's eventually married up with the Dixiecrats, adherents within the growing Sunbelt and some disenchanted Democrats to create a majority in the 1980's. But now the old divisions threaten to hive the party again.
The context of the passage relates to the division in the 1940's Republican Party between their Eastern elite wing (the old Rockefeller Republicans) and their populist Midwestern base (recalling at the time the South was still heavily "Democratic" or more accurately Dixiecratic).
From "The Coldest Winter":
"...the Republican Party was badly split, caught in divisions that were deep, unhealable and profoundly geographic. Part of its leadership represented a wing of the traditional internationalist elite, reflecting the views of Wall Street...financiers...
...the other wing of the Republican Party was very different: it was essentially more grassroots; it reflected old, abiding, small-town America...
These feelings were rooted primarily in the Midwest, where among the governing circles in many small towns and cities there was a fundamental hatred of almost everything Roosevelt was doing on the domestic scene, of his New Deal, which these critics passionately believed was, to use their favored word, socialistic...
...the small-town...wing, the people who knew that they were the real Republicans and that the party should be theirs, and that their values were the truer ones because they were the more American ones..."
TW: This wing of the Republican Party of the 1940's eventually married up with the Dixiecrats, adherents within the growing Sunbelt and some disenchanted Democrats to create a majority in the 1980's. But now the old divisions threaten to hive the party again.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Opposition v. Bombast
TW: Republican moderate David Frum has been engaged in an online debate with a less moderate conservative David Horowitz relative to the value and impact of Beck and other firebrand populists. As you know I think the Frums of their party make more sense than the Becks wing.
From David Frum at the New Majority blog:
"...Beck is very different even from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. I’ve crossed swords with these other broadcasters for other reasons. I believe that their rage and extremism repel more supporters than they attract. But at least these broadcasters do know a lot about politics and hold considered and coherent worldviews. Beck, by contrast, is a random walk, capable of reaching any outcome...
You challenge me to notice that the “embarrassments to our cause – the shrill, the enraged and the paranoid – who in your mind – seem to be Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and now Glenn Beck” are also our “most powerful and feared and charismatic conservatives.”
I challenge you to notice that all three of these people repel and offend many millions more Americans than they inspire and attract.
Look at the impact of this kind of politics on the three points I itemize above.
(1) If we accept that conservatism will remain a politics that is unacceptable to the young, the urban, and the educated, we will have great difficulty raising the resources and finding the volunteers to fight a recount battle on anything like equal terms. Jon Stewart’s audience will sleep on the floor, five to a room, through an Iowa winter. The Fox audience won’t and can’t.
(2) We lost in 2008 in large part because we had not governed successfully over the previous eight years. More than political tactics, more even than media, what matters in politics is results. If national incomes had grown by 1% a year under George Bush instead of stagnating, Al Franken would have lost in a landslide. Populists like Sarah Palin may excite a TV audience, but they cannot govern. They don’t like it and are not good at it. (That’s why Sarah Palin did not even complete one term in office, let alone run for a second.) Limbaugh and Beck style politics can gain ratings. It will not win re-elections...
I speak out against people like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck because in my estimation they do enormous harm to the causes in which I believe. In my view, the talk-and-Fox complex marginalizes Republicans – and backs us into demagogic and unsustainable political positions.
David, do you really want to abolish the Federal Reserve? Do you think the United States should have allowed Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and other banks to follow Lehman into bankruptcy in October 2008? Do you think that any cuts to Medicare amount to a death panel for grandma? Do you think we can sustain an adequate military – never mind finance future tax reductions – if we allow healthcare to continue rising from its current 16% of GDP to a projected 20% of GDP a decade from now if nothing changes?
I can’t believe you do. And if you don’t believe these things, is it not dangerous to have talk-and Fox whipping a couple of million conservatives into frenzy over things that are not true?
... I believe that their ratings and advertising imperatives are pushing them in a direction fundamentally antithetical to the electoral and governance imperatives of the GOP and the conservative movement..."
http://www.newmajority.com/scorched-earth-conservatives
From David Frum at the New Majority blog:
"...Beck is very different even from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. I’ve crossed swords with these other broadcasters for other reasons. I believe that their rage and extremism repel more supporters than they attract. But at least these broadcasters do know a lot about politics and hold considered and coherent worldviews. Beck, by contrast, is a random walk, capable of reaching any outcome...
You challenge me to notice that the “embarrassments to our cause – the shrill, the enraged and the paranoid – who in your mind – seem to be Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and now Glenn Beck” are also our “most powerful and feared and charismatic conservatives.”
I challenge you to notice that all three of these people repel and offend many millions more Americans than they inspire and attract.
Look at the impact of this kind of politics on the three points I itemize above.
(1) If we accept that conservatism will remain a politics that is unacceptable to the young, the urban, and the educated, we will have great difficulty raising the resources and finding the volunteers to fight a recount battle on anything like equal terms. Jon Stewart’s audience will sleep on the floor, five to a room, through an Iowa winter. The Fox audience won’t and can’t.
(2) We lost in 2008 in large part because we had not governed successfully over the previous eight years. More than political tactics, more even than media, what matters in politics is results. If national incomes had grown by 1% a year under George Bush instead of stagnating, Al Franken would have lost in a landslide. Populists like Sarah Palin may excite a TV audience, but they cannot govern. They don’t like it and are not good at it. (That’s why Sarah Palin did not even complete one term in office, let alone run for a second.) Limbaugh and Beck style politics can gain ratings. It will not win re-elections...
I speak out against people like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck because in my estimation they do enormous harm to the causes in which I believe. In my view, the talk-and-Fox complex marginalizes Republicans – and backs us into demagogic and unsustainable political positions.
David, do you really want to abolish the Federal Reserve? Do you think the United States should have allowed Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and other banks to follow Lehman into bankruptcy in October 2008? Do you think that any cuts to Medicare amount to a death panel for grandma? Do you think we can sustain an adequate military – never mind finance future tax reductions – if we allow healthcare to continue rising from its current 16% of GDP to a projected 20% of GDP a decade from now if nothing changes?
I can’t believe you do. And if you don’t believe these things, is it not dangerous to have talk-and Fox whipping a couple of million conservatives into frenzy over things that are not true?
... I believe that their ratings and advertising imperatives are pushing them in a direction fundamentally antithetical to the electoral and governance imperatives of the GOP and the conservative movement..."
http://www.newmajority.com/scorched-earth-conservatives
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why Reform Is So Hard (cont.)
TW: Micheal Steele's health care speech yesterday epitomizes why reform is so challenging. He combined blind support for the current Medicare program with untrue insinuations about the Dems' program. It is a potent prescription.
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Political Re-Alignment
(click to enlarge images, via 538.com)TW: The above show the movement for the Dems and Republicans by state since the 1994 "Gingrich" election. As we have posited previously the Republicans have become increasingly southern while the Dems have consolidated the northeast whilst growing their base in the mountain states. North Carolina being an exception which has gotten bluer as well.
The tricky part for the Dems is those southern Republican numbers will likely not change too much soon, their base is solid and getting even more conservative. Over time demographics especially related to Hispanics may have a significant impact making some of those states less red .
The Dem inroads in the mountain states and places like NC are precarious and vulnerable to the particularities of current events at the time of the next election. Converting folks disenchanted with W. Bush, Iraq etc. into actual progressive Dems will take some significant work.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Partisan Wide Like It Used To Be
TW: I always like a chart that tracks 100+ years of data. The chart above displays the partisan gap going all the way back to the post Civil War period. One can see partisanship decreasing post WWI and continuing at relatively low levels until the Reagan era at which point the line shoots more or less straight up. I suspect much of the low partisanship during the 1920-1980 period is a function of the "unnatural" alliances between the various factions of Democrats from the South and its traditional urban pockets. Correspondingly the Republicans were far more diverse as well with the old Eastern Rockefeller factions combined with the traditional Midwestern, rural conservatives.Now that the parties have sorted out with less middle ground between the parties but with things like Senate cloture rules requiring compromise, governing has become very slow and pondering. Arguably putting even more power into the hands of lobbyists and entrenched interests which work with DC to create policy below the radar and outside traditional legislation.
Seminal events such as major wars, 9/11, GD 1.0 etc. have always been the impetus for significant governance changes. When those events happen the executive accrues tremendous power which is why it was so damaging to have Bush/Cheney in the WH post 9/11.
Ezra Klein from WaPo frets:
"...we could also agree that this level of polarization makes it virtually impossible to govern in a system that is designed to foil majorities and require a constant three-fifths consensus. It's not good if the country is virtually impossible to govern. Problems don't stop mounting while we try and figure things out. We could respond to this by making it easier for the majority party to govern and thus less likely that we have some sort of massive crisis that totally realigns our politics. I think that's actually less radical than waiting for some calamity to reshape our political system..."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
End Of Life Fearmongers Are the Worst Kind Of Scum
TW: There are few who have not dealt with end of life issues at some level. They are some of the most stressful, ethically wrought and emotional processes with which responsible adults deal.
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".
From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...
I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.
My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.
I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.
I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."
ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Your Quacks Are Worse Than Mine
"I think that the Democrats have got more crazies than the Republicans do"
-- Liz Cheney July 21. 2009
TW: The left has crazies for sure but there is one massive difference. We do not put them forward as the public face of our party. This is not immaterial it is fundamental. Equivalence in this instance is false and misleading.
Folks like Liz Cheney who appears like clockwork on network television not only refuse to distance themselves from whacky crap like "birther" fantasies but rather when confronted with issue try to tie it to a nebulous attack line that Obama "refuses to defend America" (why is unclear although the implied meaning is that he is not "real American enough").
Yes modern media (i.e. the internet and youtube) allow the whackos broader exposure. The antidote though is simple, public distancing of mainstream politicians from the fringe. This is the element missing from the Republican party. To their detriment and ours.
From Washington Monthly:
"...Limbaugh, of course, is obsessed...The absurd Birther bill in Congress continues to pick up support from right-wing lawmakers, including Rep. John Campbell (R) of California, who appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball" yesterday to defend the proposal. (Chris Matthews held up the birth certificate on screen before telling Campbell, "What you're doing is appeasing the nutcases.... [Y]ou're verifying the paranoia out there.")
...Liz Cheney...was on CNN again this week. This time, she told Larry King that the Birthers' efforts are Obama's fault. Asked if she believes this nonsense, Cheney said:
"I think that the Democrats have got more crazies than the Republicans do. But setting that aside, I think that -- you know, one of the reasons I think you see people so concerned about this, I think that, you know, this issue is people are uncomfortable with having, for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas. [...]
"I'm saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable, I think, increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America."
...As for the larger issue, whether they realize it or not, Birthers are probably doing themselves far more harm than good. Sure, they're ginning up some excitement among confused activists who don't know better, but they're also making it seem as if the president's most aggressive detractors are stark raving mad.
Michael Medved, a leading far-right voice, recently referred to the Birthers as "the worst enemy of the conservative movement." He added, "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019176.php
-- Liz Cheney July 21. 2009
TW: The left has crazies for sure but there is one massive difference. We do not put them forward as the public face of our party. This is not immaterial it is fundamental. Equivalence in this instance is false and misleading.
Folks like Liz Cheney who appears like clockwork on network television not only refuse to distance themselves from whacky crap like "birther" fantasies but rather when confronted with issue try to tie it to a nebulous attack line that Obama "refuses to defend America" (why is unclear although the implied meaning is that he is not "real American enough").
Yes modern media (i.e. the internet and youtube) allow the whackos broader exposure. The antidote though is simple, public distancing of mainstream politicians from the fringe. This is the element missing from the Republican party. To their detriment and ours.
From Washington Monthly:
"...Limbaugh, of course, is obsessed...The absurd Birther bill in Congress continues to pick up support from right-wing lawmakers, including Rep. John Campbell (R) of California, who appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball" yesterday to defend the proposal. (Chris Matthews held up the birth certificate on screen before telling Campbell, "What you're doing is appeasing the nutcases.... [Y]ou're verifying the paranoia out there.")
...Liz Cheney...was on CNN again this week. This time, she told Larry King that the Birthers' efforts are Obama's fault. Asked if she believes this nonsense, Cheney said:
"I think that the Democrats have got more crazies than the Republicans do. But setting that aside, I think that -- you know, one of the reasons I think you see people so concerned about this, I think that, you know, this issue is people are uncomfortable with having, for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas. [...]
"I'm saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable, I think, increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America."
...As for the larger issue, whether they realize it or not, Birthers are probably doing themselves far more harm than good. Sure, they're ginning up some excitement among confused activists who don't know better, but they're also making it seem as if the president's most aggressive detractors are stark raving mad.
Michael Medved, a leading far-right voice, recently referred to the Birthers as "the worst enemy of the conservative movement." He added, "It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019176.php
Monday, July 6, 2009
You Reap What You Sow: Tea-Bag Away
TW: This video of TX Senator and pretty darn conservative John Coryn getting grief at this past weekend's tea-bagging event is getting much play. His sin, voting for last Fall's financial bailout (the one that kept your ATM functioning) and not speaking out more vociferously for Hooverite contractionary fiscal policy amidst the Great Contraction. These events speak to the challenge Republicans face if their base is a blood-thirsty, anti-intellectual, unfettered populist (not to mention not very diverse) group of folks, who are merely confused and afraid and grasping at straws. The Republicans cannot really run away from this movement (which Fox is featured daily at the Fox Nation), but to embrace them is cancerous.
And who is the one Republican politician who would achieve rapturous applause at any of these events? I shall not mention her name.
From TPM:
"...The tea party in Boiling Springs, South Carolina, featured a colorful cast of characters. The headline speaker was Alan Keyes, who has been a leading name of the "Birther" movement. Lead organizer Michael Brady came dressed up as Thomas Paine -- who in real life was a left-winger in favor of progressive taxation and opposed to traditional religion. One attendee took out a flyer that said, "Zelaya today, Obama tomorrow," but said he was advocating impeachment of Obama after he was asked directly whether he was in favor of a coup..."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Reproductive Social Issue Continuum
TW: Abortion is a divisive issue, no doubt, with no clear majorities and no readily reconcilable solutions. Issues like stem cell research are controversial but a majority supports the research. Issues like the use of contraceptives and sex education beyond gaga land abstinence propaganda enjoy clear majority support even though loud minorities oppose them on religious grounds.
The challenge for the Republicans is differentiating between the former and the latter. There is a continuum of reproductive and science issues. The Republicans still cannot break loose from some of their core constituents in order to adopt more centrist positions. Folks complained for years about Dems being hamstrung by special interests, the shoe is on the other foot with these issues.
From US News & World Report:
"As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan -- even though they support the abortion reduction part -- because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills."
The challenge for the Republicans is differentiating between the former and the latter. There is a continuum of reproductive and science issues. The Republicans still cannot break loose from some of their core constituents in order to adopt more centrist positions. Folks complained for years about Dems being hamstrung by special interests, the shoe is on the other foot with these issues.
From US News & World Report:
"As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan -- even though they support the abortion reduction part -- because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills."
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Why We Need the Republicans To Improve
TW: I post on the state of the Republicans frequently because I sincerely believe they have become a force of negativity at a time when the U.S. will either begin to exert superior leadership or slowly watch its power wilt. Demographic, natural resource, geographic and leadership strengths led to the 20th century being the American century. Troubles in places like Asia and Europe helped the process.
Now we face resurgent Asia, somnolent Europe and striving South America. Yet the Republicans have become a party of know-nothings and defiantly assume a defensive anti-intellectualism crouch. The Republicans have adopted an oppose Obama at any turn stance. They gripe about any and all economic initiatives while calling for their own Hooverite contractionary programs, nothing Obama does internationally is good as if W. Bush actually advanced our nation's interests over the past eight years as opposed to set them back almost a generation.
I will acknowledge the Dems left the rails in the late 60's and 70's, it was time of some adjustments. But that was FORTY years ago. Beating the same drums gets very old and more importantly ineffective. The Republicans figured out cutting taxes WITHOUT cutting government services was an electoral gold mine, it was also like injecting heroin into our governmental processes. The patient is now tired and on the verge of terminal illness. Yet they beat the same old drums...
From Economist:
"JONATHAN RAUCH is on fine form in his review of Patrick Alitt's The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History.
'We know what happens when movements or parties continue to stagger forward after running out of ideas: They become zombies. Zombie parties are a recurrent feature of electoral democracies. Unable to articulate any coherent or workable governing philosophy, they mindlessly jab at cultural hot buttons, mechanically repeat hardwired tropes ("cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes"), nurse tribal resentments, ostracize independent thinkers. Above all, they feel positively proud of their doggedness. You can’t talk them out of it. Think of the Republicans in the FDR years, the Democrats in the Reagan years, the British Labour Party in the Thatcher period, and the British Conservative Party in the Blair period. Think of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party for most of the past half-century, or France’s Socialists today. To get a new brain, zombie parties usually need to spend years out of power or wait until a new generation rises to leadership.'
Mr Rauch argues that America's conservatives will never recover, as a serious governing force, until they abandon their sundry illusions about small government. Here he is on the idea that tax cuts shrink government:
'This idea has had the great political merit of uniting supply-siders who never saw a tax cut they didn’t like, libertarians who want to shrink the government, and fiscal traditionalists who oppose deficits. But the past several decades have disproved it. When tax cuts increase deficits (that is, when they are not balanced by spending cuts), they reduce government’s apparent cost. They put government on sale, so to speak. When something goes on sale, people want more of it, and government is no exception. Instead of reducing the supply of government, unbalanced tax-cutting has increased the demand for it.'
Well said, again. But why does almost all the interesting thinking about conservatism these days come from outside the conservative movement?"
Now we face resurgent Asia, somnolent Europe and striving South America. Yet the Republicans have become a party of know-nothings and defiantly assume a defensive anti-intellectualism crouch. The Republicans have adopted an oppose Obama at any turn stance. They gripe about any and all economic initiatives while calling for their own Hooverite contractionary programs, nothing Obama does internationally is good as if W. Bush actually advanced our nation's interests over the past eight years as opposed to set them back almost a generation.
I will acknowledge the Dems left the rails in the late 60's and 70's, it was time of some adjustments. But that was FORTY years ago. Beating the same drums gets very old and more importantly ineffective. The Republicans figured out cutting taxes WITHOUT cutting government services was an electoral gold mine, it was also like injecting heroin into our governmental processes. The patient is now tired and on the verge of terminal illness. Yet they beat the same old drums...
From Economist:
"JONATHAN RAUCH is on fine form in his review of Patrick Alitt's The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History.
'We know what happens when movements or parties continue to stagger forward after running out of ideas: They become zombies. Zombie parties are a recurrent feature of electoral democracies. Unable to articulate any coherent or workable governing philosophy, they mindlessly jab at cultural hot buttons, mechanically repeat hardwired tropes ("cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes"), nurse tribal resentments, ostracize independent thinkers. Above all, they feel positively proud of their doggedness. You can’t talk them out of it. Think of the Republicans in the FDR years, the Democrats in the Reagan years, the British Labour Party in the Thatcher period, and the British Conservative Party in the Blair period. Think of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party for most of the past half-century, or France’s Socialists today. To get a new brain, zombie parties usually need to spend years out of power or wait until a new generation rises to leadership.'
Mr Rauch argues that America's conservatives will never recover, as a serious governing force, until they abandon their sundry illusions about small government. Here he is on the idea that tax cuts shrink government:
'This idea has had the great political merit of uniting supply-siders who never saw a tax cut they didn’t like, libertarians who want to shrink the government, and fiscal traditionalists who oppose deficits. But the past several decades have disproved it. When tax cuts increase deficits (that is, when they are not balanced by spending cuts), they reduce government’s apparent cost. They put government on sale, so to speak. When something goes on sale, people want more of it, and government is no exception. Instead of reducing the supply of government, unbalanced tax-cutting has increased the demand for it.'
Well said, again. But why does almost all the interesting thinking about conservatism these days come from outside the conservative movement?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)