Plunging Towards Gomorrah
Posts tagged Republican
Charlie “The Ego” Crist
Apr 29th
Charlie Crist, we love you because you represent everything we hate about politicians. Your political career isn’t about the people, it’s about you and your enormous ego. You’re not a Democrat, you’re not a Republican, and you’re certainly not an Independent. You should start the Crist Party. No one would be invited and no one would mind.
It's better to burn out than fade away... sometimes.
what up with the tea party?
Jan 5th
I haven’t written very much about the much publicized Tea Party movement, mostly due to the fact that it’s a rather faceless mob. The Republican establishment isn’t fueling it. In fact, the GOP elite look down their nose at the angry mob. The Democrats consider anyone to the right of Tom Harkin a wingnut. It’s not surprising that centrist Democrats are fleeing into the open arms of the GOP. The Tea Party types are really asking for change.
The Tea Partiers are united by what they opposed. What do they oppose? Well, practically everything, but that’s not the entire story. A growing segment of Americans are sick and tired of lying politicians who are absolutely corrupt. They’re fed up with all the spending. New York Times columnist David Brook believes there’s a rift between the educated class and the public. The educated class is a bit broad, but there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the ideas of the elite.
Why shouldn’t the public be skeptical? The so-called elites are always of full of ideas born in some abstract backwater far removed from reality, but that doesn’t mean that any of them are any good. Free food for the entire population is a great idea. Well, until you try to figure out how to do it or pay for it. The educated class has been great at coming up with ideas we can’t afford. The American middle class has paid for all these forays into Utopia. Here’s Brook’s take on the Tea Party’s future:
The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.
Over the course of this year, the Tea Party movement will probably be transformed. Right now it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.
There a plenty of political scenarios in play here. I’ll play prognosticator. In the short run (2010) Republicans will benefit from the anti-government fever. The Tea Party will remain rather faceless until we move further into the year. I don’t know who will ultimately rise out of the chaos, but someone will try to attach themselves to the movement. 2012 could be a disaster for the GOP. The Democrats will be united behind Obama. If not, they’ll be united behind whoever the party nominates for election. I doubt the GOP embraces the Tea Party. They’re outsiders and the Republican hierarchy will reject it. The Tea Party could be Ross Perot on steroids. Unless there’s some kind of amazing groundswell of support, I can’t see a third-party candidate winning. Ultimately, a strong Tea Party candidate only siphons votes from the GOP.
In the long run the Tea Party movement could mean the end of the GOP as it exists today. It also (despite widespread ridicule from the left) may represent the only chance at real change being offered in politics. The Democrats are for more of the same. The Republicans are opposed to the status quo but are unwilling to do anything. Perhaps this is the answer of the Progressive Era.
off-year election wrapup
Nov 4th
Here’s my quick take on the elections yesterday. Virginia is a red state again. The race for governor was a blow out. In New Jersey the Republican defeated the highly unpopular incumbent and in New York the Democrat won the special election for the House. What does it all mean?
Without Obama on the ticket it’s tough to get the Democrat base out to vote. Democrats will not be successful in battleground states if their party is perceived as the tax and spend party. The GOP is a joke. They picked Dede Scozzafava to run in the special election in New York and when she dropped out she endorsed the Democrat. If the GOP had picked Hoffman there’s a better chance he would have won. It says a lot about what the choices facing voters in the Northeast. They can either pick a Democrat or a Republican who is actually a Democrat.
New Jersey is purely a local election. Republican Chris Christie defeated incumbent John Corzine because New Jersey is a corrupt mess. I’ll stick with what I said on Monday. There’s not much to learn from an election like this, but the nation is looking more like 2004 than 2008,
tim pawlenty for president: doa
Oct 1st
Maybe someday I’ll look back at what I’m about to write and say, “Wow! I was completely wrong about that one!” Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will never be elected President of the United States. The Governor is currently and foolishly putting a team together to run in 2012, but he shouldn’t bother. Whoever put the story together over at POLITICO couldn’t even bother to find a decent picture of the Governor.
There’s a very superficial angle to presidential politics. Pawlenty looks like a Republican John Kerry to me. He’s the type of guy you nominate when you know there’s not an Atlanta Braves making the playoffs chance of winning. Pawlenty’s problems aren’t his politics. He just lacks charisma. He’s not the type of candidate you get excited about when he speaks, or writes, or generally shows up for anything. His speech at the RNC, for instance, was the miracle cure for insomnia modern medicine has been looking for all these years.
Is this a fair way of determining who should be President? No, but I’m not going to ignore reality. Abraham Lincoln may have been a dull person, but we’ll never really know since there’s no film from those days. The content of his rhetoric, however, was amazing. In those days that was enough. With the advent TV and the 24/7 news cycle charisma counts. President Obama was elected primarily based on his charisma and his race; Pawlenty has neither of these traits going for him.
The 2012 election is still a long way off, but the jockeying is already starting. Republicans do not have a lot of talent on the bench so it’s going to be difficult for a newcomer to come out of nowhere like Obama. Obama benefited from press adoration years before making a run. Abraham Lincoln could be resurrected from the dead and run for President again, and still the press would label him a racist member of the extreme right. It’s not going to be easy road running against Obama, especially if you’re Tim Pawlenty.
Glen Beck: A Wise Man Once Said Nothing
Sep 21st
I don’t like Glen Beck. There, I said it. He’s an emotional, populist, conspiracy-believing talking head who’s not helping the debate in the United States. Beck isn’t a conservative and his on-air style isn’t good for Americans. I’m not the only conservative who shares this opinion. Peter Wehner has a great piece on Beck and he hits all the right points.
He [Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements–for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”-are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger–the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.
I don’t share Wehner’s opinion about Beck as a libertarian, but everything else is correct. Simply labeling Beck a right wing fanatic is a dangerous tactic and it only feeds his rhetoric. The public is becoming more and more disenchanted with the Democrat and Republican parties, and the rise of Beck is partly because of this trend. I for one, don’t care what the babbling man has to say about any topic.
american angst
Sep 21st
The past two months have been difficult for the Obama administration. The White House has learned that Americans still do not trust the government. Well, maybe “learned” is too strong. I’m not sure the White House gets it. However, the conventional wisdom about the 2008 election is starting to shift. Originally, the election was the “end of conservatism.” Bush’s unpopularity created an unfair perception that the United States had moved to the left. Liberals so blinded by partisanship didn’t realize that Bush wasn’t conservative.
Most of Bush’s domestic agenda was opposed by mainstream conservatives. The National Review opposed No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill, the creation of Department of Homeland Security, and the immigration amnesty bill. Conservatives have been appalled by the spending spree in Washington. Americans were appalled as well. The Democrats who won swing districts in 2006 ran as conservatives. They didn’t promise government health care. They promised to reduce the debt.
The growing angst in America comes from the fact that President Obama seems unconcerned about reducing our debt. Instead of tackling Medicare and Social Security the President wants to burden the nation with costly climate change and health care bills. After promising more transparency and less pork, the stimulus package the President signed is a perfect example of government waste.
Obama successful tapped into the American angst with Washington when he ran for President, but he’s been unwilling to reduce the size and scope of government. I’ve never seen so much angst with Washington. Obama had a tremendous opportunity to lead the nation toward real change, but instead he represents the problem. Obama is a more liberal version of Bush. Conservatives and independents didn’t like the first version and they’ll hate the second version.
Who can successfully represent America? The Republicans don’t have anyone that I see on the horizon. A lot can change over the next few years, but there’s a huge opportunity for a new leader to connect to Americans in a very dramatic way.
will obama change?
Sep 2nd
The following headline from CNN caught my attention: “Obama considers major speech on health care, aide says.” How many “major speeches” has the President given so far? What has he said that’s remotely memorable? “Hope,” “change,” and “yes we can” might be memorable, but they’re not exactly full of substance. For the past two months the President has campaigned for health care. On September 9th he’s going to give a speech before Congress. During his campaign he’s continued to mislead the public about the health care plans on the table. What can the President possibly say at this point that’s going to change the debate?
This is the first true test of Obama’s young presidency. Will President Obama take a stand? Will he say something specific? Will he tell Congress what he wants? The two biggest achievements this year for the White House have been the stimulus package that turned into a colossal pork bill and the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. Neither one of these were very popular with the American people. Americans are ready for sensible reform to health care, but the President seems opposed and aloof when it comes to debating real change.
Obama is ready to give a new speech on health care. This time he really means business.
During the campaign Obama promised to take on the special interests and stand up for the little guy, but here we are barely eight months into Obama’s presidency and he’s taken tort reform off the table. Obama doesn’t want to take on the trial lawyers in his own party because he’s just another ordinary politician who is more concerned with his party than with the American people. If you’ve anointed yourself as some kind of “different” politician and you fail to deliver it’s bad for business.
Then there’s the promise of bipartisanship that was a crucial part of the Obama Unicorn. I say Unicorn because it’s mythical creature that no one believes is real, kind of like my generation’s chance of receiving Social Security. Actually, there’s a better chance that Unicorns are real than the chance I ever receive a check for Social Security. With a super majority in both the House and the Senate one would think that demonizing the opposition wouldn’t be a priority. But apparently it is, and is part and parcel with this new era of change and hope that was supposed to change America’s bitter politics and gap the political divide forever in a land called Honah Lee:
Another administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity when discussing strategy, said the new phase was “driven in part by the actions of some in the GOP,” including Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The official added the White House believes those actions indicate that these two key Republicans, who are part of a bipartisan group negotiating a health care bill, “are essentially walking away from the table.”
This isn’t news to me, but the Democrat definition of bipartisanship means shut up and agree with them. What else can be gathered from that quote above? What sane Republican (if there are any in Washington) would agree to any of the terrible ideas being thrown about in Congress? The sad reality is that the Congress will likely pass some kind of watered down compromise bill that won’t make the left happy, won’t help, and will make things worse. It won’t matter because, politically at least, Obama will have his “health care reform.” We’ve seen this before; it was called the Prescription Drug Bill passed by President Bush. It’s funny how much change looks the same.
souter: cnn’s favorite moderate
May 1st
CNN has written a preposterous profile on Justice Souter. Things start going downhill with the headline: Souter known as low-key, fierce defender of individual rights. According to whom? I guess this works If the individual is a member of the government trying to seize someone’s property for tax purposes or a woman trying to suck the brains out her baby in the third trimester. Souter voted with the liberal bloc on almost every issue, but this is how CNN sums up his tenure.
Souter was in many ways a typical, old-fashioned Yankee Republican — a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak. Whether he became more liberal in his views after joining the Supreme Court, as many conservatives believe, may depend on your politics.
Ah, it’s the old “independent streak” farce that journalists love. Since 80% of journalists vote consistently for Democrats the idea of “independence” means fleeing from conservative ideals. The court was tilted to the left when Souter was appointed. I’m not sure how siding with the liberal bloc provides Souter with a mythical independent streak. Does CNN also believe that the British Empire fought for independence during the American Revolution? Was Benedict Arnold just “a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak?” Souter’s political ideology is evident since he waited to retire after Bush was out of office. Souter hates Washington, but he loves the liberal bloc more.
Whether Arnold became a traitor during the war, as many Americans believe, may depend on your politics
If Obama nominates a “moderate” Justice (I know it’s impossible, but humor me) who later repeals Roe v. Wade, does anyone believe that will be considered “independent” by the sophists at CNN? More likely CNN would paint this person as a cowardly traitor who can’t conjure up an original thought and who followed the extreme Roberts side of the court. Souter’s place on the court isn’t up for much debate except, apparently, at CNN.
It’s been an interesting week in politics. Obama held a press conference in honor of his 100th day in office. The man loves himself. Senator Specter changed parties and there’s been a lot written about the “big tent” of the republican party losing another member. Although it’s a bit of stretch because Specter has never really been a strong member of the caucus. It’s amazing republicans put up with him for so long. Compare Specter to how the Democrats treated Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a solid liberal in the Senate. His only crime is supporting the war. I guess the “big tent” didn’t have room for him. The idea that the left is more tolerant than the right is nonsense, but as long as the mainstream press is liberal these are the faux realties we have to deal with as conservatives.
selective history from a liberal historian
Mar 18th
For today’s CNN commentary they found a historian to talk about the size of the federal government. The headline is “GOP’s “small government” talk is hollow” and it’s written by left wing partisan historian Julian E. Zelizer. Why do I say he’s partisan? Well, I know nothing about the guy, but there’s one phrase in the “commentary” that’s revealing.
The right-wing CATO Institute published a report noting that total government spending had grown by 33 percent in President Bush’s first term, lamenting that “President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.”
Ah, the “right-wing CATO Institute” tells me everything I need to know about the political perspective of Zelizer. While CATO is right leaning it’s mostly a libertarian think tank that was harsh on many of Bush’s policies. Zelizer does a great job explaining why the past eight years were anything but smaller government, but then tries to argue that Americans don’t want it.
Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power. The rhetoric of small government has helped Republicans attract some support in the past, but it is hard to take such rhetoric seriously given the historical record — and it is a now a question whether this rhetoric is even appealing since many Americans want government to help them cope with the current crisis.
If polls are any indication a majority of Americans are still in favor of a smaller and less intrusive government. The only reason Republicans keep beating this drum is because they have seen the poll numbers. Unfortunately as this article indicates Republicans have been unwilling to pursue less government. There are a few reasons for this, but the Republicans have never had a large enough majority in Congress to implement any real change. It’s also not really clear Bush was ever serious about limited government. Zelizer also throws in this non-sequitur into the piece about Richard Nixon.
All of these presidents, particularly Nixon and Reagan, likewise promoted a muscular vision of presidential power that strengthened the authority of government and introduced concepts, such as the unitary executive, which would become the intellectual underpinning of the Bush administration.
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” Nixon told David Frost in 1977. Like it or not, strengthening the presidency is one of the most important ways in which the role of government has grown since the nation’s founding.
Other than proving he’s fan of the movie Frost/Nixon Zelizer’s point about a more powerful executive branch is lacking. I won’t even bother going into the details about the context of Nixon’s quote which the shallow masses fail to understand (Yes, Zelizer you’re included). An argument can be made that every president promotes a “muscular vision” of presidential power. In Al Gore’s case even a “muscular vision” of vice presidential power. It seems like a historian could offer a better example than a “political perception” but that’s the state of education in America. For Zelizer a simple belief must be factual. The truth is after Nixon the executive branch isn’t as powerful. After Watergate Congress weakened the power of the executive branch.
Just one side note I find it fascinating that scholarly types like Zelizer would promote the idea that Bush and Reagan presided over an extremely power executive branch. While I understand politicians and partisans are going to make gross exaggerations it’s puzzling that someone who works as a historian would so causally distort history. While Nixon remains the clearest example of abuse of power (mainly due to the Watergate cover-up) historians like Zelizer have glossed over the gross abuse of power that took place during the Johnson administration. Among other things president Johnson used the FBI to monitor the Goldwater campaign during the 1964 election. Johnson was ruthless. Historians rank LBJ as a top ten president despite his abuses of power, war on poverty, and starting a war that ultimately killed over 50,000 Americans. I guess “dismal failure” depends on how you look at things.
generalizing the south
Mar 4th
I stumbled across a blog entry titled Why The South Bleeds Republican Red looking through Digg. This blog entry is so insulting I find it necessary to take on the rank arrogance of its assertions. Here’s a sample of some of the wild generalizations going on in this “analysis.”
Deep in the Southerner’s psyche is a desire for the past: a romantic, “Gone With The Wind” past, a past where the slaves were happy and knew their place, a past where slave owners were kind and generous – a past that never existed. I was raised in the lower class. We never owned a house and it took ten years to finally pay off our one car. But even I have felt the tug to return to that imagined past.
But ingrained in that false memory is an ugly truth. A return to the way things were means a return to race discrimination. This is the reason not spoken: the fear that people of color will take a position of power. The white Southerners, from plumbers to politicians, are afraid that a black man will take their job, or worse: be their boss.
There you have it. Every southern conservative Republican wants a return to race discrimination. I have lived in the South my entire life (Georgia, NC, and now Florida) and I’m a conservative. The ideas of smaller government and personal liberty do not make me long for the days of racism. I was born in 1979 and have never seen segregation. I’ve lived in an integrated South in college, on baseball teams, and in the Boy Scouts. Blue cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, and the District of Columbia are far more hopeless destinations for minorities than Atlanta, Tampa, and Charlotte.
To get an idea of how ignorant the blog’s assertions are imagine if I tried to argue that all liberals secretly long for an America with Soviet style gulags. In other words, since liberals believe in socialized health care they long for political dissidents to be sent work camps. It’s a straw man argument.
The author also beats the “fear” drum. Which I always find hilarious coming from liberals who seem perpetually worried about Global Warming, health care, and the economy. Fear is a relatively used by both parties to advance their agendas. Obama sold the stimulus plan on the fear that it would help the nation avoid a catastrophe.
