Party like it's 1980!
Friday May 16, 2008
Categories: Republicans
First hubris; now, nemesis. Peggy Noonan wails and gnashes her teeth over the moribund state of the Republican Party. I know just how she feels. Excerpts: They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful, well-connected, busy and...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I think the GOP establishment is incredibly out of touch. In my car I listen to the talk radio guys bashing health care reform, going on and on about "socialism vs. freedom" and they really don't get it. These guys are really rich and just don't have to worry about it I guess. They don't know (or don't remember) what it's like to be in pain and to not be able to afford treatment or medicine. That's why they can talk in abstracts about the issue the way they do. Not that I trust the government to get it right on health care, but at least the Dems are acknowledging that there's a problem. I'd like to see more discussion about possible market-based solutions to the health care problem, but instead we get to hear again about how unpatriotic Michelle Obama is. Enough already.
Double feature now on DVD:
Political Footballs, or, The Bitch Set Me Up (Every Second November)
Starring Charlie Brown as The Disaffected Conservative
And introducing Lucy van Pelt as The Republican Party
You Knew What We Were When You Picked Us Up
Starring The Conservative Voter as the Innocent Sagebrush Traveler
And introducing The Class of '02-'06 (R - Capitol) as The Trust-Us Rattlesnakes
Oh, no, no, no. George Bush IS a Republican. Republicans wanted George Bush and elected him twice - well, once. Bush = Republican and Republican = Bush.
John McCain: Brought to you by the same fine folks that brought you George Bush. You believed what they said about Bush in 2000 and 2004. What makes you believe what they say about McCain in 2008?
Absolutely I agree that the GOP establishment is out of touch. Even the talkers, who go on and on about the "reality" of the economy, etc. DO NOT get that how people perceive the economy is SO much more important than whether we are "technically" in a recession, or whether gas prices are no higher in real terms than 20 years ago, or whether foreclosures account for only a tiny percentage of homes. They are insulated to some degree by their means, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that all Republicans (and honestly, I no longer consider myself one) are not well-to-do, and are impacted by higher prices at the pump and at the grocery store. Moreover, even those of us who do not have a risky mortgage are affected by foreclosures--the assessed value of my home dropped 25% this year because of the multitude of foreclosures in my neighborhood. It makes me FEEL poor--regardless of the "reality." And this is the point that the GOP and the radio talkers just don't get--we aren't interested in "technical" definitions of recession or what have you. We want answers, but government doesn't have them--not Hilary, not Obama, not McCain, all of whom would like us to believe that there is some way to have it all. I won't be voting for either major party candidate in November. Instead, I'll write someone in (Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes), and in the meantime, hunker down and keep my own house in order, and pray that my taxes don't go through the roof to pay for everybody's wish list.
I am a conservative, and recently had lunch with two like-minded friends who I haven't seen in a couple of years.
They both went on and on about Obama, calling him a Muslim and a socialist. Everything they said was a talking point from Fox news or Rush Limbaugh.
I didn't have the heart to tell them that I switched my voter registration solely for the purpose of voting for Obama. (I did the opposite of "operation chaos.")
I honestly want Obama to win, in large part because I believe that the Republican party as it exists now has lost the right to govern. And I see in Obama a deeply thoughtful man, no doubt very liberal, who will govern with wisdom. That's enough for me. And I am certain that many GOPers are like my two friends, not having the slightest idea what's out there beyond their narrow, insular little world.
(Don't get me wrong, I love these guys, and don't mean to sound like I'm superior. I'm just aware of something on the horizon that they don't see yet.)
Tribble,
I agree with your sentiment about Obama. As flawed as he is on a number of issues, he's better than McCain, as it'll symbolize a healthy defeat of Bush and McCain's interventionism, and he'll force the GOP and conservatives to put together a cogent case for itself.
I was talking this past weekend with two old friends from my days in the GOP. Unlike me, they hung in hopes that the incredible anger that was building in the party would dissipate and refocus on some positive solutions. Last week they decided they had waited long enough, and they were ready to leave the party.
One of them told me that he was tired of always hearing the same talking points, over and over, about Obama being a Muslim, Obama being a socialist, etc. Same as you mention, tribble. He lamented that within the state party there is no new idea, no vision, and certainly no plan for the future. There is only anger...lots and lots of anger.
They are not ready to support Obama, not by a long shot. But they are no longer supporting the GOP with their work or their wallets. Both of them are on the county central committee, and are putting in their resignations at the meeting next week.
I wonder how many others in the party share their feelings?
RJohnson:
I don't believe a word of what you just wrote about being an old GOP-er or about your friends on some local GOP central committee that are planning to resign next week. You're full of bull.
I've been reading your stuff the last couple of weeks and you're nothing more than some poorly-paid operative working in the back room at moveon.org or one of these other Soros-financed hit groups.
Stop the pretense. Nobody here is fooled by the left-wing operatives like yourself who are being paid to haunt the blogosphere.
I don't listen to talk radio, so I don't know who's calling Obama a Muslim. All the right-wing web sites I frequent have gone to great pains to say that he's NOT a Muslim, and that anyone saying that is a liar and cheat. It's a little like after 9/11, when there were far more people decrying anti-Muslim violence than there were committing any.
But is he a socialist? Of course he is. The Democratic party is firmly socialist; just read the party platform, or look at the bills its members push. Of course, the Republicans are fairly socialist themselves, say maybe an 8 on a ten-point scale on which the Dems are a 10, so it's hard to see much difference sometimes.
I agree, in college I switched from being more liberal to being conservative, and so joined the college Republicans, I am still on their e-mail list and so recieve all the campaign stuff and yes it is depressing,the main thing that I am weary of is the stay the course on the war stuff and how the Democrats are "The Party of Defeat", which sometimes they may be, but with Iraq that is not honest. I was weary of the Iraq war from the get go, we are losing because it was a ill concieved,utopian act of idiocy, we are not losing because the Democrats aren't rallying hard enough around the flag. Wilsonian democracy crusades are crap, and the Repubs. must renounce that crap.
Yeah the surge ,may be working,but for how long and at what cost, we put out one fire in Iraq and another flares up. Nobody stops and looks at the big picture. Iraq is a nasty place and eventually is going to have a civil war, we can't stop. It was going to happen when Saddam passed anyway, we where just dumb enough to be the ones to do it and ourselves trapped in the tar pit that is Iraq.
And as for the economy, I can't take another G-d*^# lecture from Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Medved about hard work and how America is the greatest country on earth,blah-blah, and how people who whine about the economy are all just whiny leeches who have been brain washed with liberal victimology, who need to suck it up and work harder. The Democrats are going to destroy the Repubs. over this.Rush's buddies have systematically looted the American economy and cut down alot of the ladders for upward mobility. Yes hard work and responsibility is key, but all that doesn't really matter when there are few ,to no good paying jobs or opportunities anymore for a lot of people. In this regard of destroying Middle Class America.Mc Cain is merely Bush part deux. Nothing like looter class millionaires,exhorting the peasentry to work harder.
The Sam Johnson's of the Republican Party tell you all you need to know about what's wrong with it.
Mel, I don't want to speak for RJohnson, and he can respond how he wants. But I also have read his posts, and believe that he is sincere. I doubt he is making things up. Maybe I'm naive. But anyway, speak for yourself. You say, "Stop the pretense. Nobody here is fooled by the left-wing operatives like yourself who are being paid to haunt the blogosphere." Consider me fooled.
On the other hand, RJohnson, if you are being paid, could you let me know how much? I could use some extra money.
Rod, your post really hits home. I'm a prolife, populist, green, culturally conservative Dem whose party long ago deserted him. I keep looking for a Republican I can vote for, and its almost impossible. Here in my home state, the Republican candidates are all harping on taxes and say the most asinine things about energy and other issues that I really care about. They simply don't live in my universe or talk my talk. We vote by mail here, and last night I agonized over my ballot. For race after race, I simply couldn't find anyone I could vote for in good conscience.
I dread November. From what I see now, its not likely that I will be able to stomach any of the Republicans who will be on the ballot (even though many are, as I am, anti-abortion). And as much as modern Dem candidates appall me with their hardline pro-choice and (in this state) pro-assisted suicide and sometimes pro-gay marriage stances, they do make some sense on environmental, lunch bucket and consumer protection issues. Its just that I'm sick of holding my nose and voting for cultural liberals who show great disrespect for many things I value highly.
I'm thinking of running for something in the next election, even if its just state rep. I won't have a prayer of winning, but at least I'll have the chance to put forward something that resembles a "crunchy con" or "consistent pro-life" platform, just to show people that there are alternatives to the dead ends of the modern Democratic and Republican parties. Here in Oregon, each voter gets a voter's booklet filled with statements from the various candidates. It provides a bully pulpit, one that we ought to be using to get our views on the public's radar screen. Most voters do not even realize that there is a traditionalist/populist alternative to the conventional Left/Right choices.
I've been listening to Stephanie Miller and Ron Reagan and Ed Schultz for months now. These people are whcked out of their minds "almost." There is enough cunning sanity to deceive many. Their ways are speaking directly to people about the slefish desires of these individuals possess. To parents they give out Robin Hood-like riches to the poor. No matter the destructive processes to our society. To children they give unrestrained sexual promiscuity and of course they themselves get a taste of the young too. To Blacks and Hispanics, they give excuses for illegal behaviors (blame whitey). That is a tough combination to fight. Civilization after civilization have taken in these "liberal" excesses and we are dying just the same way because of them. What Conservatives should do is start protecting their own from the deacy brought about by liberals and their most evil incarnation "the progressive." It's far past time trying to deal with, or, to help the victims of liberal perversion. It is time we protect ourselves and our familes from it. They will get power and they will corrupt it as they have always done through time. What will rise from the ahes of destruction caused by these mockers and elites, is a better world. But in the meantime, I'll still vote for a Republican. I do have to answer to God someday. I can't vote for a Molech-worshipping Democrat.
Rod,
Thanks for writing extensively about Peggy Noonan's column. Not only is she right, of course, but her attention to those homey details ("Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean ...") is vintage Noonan :-)
There is ONE silver lining to all this (Sorry for being so optimistic but I'm a "Reaganite" after all):
The fact that folks like Noonan and Tom Davis and others (including Rod Dreher) are talking openly and bluntly about the problems besetting the GOP is a good thing. Thanks to you guys, the leadership is getting a massive WHACK on the side of the head with an oak 2 by 4.
Even old elephants learn to adapt. Will it be enough to stave off an electoral disaster like 1932? Depends on how fast the elephant can adapt.
McCain is no Bush. He's no Rovian who insists on "relying on the base." Unlike Obama, he has a proven track record of working with Senators in the other Party. When it comes to Iraq, NO ONE should overlook that he's got a son out there who's in harm's way. In other words, this guy is no "chicken hawk."
As President, he'll annoy a lot of Wall Street Republicans and K Street Republicans. Too bad for them :-) He'll bring healthy change to the country (not the nutty moveon.org stuff we'll get from Obama). He'll so reshape the GOP that most Republicans will be saying by 2012, "George Bush who?"
(NOTE: In the interests of full disclosure, I strongly supported McCain over Bush in the 2000 GOP Primaries. Can't help but feel remorse even after eight years over what "might have been" had McCain secured the nomination over Bush in 2000. He would have beaten Gore and Kerry in landslides in 2000 and 2004; kept us from getting stuck in the mud in Iraq; and, changed the image of the GOP for the better. And there's a good chance he would passed the reins this year to the ONLY really intelligent Bush brother and the one who SHOULD have been President: Jeb).
I supported Bush in 2004, mainly because, well, I'm a Republican. This campaign season, though, I'm a pretty strong Ron Paul supporter. I haven't decided who to support now that his candidacy is essentially over; I'm leaning towards Obama, mainly based on his foreign policies, or Bob Barr. The Republican Party has gone so far off of the rails that it's going to take a while for it to fix itself, and frankly, the current party doesn't deserve to be fixed. Maybe the Republicans need some time in the wilderness.
And Mel: that's pretty good. How much is Free Republic paying nowadays?
The one thing Noonan hits on that still hasn't dawned on the Washington conservative bubble-opposition to this war is not strictly a left wing phenonenom. But it takes very different forms on the right.
We believe based on what he did to the Kurds and marsh Arabs, Saddam had these weapons. But so what? Why do we get stuck playing World Police?
Why are our sons and daughters and neighbors nobly serving a cause when it's beneficiaries don't care a wit about it? And we don't like that Bush went in light, needlessly endangering our troops, nor that he has put many on trial for simply doing their job. Pardon me if the rush weekend stunt at Abu Graib isn't nearly as upsetting as is the way Bush has treated our brave military like cannon fodder for silliness. We are not and do not wish to be an empire. Harden the border and keep out enemies out. FISA doesn't bother us.
Mccain suggested rhetorically we might be there for "100 years" as we've been in Japan, Germany and Korea for half a century. The unasked question is why are we still in those places in the 1st place? Furterh, I have the qeasy feeling that the Pentagon desk jockey Petraeus know how to make the boss happy, as if he studied how to do a good Vietcong era body count. Trying to superimpose Western democracy on an Islamic society is like trying to teach a pig to sing. Telling us the surge will accomplish anything lasting after we leave(and leave we will) is moronic.
Like Anglican I became conservative once I went to college. I'd thought I was liberal until I ran into some. :) However, twice I haven't been able to bring myself to vote for the republican candidate. 2004 was one such time, even though I'd voted for Bush in 2000. Things were much better financially for me and my family then, but I was so pissed that he'd done NOTHING domestically to show that he appreciated my support.
I won't vote for Obame, he is liberal, utopian and will be a horrible president. But I'll vote for McCain on a cold day in hell. The Republicans need to be taught a lesson. So whoever the libertarian or constituition party candidate is will get my vote.
As a side note, I used to listen to talk radio constantly. Limbaugh, Savage mostly. I can't claim a high moral ground here in not listening as often. I just work in a BSL3 area now and radio reception is not good enough. But always, always, I've viewed it as entertainment with which I sometimes agree, sometimes not.
As much as the Republican party has screwed up, it is not time to blow it up and vote 3rd party or not vote or vote Democrat.
There is only one issue to look at this fall: Supreme Court justices.
If Obama becomes President, he will nominate at least 2 justices replacing 2 liberal justices. There is a 0% chance he will nominate anyone who is anywhere close to a strict constructionist or pro-life. He will nominate extremely activist judges to the court.
John McCain on the other hand MIGHT (probably, whatever) nominate good judges that would likely lead to an overturn of Roe V Wade. While that wouldn't end abortion it would be a tremendously powerful action.
Too much is on the line this fall. Give life a fighting chance and vote for McCain. Hold your nose if you have to (I will), but vote for the chance that Stevens and Jones could be replaced with good judges.
I consider myself a Republican, mostly. I think I've broken ranks only once on anything other than a local office. However, I don't think I can pull the lever for McCain, based on the war issue. My stepson deploys on Saturday. My 10-year-old daughter (his half-sister) is ready to go protest the war in the streets she is so upset and worried. And for what? No good purpose is being served by putting the bravest and finest of our nation's young people in harm's way in Iraq. I do not for a moment believe McCain when he says that we will win in 4 years if he is elected. He defines winning as leaving behind a stable democracy in Iraq. Sorry, that seems like a neocon fantasy.
Pray for my stepson and the 115th Combat Support Hospital, Fort Polk, La.
How has the democratic party changed since 1980? The only change I can see is the new support for homosexual marriage.
What else. Same party, different electorate. With the Clintons, you had a new more business positive democrat leading the party. With Obama, we're back to the party of George McGovern.
The saddest thing is that we are but one vote away from overturning Roe and the next justice will probably be chosen by the most pro-abortion candidate for president that we've ever seen.
Rod,
I was rebuked by Reaganite in NYC because I'm not Republican.
I think via ego and media manipulation (e.g., FOX, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) Republicans have tried to overlay their illusions on reality.
John McCain talks as if there's no deep sectarian or ethnic divisions in Iraq. Republicans keep pretending there is no civil war right now. These divisions have lasted thousands of years.
I've lived in S. Korea where the ethnic population is homogeneous. Two sides are still in a civil war that require our presence and muscle.
To the average person that doesn't watch FOX religiously or give Rush the time of day, the notion that will have victory in Iraq by 2013 is absolutely ridiculous.
It echoes Donny Rumsfeld.
Republicans can keep trying to shield themselves from reality.
Bush has appeased Iran through the Iraq war more than any commie pinko could have ever hoped to do.
SiliconValleySteve,
And that is EXACTLY why now is not the time to make a point to the Republican party. Get McCain elected, if we can get 1 or 2 good justices, then blow the whole thing up and go 3rd party...I know I will. But first, we need to give babies a chance that with 1 or 2 good judges.
All of you who are talking about going 3rd party, PLEASE vote for McCain so we have a chance to get a good justice. If Obama get elected we will most certainly get 2 terrible pro-abortion justice. Please, it's just too important.
"Phyllis Schlafly started banging on again about judges and public schools. It wasn't even that I much disagreed with her as it was a feeling of, 'That's it? That's all you got?'"
Rod, I wasn't there, and maybe in person her presentation was disappointing and disheartening, but I think judges -- who have a disproportionate amount of power today and who can really affect culture, about which you're so concerned -- should be a major issue, and I think the state of education in our country, as it affects precious children and also affects culture, with which you're so concerned, should also be considered a major issue. What else were you looking for? Or were you frustrated that she didn't present a different and grander overarching vision?
Rod, I'd really be interested in what you would draw up as a mock political platform, or what positions and qualities you'd seek in your ideal presidential candidate. A post on it, perhaps?
Maybe as a compromise we could all vote for McCain to prevent Obama's election, and vote 3rd party in every other spot on the ballot. That way, we get a chance at a good SC, but still send a message to the Republican party that big change is needed.
Andrea-
May your stepson and all his brothers and sisters in arms return unharmed and soon from their deployment. Prayers indeed.
Can anyone give me a defensible and sensible rationale why he or American should take 15 months out of their lives risking injury and possibly death for the preposterous proposition of Iraqi democracy? And why we should so ask Americans to continue to do so for the immediate future and beyond?
Rod gets it. The GOP McSame machine is all about $$$ and WAR (because it's fantastic).
You religious types are being played. Abortion is not a national GOP agenda just like gay marriage wasn't.
I guarantee that a McCain presidency will yield no results on abortion. How the hell would it get past the Democratic Congress anyhow?
Pro-choice is good. The greatest baby-elimination is among liberals and Democrats. Eventually, pro-lifers will vastly outnumber liberals and Democrats. Bring on Obama.
Andrea:
Understand your situation, especially re: your stepson.
Don't know you personally, but I will keep "Andrea's stepson" in my prayers. Thanks for his service -- as well as for all that you're doing. Sorry, too, to hear about the distress of your 10-year daughter.
Please keep in mind that McCain has a son serving in Iraq. You have that in common with him. This guy is no "chicken hawk." He's no Bush. I'm sure he doesn't want the sacrifices of these fighting men and women to be in vain anymore than you do.
Brian,
Chances of strict constructionist SC judge:
Obama as President - 0%
McCain as President - 50% or 80% or 10% or...
Chances of a liberal activist SC judge:
Obama as President - 100%
McCain as President - 10% or 5% or 15% or...
That chance with McCain is the most important thing in this election. Period. Give the Supreme Court a chance, and after that, never vote Republican again. If we miss this opportunity we will regret it for many many years.
Brian Horan: "I guarantee that a McCain presidency will yield no results on abortion. How the hell would it get past the Democratic Congress anyhow?"
Brian, you're asking the wrong question. The better one to ask is what sort of lasting damage to the unborn and traditional marriage will a Democratic Congress commit ... when it is working hand-in-hand with a President Obama?
For starters, under an Obama/Pelosi/Reid Axis, social conservatives will get treated to these things and more:
(1) overturning the ban on late-term abortions;
(2) knocking out any hope for parential notification required in the case of teenage abortions;
(3) putting into place RICO restrictions against peaceful attempts by pro-life volunteers to counsel young women considering going into one of the abortuaries;
(4) federal boondoggle funding for the entirely gratuitous research in embryonic stemm-cell research.
(5) putting two or more hard-left justicess on the Supreme Court -- you all can start by saying hello to "Justice Laurence Tribe";
(6) inclusion of reasoned arguments against homosexual/lesbian marriage and that lifestyle in the category of "hate speech" crimes.
(7) expansion of federal subsidies to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion providers;
(8) sanctions and penalties against faith-based service agencies that omit employee insurance coverage for contraceptives ... or that will not place adopted children with homosexual and lesbian couples.
Yes, everyone is sick and tired of Bush. Sure, Obama is an attractive figure. But once Obama gets into power, do you think he'll be listening to social conservatives like us? No, he'll gladly do the bidding of the far-left power groups that put him into office. However frustrating Bush has been to a lot of social conservatives, these Dems. will spit in your face ... once they control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue..
I'll add my thoughts on a few things.
I don't think RJohnson is a plant. I've found his perspective tracks rather closely with my own, except that I don't have any active relationships with folks who work in the party and was never a registered Republican.
I think I, like many others on this board, am reasonably reflective of the swing portion of the electorate. I've always been an Independent, and have voted since college for Clinton (wanted Jerry Brown, yes I know); Dole (as a fresh Christian convert); Gore (wanted McCain); Bush (because of the war); and now will probably vote for Obama (after initially, early last year before giving it a lot of thought, supporting Giuliani for his adminstrative background and to give the administrative branch a fresh start).
Now that we're a few months from the election, I've realized I simply cannot in good conscience vote for a continuation of Republican control of the White House. Perhaps if something major comes out about Obama. Perhaps if McCain picks an extraordinary VP candidate and begins spending a lot of his time giving Republicans some straight talk about all the areas in which they've gone wrong. Perhaps if he brings Peggy in to be his communications director. Perhaps then I'll consider the possibility of voting for him. But even then, it's doubtful.
How bad can Obama be? And even if his presidency is a disaster, will at least clear out a lot of the Republican deadwood so a new generation of candidates can step forward. But this isn't a "thank God for the plague of Obama" attitude on my part. I'm so jaded about Republican competency that I'm perfectly willing to take a chance on 4 or 8 years of an Obama administration.
Bless,
Doug
Let's say we all vote 3rd party to teach the Republicans a lesson. They lose massively and in regrouping they realize "okay, we have to be true conservatives...lesson learned." So, everyone is happy and we rebuild and over 10 years elect really good representatives and maybe a great president.
Meanwhile, all the good that they try to do, particularly in the area of ending abortion, is completely nullified by a liberal Supreme Court for the next 20 - 30 years. And of course, the longer abortion is the law of the land, the more accepted it will become and the more difficult it will be to defeat it.
Reforming the Republican party is not worth guaranteeing that abortion will be free, common, and legal for the next 30 years. Reform the Republican party AFTER we shape the Supreme Court.
The Republicans are getting creamed in Congressional battles, and deservedly so. Regurgitating the same stale talking points won't fly, but they keep barfing them up anyway. And if McCain runs on an anti-Obama tack in the fall, he's going to get creamed, too.
Qualifier alert:
But:
(1) the GOP is losing seats because the Democrats have fielded blue dog moderates who aren't inherently repellent to centrist-to-conservative-leaning independents, not high-octane liberals. The Dems have gotten much smarter since 2004.
(2) McCain hasn't campaigned against Obama as Obama. Whether you think it's sincere or not, he's tried to pull the plug on the Hussein crap.
(3) "McSame" is in the same ballpark of silly tactics as thumping "Hussein," which is saying something.
(4) The Republicans got obliterated in 1974 and had Reagan elected and control of the Senate in 1980. It can change quickly, if the circumstances are right. Admittedly, though, the GOP's lobotomy level wasn't as high back then. But one similarity is that with the passing of Bush to the sidelines, a lot of the animosity will vanish with him.
Rod,
How exactly did Reaganism work? He transformed American conservatism into the militaristic, economic libertarian monstrosity most of your writing bemoans.
I'm taken with Reaganite's litany of horribles, especially on Supreme Court vacancies.Only note that Republican presidents make some awful choices-Souter,Powell,Brennan and Blackmun, and Kennedy and O'connor to a lesser extent. And that Kennedy gave us a great justice like Byron White.
But the sentiment I hear often is like Cramer's; let the crazy liberals run the show for a while. Let them make all their dreams come true for real, and then let's see how that turns out. Obama's adminsistration would not be pretty, likely more Carter Error incompetence crossed with the PC stylings and ethnic grievances industry moonbattery of Massachussets' Cadillac Duvall. If the blood of patriots must feed the tree of liberty from time to time, it might take a Carter or Obama once every 3 decades or so to remind us all why we believe in conservative American governance.
Patrick,
I don't think you get it. An anti-choice nominee will never get out of committee in the Congress. It's really that simple and McSame knows it, Rod knows too, and I'll bet your socks know it.
Your party crowned King Bush (maybe that's why you think McCain has a prayer in hell of getting the kind of appointment you want). Now you all get to live with the consequences.
Three special elections in which they've tried to use Obama as a wedge issue have failed miserably in traditional Republican areas.
If you're against abortion, you seriously blew it by supporting a corporate war profiteering puppet who couldn't even show up to his won reserve unit. I guess he gave up golf to show solidarity with the troops he sent to die.
Patrick: "Reforming the Republican party is not worth guaranteeing that abortion will be free, common, and legal for the next 30 years. Reform the Republican party AFTER we shape the Supreme Court."
Isn't this of a piece with Rod's arguments about gay marriage? What have 8 years of a Republican White House, and most of two decades of Republican control of Congress, done to make abortion less free, common or legal? That horse left the barn a long, long time ago. Efforts to create a culture of life would be best served by abandoning the political sphere entirely for a few years.
Bless,
Doug
I suspect when people say the GOP needs to be more 'conservative' they mean something different than what I mean. This is why I don't describe myself as a conservative anymore. The GOP has greater problems than not being 'conservative' enough, whatever that is supposed to mean. It is not about better presenting past ideals to past problems. What the GOP needs to do is figure out how it is going to address present issues. You can only be Hoover-esque so long on the economic issues - believing the market will resolve them - before people start concluding that the long run is a very long time. Lord knows that things will be better in 6 months is a poor palliative to grieving families whose children die in this war.
Doug,
Roberts and Alito. They are strict constructionists who would likely overturn Roe V. Wade, which although it would not end all abortion, would be the most significant Pro-life gain EVER. We are 1 vote away, Stevens is 90-something years old, and Ginsburg is in bad health. If we miss out on shaping this court, we lose for a long time. If Obama selects liberal judges, we can elect a great Congress and Senate in 2012 or 2014 and EVERYTHING pro-life that they do will be thrown out by an Obama shaped court.
I am not saying that the Republicans are "REALLY" pro-life. But they are the ONLY shot we have at profoundly shaping the court in the next 4 years. That's why I am saying try to shape the court now through McCain, and then abandon the Republican party. If we let Obama shape the court, we will have no chance at any pro-life advances for the next 20 years or more.
Patrick-
If you're hanging your vote on hopes of such an abortion ban, you will be dissappointed.Even Scalia has made the point; as personally opposed as a justice might be to abortion, understand that the judicial fiat ban you're looking for is not going to happen, even if the conservatives get a firm 5/4 or even 6/3 majority. To so impose it would simply be another form of judicial activism. Judicial restraint doesn't mean we replace one set of pro-abortion laws imposed by judges with different anti-abortion laws imposed by different judges. Rather it would mean that Congress and the state legislatures, the popular elected parts of our federal system, would rightly make those decisions. At best, upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion would be sent back to the states to decide among and for themselves.
I understand how people feel about the evils of abortion, but you have to start to see that there is not much popular sentiment to ban abortion in most states. We've had a nonstop battle over it since 1973 and attitudes have remained virtually unchanged.For all the passion, there's been little real movement.
"The point is, if he wins the White House, Obama could use his considerable powers of charisma to move the country substantially to the left as Reagan moved it to the right. I remember in the 1980s all the liberal commentariat bitching and moaning about how Reagan bamboozled and hoodwinked voters. What did all that amount to? Dogs barking, while the caravan of American politics moved on."
It's not just charisma (although that helps). It's also building a base with more popular support than plutocrat support. It's also the ability to fairly characterize an opponent's position, so that debates can be argued thoughtfully, and opponents are not demonized for disagreeing with the "decider." It's recognizing that news comes in all forms, good, bad, and indifferent, and being willing to face it nonetheless. And it's recognizing that a strength in this country is its rare ability to look forward, past its divisions, and see a better future. These are not necessarily Democratic or Republican traits, but the fact that they have become partisan divisions should indeed be alarming to the Right.
Bugg writes: "Obama's adminsistration would not be pretty ... If the blood of patriots must feed the tree of liberty from time to time, it might take a Carter or Obama once every 3 decades or so to remind us all why we believe in conservative American governance."
(1) If you want to shed you blood on Obama's altar, go ahead. But count out the rest of us :-)
(2) What makes you think that Obama will merely be another one-term Jimmy Carter? Don't count on it.
(3) Meanwhile, consider the actual damage to "real people," including the unborn, that will be caused by an Obama/Pelosi/Reid collaboratin. This is more important than playing political games or teaching a lesson to these rightfully-resented K Street creeps.
(4) Speaking of damage, Carter gave us:
(a) the Ayotolloh Khomeini (sp?) and a radicalized and militant Iran.
(b) the economic misery index that reached over 20 points (the mortgage interest combined with the unemployment rate).
(c) a revitalized Soviet Union that caused havoc around the world, including an invasion of Afghanistan that gave birth to the aspirations of Osama Bin Laden.
(5) Yes, the US was blessed by a merciful God who put an end to the Carter insanity in 1980 ... but what makes you think we'll be so lucky a second time?
In the end, we look at Obama and McCain ... and consider the ABSOLUTE likelihood of strong Dem. majorities in Congress ... and then we set aside our grievances with Bush/Cheney and ask ourselves which one (Obama and McCain) will do less damage to our values and to our country as President in 2009 and beyond.
And again, this is why I really don't want to hear a *&#% word about gay marriage from Republicans this fall. I am not willing to be played by these jerks again. If they can't pass out of a Republican-controlled Senate a marriage amendment, and if a conservative Evangelical Republican president couldn't be bothered to advocate for it, despite the fact that he'd just been re-elected, and people still liked him then, then it's never going to pass.
If only all Republicans would realize this about abortion too.
I want everyone to think back, not to 2005, but 2003, before we invaded Iraq. Republicans had the government entirely under their control, and had the support of the American people, including most Democrats. (This is why I, honestly, can't fault Clinton for her Iraq vote.) The president was incredibly popular.
Where was the let-the-states-decide-abortion constitutional amendment? Nowhere. Remember the fun thing about constitutional amendments...once they get out of Congress they can be passed per-state, and can't be unpassed. Traditionally, they're given a seven years limit, which is more than enough time to elect a state government that will go along with it.
I honestly doubt more than three or four states would vote to outlaw abortion, but surely more than that would be willing to allow themselves a vote. And, what's more, California and New York and any ten other 'liberal' states don't have to sign on to this plan at all, they get no say whatsoever. Only need 38 states.
And they only have to agree once, so you can slam a very conservative Congress in there, have them vote for it, and it's over, it doesn't matter if the Congress immediately lose their seats next election, they can't take back Amendment ratifications.
This is, literally, the best legislative plan for outlawing abortion. An amendment that lets the states decide, or, hell, requires states to decide it based on a popular vote, overriding any protections they might have in their constitution. (It's worth mentioning that a few states' courts have found a legal right to abortion in their state constitution.)
Why didn't it happen? Because it would make the 'We must elect Republicans to pick pro-life judges' plan a non-issue.
The 'slowly replace the Supreme court' theory is a joke. It's stupid. It requires pure chance. It exists for one reason and one reason only...it is the only method of outlawing abortion that will take decades and requires no work at all.
Reaganite-
I agree with you. I find it particulalry galling to see Carter, Brezininski and Christopher, the imbecilic foreign policy team responsible for Khomeini's rise in Iran, backing Obama.Good luck seeing anyone point that out.
But understand; calling Obama the liberal boogeyman by itself is not going to cut it. For too long, we have seen the Republican campaigns simply paint the Dem candidate as a liberal-and not much else. And granted, you and I see that, but a good chunk of the country is not going to to see it and refuse to vote for him unless and until you explain and expound on what that means.I don't see Mccain interested or even caring about conservatism. As bad as I expect Obama would be, this country is strong and resilient enogh to survive it. What we cannot survive is another brainless Republican campaign bereft of conservative ideals and ideas.
Bugg,
I have said in all of my posts that shaping the SC and overturning Roe v Wade would not ban abortion. It would throw the issue to the states. 22 states would then enact significant restrictions on abortion. Right now, those 22 states have about 460,000 abortions per year. So, overturn Roe V. Wade and save about 400,000 babies per year. That chance (not certainty) is worth my vote. And it should be worth yours, too. We have a chance to save 400,000 babies a year, let's not screw it up because we want to send a "message" to a political party. This is not the time for teaching political lessons. It's the time to save lives.
Patrick T, I voted for Bush in 2004 based solely on judges. What did he give me? John "Roe v Wade is settled law" Roberts and the wobbly and probably pro-choice Harriet Miers. Bush deserves no credit for Alito, given that he had to be forced into that choice. And in a case that would overturn Roe, I'm still not convinced both of them would vote to overturn.
Bush's real goal for the judiciary was to nominate people who would approve his vast expansion of executive war powers. The fact that they appeared pro-life enough to get the party base behind them was a helpful coincidence. Does anyone really think McCain is any better?
I will believe it under once condition: give me the names, right now, from McCain's own mouth, of the people he will nominate to the SC if there is an opening. Let's see how serious he is.
Here is the reality.
If McCain is elected he can attempt to appoint as many strict constructionists as he wants but not one of them will even get to a committee vote. There will be NO pro-life justices confirmed to the Supreme Court by this next Senate.
If, by some bizarre occurance, Roe V Wade were to be overturned, within two election cycles there would not be enough Republicans left in office at any level to influence or stop anything and there would be federal legislation codifying roe into law. The reason that no anti-abortion constitutional amendment was ever introduced was very simple. There has never been, and probably never will be, 67 votes in the Senate to pass it.
In other words, if anyone thinks that abortion can be outlawed again in this lifetime--forget it. That battle is lost, probably forever.
Oh, and one more thing. Yes, a constitutional amendment can become an un-amendment. Remember Prohibition???
4) Speaking of damage, Carter gave us:
(a) the Ayotolloh Khomeini (sp?) and a radicalized and militant Iran.
Really? And here all this time I thought it was the Shah's authoritarian dictatorship and our government's decades of support for it that led to the Ayatollah Khomeini and a radicalized and militant Iran. But I guess everything was really hunky-dory in Iran up to Jan. 20, 1977. Thanks for setting me straight!
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think it's amusing how everyone is complaining about liberal judges determining and overruling laws, but seem to have no problem with conservative judges doing the same thing. I'm as against abortion as most folks on this comment board, but the only way to legitimately get rid of it is to go through legislative means. And the federal government really has no say in this issue anyhow. It should dealt with by the states.
David,
You're completely wrong about abortion. The Supreme Court arrogated every aspect of the issue to itself in 1973 (and again in 1992). Therefore, there is no meaningful way to affect abortion policy without the Supreme Court.
A Constitutional Amendment -- even one designed narrowly to repeal Roe without prohibiting abortion -- is de facto impossible without broad bipartisan consensus. And if you don't think the "Pro-Choice" lobby would apply all of its massive financial advantages into defeating such an Amendment, you're just kidding yourself. The Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which provided simply that "A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution" couldn't even pass the Senate in 1983.
Republican leaders deserve censure for constantly talking about their support for Constitutional Amendments (on abortion, marriage and other issues) when every sentient being in Washington understands that such Amendments are flat-out impossible unless social consensus on the issue has already been achieved. But conservatives who act genuinely shocked or dismayed by the lack of such amendments are fools.
On abortion, marriage, and virtually all other cultural issues, the Congress and Presidency are relevant ONLY to the extent that they shape Supreme Court appointments. And by definition, that's a long term process. Bush appears to have done exceptionally well on that front. But even his excellent Supreme Court nominations have only partly made up for the ground lost through Clinton's appointments of Breyer and the radical Ginsburg.
Patrick, while I admire your commitment to ending abortion, which I share, I think that there's no real guarantee whatsoever that McCain would appoint pro-life (or 'strict constructionist') judges. He's on record as being in favor of ESCR, after all, and if abortion were to cease to be the law of the land such things as ESCR would be in very iffy territory (it's hard to create giant federal funding initiatives for research which might be illegal in roughly half of the states).
In addition to my disagreement with him on ESCR, which I oppose, I also have to look at the past: many of our pro-abort judges were appointed by supposedly conservative Republicans. Why would McCain, who enjoys his reputation as a maverick who reaches across the aisle whenever it suits him, feel obliged to nominate judges who are known to be conservative?
Zach,
No one here is really advocating judicial activism in a pro-life sense. Striking down Roe V Wade is not "activism" it is good law. And as I noted several times it does not "outlaw" abortion, but leaves the matter to the states, many of which would severely restrict abortion.
Erin,
I agree nothing is for certain. But McCain offers the best chance to save lives, period. Maybe McCain would appoint a good judge, maybe he wouldn't. But I know for a fact, that Obama would appoint a very bad judge. With McCain there is a chance for a major Pro-life victory, with Obama there is no chance.
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I think it's amusing how everyone is complaining about liberal judges determining and overruling laws, but seem to have no problem with conservative judges doing the same thing. I'm as against abortion as most folks on this comment board, but the only way to legitimately get rid of it is to go through legislative means. And the federal government really has no say in this issue anyhow. It should dealt with by the states.
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point here.
Yes, legislative action at the state level is the appropriate constitutional means for dealing with abortion. But the United States Supreme Court has foreclosed such means. Until Roe is overturned or whittled away to meaninglessness, no amount of Pro-Life legislators or votes can have affect abortion policy in any meaningful way.
Roe, Doe v. Bolton, and the three justice opinion in Casey a blatant usurpations of legislative power by the federal courts. And whatever one thinks about the legality of abortion, those decisions make a mockery of the Constitution.
When I was in grad school just before Roe v Wade, abortion had already been legalized in New York and was about to be in California and Illinois. The University chartered airplanes to fly young women to New York to have abortions.
If Roe were to be overturned, California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota and Massachussetts at the very least, would immediately codify abortion rights into state law even before all the Republicans would be thrown out of office. That means that abortion would be available to everyone with only a relatively short airplane ride.
And then within four years it would a guaranteed right under federal law anyway and everyone opposed to it would be packed into some internment camp in Cuba.
The abortion issue is a bagatelle; the American people made their choice a long time ago to approve of it, at least tacitly. The only significant part of the debate that can still move in either direction is the survival of the Hyde Amendment. I'm still mildly optimistic about that.
The Iraq War is going to get wound down in the next four years, no matter who is in office. The reason for this is pretty simple: our forces are getting worn out, and there aren't enough of them to maintain the force level in being without either a draft or cannibalizing them from other units stationed around the world. The draft is a non-starter, for obvious reasons; any President foolish enough to announce one would face riots in the streets. Reducing forces in other parts of the world would also be difficult, since our military forces simply aren't big enough to do the job. This is why the Pentagon issues stop-loss orders and reduces prohibitions against recruits with criminal records.
Unfortunately, the GOP has become irrevocably identified with the war, and its failure to win it (and never mind the insufficient resources devoted to and poor handling of the occupation) is going to stay with it for the next 25 years.
Fiscal realities are going to be in the driver's seat no matter who wins. Entitlement spending is on track to explode, particularly for Medicare. Our electrical grid and other major infrastructure components are in need of replacement and expansion. We are also going to need to expand our energy-production facilities. Meanwhile, there is very little likelihood that the Red Chinese are going to keep buying our Treasury notes at the rate they have been. Where is the money going to come from ?
Let's not even mention the border-control problem.
I don't think either wing of AmNatSoc (American National Socialism), Dem or GOP, has a clue how to address these problems. The Democrats are stuck in a mindset that denies the existence of fiscal limitations, particularly in the realm of entitlements. The Republicans are far too beholden to the corporate Lords (see Archer-Daniels-Midland and ethanol, for example) to consider cutting back on corporate welfare. The current political situation reminds me of nothing so much as a large ship, controls locked, heading towards an iceberg while the Captain and crew party down on the Lido deck, while the passengers lie in their cabins in blissful ignorance.
Let's hope the United States can avoid the fate of HMS Titanic. I, for one, am not at all optimistic.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Apart from the Cuba bit, Charles, I'd prefer state and federal legislatures and executives dealing with the issue instead of the judiciary. On some level, legislators and executives are accountable.
Simon
A Constitutional Amendment -- even one designed narrowly to repeal Roe without prohibiting abortion -- is de facto impossible without broad bipartisan consensus.
All Constitutional amendments are impossible until they are actually tried. By, you know, actually proposing and voting for them.
And if you don't think the "Pro-Choice" lobby would apply all of its massive financial advantages into defeating such an Amendment, you're just kidding yourself. The Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which provided simply that "A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution" couldn't even pass the Senate in 1983.
Yeah, and that was a scant two decades before when I was talking about. *rolls eyes*
The 108th Congress passed the intact dilation and extraction ban. Saying it couldn't have have tried for a constitutional amendment is absurd. (Especially considering it was one of the least-productive Congresses in history. It was hardly too busy.)
Republican leaders deserve censure for constantly talking about their support for Constitutional Amendments (on abortion, marriage and other issues) when every sentient being in Washington understands that such Amendments are flat-out impossible unless social consensus on the issue has already been achieved. But conservatives who act genuinely shocked or dismayed by the lack of such amendments are fools.
I think you think you just called me a fool, but luckily I'm not a conservative, I'm a progressive Democrat trying to overturn Roe v. Wade so it stops resulting in blind voting for the Republicans.
Charles Cosimano
If, by some bizarre occurance, Roe V Wade were to be overturned, within two election cycles there would not be enough Republicans left in office at any level to influence or stop anything and there would be federal legislation codifying roe into law.
Yes, and I know that. Apparently, you have mistaken me for a Republican. I'm a somewhat pro-choice Democrat. :) I just want the damn abortion issue off the table, so the Republicans can stop having Christians blindly vote for them as they stomp all over the poor and environment and other countries. I want the issue gone, or at least pushed back to the state-level.
However, they have apparently all decided Roe v. Wade must go, so I simply pointed out the fastest way to do that. By fastest, I mean 'might actually, at some point, happen', as opposed to the deliberately-designed-to-take-50-years Justice appointments.
The reason that no anti-abortion constitutional amendment was ever introduced was very simple. There has never been, and probably never will be, 67 votes in the Senate to pass it.
They've actually been introduced before, but back in the 1980s, before it became an issue that the Republicans relied on to get elected.
In other words, if anyone thinks that abortion can be outlawed again in this lifetime--forget it. That battle is lost, probably forever.
Well, yeah, which is why I'm not that worried about repealing Roe v Wade. It's honestly not going to make a difference anywhere.
Oh, and one more thing. Yes, a constitutional amendment can become an un-amendment. Remember Prohibition???
I didn't mean it couldn't be repealed, I meant that a state, once it ratifies an amendment, can't unratify it. The GOP has limited success electing hard-right state legislatures...they put them in, they do some wacky stuff, the voters run in terror from them next election, and all the work gets undone. I was just pointing out, for an amendment, that's all they need to do...ratify it in the 25 states or so the GOP controls, and slam a conservative legislature in for a year or so in about 15 states they don't.
How about we get a little honesty in here. If the democrats hadn't ripped apart the very qualified Robert Bork, we wouln't need another justice to overturn Roe. If they had succeeded in the high tech lynching of Justice Thomas, we'ed be 2 votes away.
Living in the most pro-abortion of states, I expect that the battle for life will go on for generations. It is like the fight against slavery. The fact is that we are fighting for just the right to make abortion part of the public debate. The anti-democratic overlords of the Supreme Court took that away from us. We need to get it back before the fight can begin.
One more thing. This nonsense about Bush claiming unprecedented war powers. The big liberal hero with the new monument FDR, ordered all Japanese Americans into prison camps by executive order 9066 because of their "race". Wilson jailed those who encouraged draft resistance. Where has Bush come close to this kind of behavior.
And they only have to agree once, so you can slam a very conservative Congress in there, have them vote for it, and it's over, it doesn't matter if the Congress immediately lose their seats next election, they can't take back Amendment ratifications.
Posted by: DavidTC | May 16, 2008 1:31 PM
Eh?
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Reaganite: "In the end, we look at Obama and McCain ... and consider the ABSOLUTE likelihood of strong Dem. majorities in Congress ... and then we set aside our grievances with Bush/Cheney and ask ourselves which one (Obama and McCain) will do less damage to our values and to our country as President in 2009 and beyond."
Hmm. That's an appealing formulation. There's two elements it seems to discount, though:
1: A big factor for me is my interest in seeing a new party get a chance to "look at the books" from the Bush years. What exactly has the executive branch been doing? Let's get it all out there, considering the level of animus the past 8 years have generated. I think this is more likely with an Obama administration, although I don’t ignore that it could happen in a McCain administration as well. Either has good reasons – selfless and selfish – to play a kind of “truth and reconciliation” role in the White House. But the public perception will always be that Obama is more likely to drag any skeletons from their closets. This would also get the ugly and necessary process out of the way without the confrontation that would result from a Democratic congress and Republican administration trying to do a post-mortem of the previous highly criticized Republican administration. As bad as Carter was (and I grew up a Reaganite in NJ, Cranford to be precise) perhaps you need a Carter to get past a Nixon, if you get my drift. So, by getting us through the upcoming boil lancing with less pain, perhaps the Obama presidency does less damage than the McCain one, in your formulation.
2: Why do folks seem to assume that an Obama White House and Democratic Congress are going to lead to an overwhelming tide of liberal legislation with generational impact? A Bush White House and Republican Congress didn’t do any such thing for conservatism. My gut feeling – which I admit could be wrong – is that the “smart people” will rise to the top in the support roles in the executive and in Congress, and they’ll create healthy factions within the Democratic umbrella. You’ll see moderate Democrats working with moderate Republicans (willing to play ball with anyone just to get a bill passed) to form a major centrist force that may ally with the building third party libertarian impulse that Bob Barr is trying to tap in to. I just don’t see, in a time of war and a need for major investment in physical and human infrastructure to remain economically competitive, the liberal wing of the Democratic party, in a year when their win should get an asterisk because of how much of a handicap the Bush years have been, will be able to govern as if they had a mandate.
Bless,
Doug
'A big factor for me is my interest in seeing a new party get a chance to "look at the books" from the Bush years.'
I remember wanting the new administration in 2000 to do the same thing with the Clinton books. No such luck, though, because they were too busy setting up their own feifdoms, and Bush thought if he acted above all that and hung out with Ted Kennedy, it'd be one big bipartisan hoedown. Can't imagine why it'd be any different this time.
'A big factor for me is my interest in seeing a new party get a chance to "look at the books" from the Bush years.'
I remember wanting the new administration in 2001 to do the same thing with the Clinton books. No such luck, though, because they were too busy setting up their own feifdoms, and Bush thought if he acted above all that and hung out with Ted Kennedy, it'd be one big bipartisan hoedown. Can't imagine why it'd be any different this time.
"A Bush White House and Republican Congress didn’t do any such thing for conservatism."
Why would they have? The Bush White House was never conservative, and the Republican Congress wasn't much so by that point.
Obama, on the other hand, is very liberal. Don't take my word for it, read his web site and books and look at his voting record. (I don't mean that as an epithet, by the way; just the best word to describe his politics.) If we have to hope the Democratic majority in Congress contains enough conservatives to slow him down, we're in big trouble.
Mhoram:
Well, we're certainly in big trouble, I agree.
"I remember wanting the new administration in 2000 to do the same thing with the Clinton books."
I do think this has a lot to do with 9/11. If it hadn't happened, perhaps there would have been more of a tallying of the Clinton years. But in hindsight, I agree with the mainstream narrative. The war has helped all of realize how petty a lot of the scandals of the Clinton years were. I think the need to open the books on the Bush administration is much stronger, so strong that it is going to happen regardless.
What have we been doing, as a government? Who have we been killing, and how? Who have we been paying, and for what? No multi-year war has existed in our history that hasn't required a national post-mortem, and my gut feeling is that we've got a psychological statute of limitations on this. IOW, the fact that the war is still going on isn't going to hold off the urge to make public as much of the record as possible.
Bless,
Doug
I remember wanting the new administration in 2000 to do the same thing with the Clinton books.
Make that 2001. They did. There wasn't anything politically exploitable or salacious there. They tried the "trashed the White House" smear right off the bat though. (Which was a slimy revanchist pettiness going back to the Clinton's exposing in 1993 what a run-down West Wing the Bush Sr. people had left them.)
The Bush people rejected Madeleine Albright's and Sandy Berger's memos and presentations in late 2000 and early 2001 on Al Qaeda becoming the major threat to the US.
When they decided to go into Afghanistan, they took Berger's plan of how to do it out of the safe and implemented it. Badly executed, though, as per usual. Such that bin Laden got trapped but escaped at Tora Bora and Mullah Omar and the Taliban were able to slip away and are now resurgent.
"The war has helped all of realize how petty a lot of the scandals of the Clinton years were."
I remember when Clinton ordered the bombing of that Sudanese plant. Before our bombers returned the GOP was talking about how Clinton did it to throw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.
I wonder why they didn't support our President and our troops while the troops were still in harm's way? Maybe if they had given up their attempts to crucify Clinton and focused instead on governing the country, maybe 9/11 could have been avoided?
Talking with a friend at dinner tonight, we both remarked as to how a short 8 or 9 years ago, we would have never believed that we could have despised a president more than we each did Bill Clinton.
How quaint the Clinton Presidency seems when compared to this one. Good goin' Duhbya - you found a way to make me eat those words about Clinton, who when compared to you, seems astonishingly competent.
You moron, you.
PS: to all you Republicans who voted for this idiot -- I told you so; and so did Alan Keyes, who remarked in 1999 that a George W. Bush presidency would mean the end of the Republican Party as we know it.
Doug
I do think this has a lot to do with 9/11. If it hadn't happened, perhaps there would have been more of a tallying of the Clinton years. But in hindsight, I agree with the mainstream narrative. The war has helped all of realize how petty a lot of the scandals of the Clinton years were. I think the need to open the books on the Bush administration is much stronger, so strong that it is going to happen regardless.
Nah. Between their inauguration and 9/11 they had nine and a half months to start investigations, and considering that such investigations would have been passed off other people like the FBI and DOJ, so we'd at least have records of the 9/11-stalled investigations, I think we can pretty much state that nothing was even being investigated. People forget, in 2000, how much Republicans were convinced there were illegal wiretaps and murders and coverups and whatnot that would be cracked wide open and land the Clintons in jail. (1)
I think there was one, already-started investigation that continued past Bill Clinton's term in office, (Was it Whitewater?) and it ultimately found nothing. In other words, the only investigation that happened post-2000 was one started by Clinton's executive branch itself...Congress lost interest the second Clinton left office, and Bush's executive branch never had any interest.
I'm sure, in some Republicans minds, that's because the Bush administration was being high-minded, but the fact they spread that bogus 'trashed the white house' story argues against that. I think a much more logical conclusion is the one I drew around 1997-1998...that literally all the Clinton scandals were entirely bogus. The only legit issue was that Bill Clinton hit on anything that moved, which, although not appropriate behavior, was hardly worth investigating.
A more interesting conclusion, of course, is that the Bush administration didn't want the investigations anywhere near the white house, especially as they were apparently ramping up their illegal spying. (Yes, pre-9/11.)
1) Thus my theory that, whatever the Republicans claim the Democrats are doing, the Republicans are actually doing. I've rarely been wrong, so I'm a little worried they were claiming Clinton was a murderer...we might find a body or two in Dick Cheney's man-sized safe.
Everyone who thinks that pro-life nominees for the Supreme Court will face problems in the Senate--welcome to the real world. It's been a couple of decades since they have not. But to have a president who will nominate more conservative judges, some of whom may well turn out to be pro-life, is essential. Sure, Bush the First put a stinker on in David Souter, but don't forget that Reagan and Bush I also gave us Scalia and Thomas.
There will be a lot more we can do about abortion and other pro-life issues under a McCain presidency than under an Obama presidency. Who cares if the Republicans think they are using us? Most Democrats don't even respond to the pro-life movement, because most of them wrote off pro-life support long ago. Republicans have to give us something if they are to stay credible. No one in the Missouri pro-life movement gives Republicans a pass, and they know it.
The pro-life movement will be knocked back a generation or more by a President Obama. The judges are essential, but even more, if the "Freedom of Choice Act" is enacted--the act that Obama says will be the first one he signs in office--then the work that people like myself have been doing for the last 35 years in Missouri and other pro-life states goes down the drain. The lives that existing pro-life laws are saving in Missouri and other states where we have such things as parental consent laws, 24-hour waiting periods, and bans on partial-birth abortions will be lost. It's not our pride that suffers. It's the unborn babies whose lives are forfeit. All those conservatives and libertarians who are disgusted by the war and say, "Don't get played," are not weighing carefully enough the hundreds of thousands of more lives that will be lost under a President Obama than under a President McCain, even if we don't achieve reversal of Roe v. Wade right away.
Jim,
Can you honestly say that one single abortion has been prevented by any of the efforts over the last 40 years. I'm of the opinion that they've not.
fbc @ 12:21; David TC @ 10:49:
Have a care, mes amis, when you throw talk of "investigations" around casually. We are already far too close, in my considered opinion, to the criminalization of policy differences in the Empire.
Once that happens, the last barrier to violence and political coups disappears. The day that occurs is the day that what was left of American "democracy" and Constitutional government dies.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
" We are already far too close, in my considered opinion, to the criminalization of policy differences in the Empire."
Maybe. OTOH, I think we are way too close to having the office of President behave as a monarchy. The President can already choose to ignore or not enforce any law he wishes. Once the Office of Legal Counsel figures out how to enact laws, presumably under the CinC umbrella, we will have a king.
Steve
fbc: Yes, many thousands. There are studies that show the positive effect, for instance, of parental consent statutes. The Hyde Amendment saved hundreds of thousands. I think that other state laws have had good effects, too. Just because Roe v. Wade remains on the books does not mean that we lack ways to save babies through laws; the Supreme Court has not taken away all the powers of states to regulate abortions. But a FOCA statute enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama would.
"The Sam Johnson's of the Republican Party tell you all you need to know about what's wrong with it."
Boy, how true is that!
The Republican Party has squandered its opportunity by its reckless spending, disregard for the American people and especially for its disregard for the American troops in Iraq fighting an unjustifiable war. The only thing they had going from '94 was term limits, but it is clear that most of the Repubs got hooked.
Many of the comments come down to voting for McCain because he is pro-life and Obama is not. Do you really think that this country is going to ban all abortions? How many Republican Presidents have mouthed pro-life slogans and what have they done? Where was the priority for that in the 8 years of the Bush administration? Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for much of that time, yet what was done? Was a constitutional amendment proposed?
The argument stays the same, we have to vote for Republicans because they are going to ban gay marriage and end abortion. Because of that, we have suffered through what may arguably be the worst administration ever. I constantly hear how awful government is, but it's been 8 years and is it better? How? I've heard that we can't end the war in Iraq
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.