Nov 18 2006
Anti-Bush Republicans
To emphasize my point about Reps losing the independent middle, I must bring some history back into focus, and how much Republicans despised Reagan and Bush I. I use this example to show that the Far Right actually has a history of dumping popular Presidents and leaders due to their insatiable impatience. When they returned to form on the current George Bush the result was the same – Democrat wins. Last time they gave us Clinton, this time Pelosi and Reid. So let’s explore how the Republican party, driven by their unelected Gliterati (media talking/writing heads) has successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Because I think it is important for those who look down at us Bush Conservatives to face some facts: Bush is the Conservative defensive line right now. What we salvage will be up to him to defend. And if anyone thinks blaming Bush for Congress’ mistakes and self inflicted losses will gain them a voice at the new table, then they should think again. Who wants an angry loser around when the nation’s needs are at stake?
So what happened the last time the Republicans started their circular firing squad? Reagan had had a tough second term which included the Iran-Contra battles with the Democrat Congress, and the subsequent scandal. On top of that Reagan had to live with the prolific spending in Congress (sound familiar) that were in opposition to his policies of lowered taxes and smaller government. He did expand military spending in order to force the Soviet Union to capitulate the Cold War, but the fruits of his strategy would blossom after his term (sound familiar). He had suffered the 6th year election setbacks as well.
The low tax successes of his earlier term had turned into nothing special in the minds of the far right – who wanted more than was politically feasible. Of course we know the long term result was Clinton’s higher taxes. Which the current George Bush had to fight to turn back again. Every time the Republicans have a fit and lose ground it must be regained. Momentum is not a concept republicans seem to be able to coexist with naturally. Thankfully, at the moment, we have a Rep President with a veto to stop any significant backsliding.
Sadly, the Republicans are still shooting more at their own base than anything else and we could end up with another Clinton in the White House if this continues. And then we will have to work to gain America’s trust again and get back to the Reagan level of taxes again. A vicious circle of wasted time.
So with all this baggage and infighting Reagan supported the election of his Vice President, George HW Bush. This was the last straw for many Republicans who jumped ship to the Perot campaign. This included famous Reps like pollster Ed Rollins and Perot’s campaing manager Tom Luce. (Perot would later be very angry at Republican Tom Luce after he had his picture taken with George HW Bush). The electorate had tired of Conservatism as displayed by the Buchananites and other hard liners.
Side note: he media can be counted on to do one thing, and that is to put the spotlight in the most hardened right wingers while moderates (McCain being the exception) get little notice. This enhances the image of Republicans as too far out there. All the Republican Gliterati had more air time than Bush himself this round, so we can figure out where the bad reputation probably comes from. The Bill Kristol smirk when he skewers the right is a priceless reminder that the media has its useful idiots too.
Election results in 1992 showed Clinton held onto what was the normal Democrat vote. What happened was angry conservative males jumped ship to Perot:
For example we continued to hear much about the gender gap in this election, and once again the Democrats did significantly better among women voters (46%) than among men (41%). But the gender gap virtually disappeared for Bush. He received 38% of the vote from men and 37% of the vote from women. So if the conventional wisdom about the gender gap is accurate, the Republicans should be pleased.
Unfortunately for the Republicans the conventional wisdom has missed the point. Remember Republicans have been winning in elections where there was a gender gap, and the reason is that male voters have been reluctant to vote for Democrats. In 1988 Bush carried 50% of the female vote but he carried 57% of the male vote. In 1992 however, Bush dropped to 38% among male voters, and Ross Perot picked up 21% of the male voters. Clinton’s level of support among males remained unchanged, even with Perot in the race.
Even more striking is the vote of those who identify with one of the major parties. In 1988 the Democratic ticket maintained the support of 82% of Democratic voters, the highest level in the last four elections. In 1976, 1980, and the 1984, the Democratic Presidential ticket attracted 77%, 67%, and 74% respectively. But in this same period the Republican tickets dipped below 90% support of Republican voters only in the three way race in 1980, when the ticket still received 86% of the Republican vote. In 1992 Bush carried only 73% of the Republican vote, an 18% decline from 1988. Perot attracted 17% of Republican voters.
The Republicans threw Bush I under the bus basically. This phenomena was reported here and many other places. But why? Interestingly enough Perot was against the first Gulf War which meant he attracted the Buchananite wing of the Republican party. Those jumping ship on Iraq today also have no stamina for a real war. We all knew Iraq would be tough, but the establishment of a democratic ally in the Middle East is still well worth the effort to ensure success. Buchanan has been calling for surrender as much as Pelosi. The parallel between 1992 and 2006 are striking. The Perot disaster mimics the Republican Thumpin’ of 2006 in another way as well – immigration:
Perot also led the charge against Senate ratification of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), designed to reduce trade barriers with Mexico and Canada. Perot stepped up his media campaign against NAFTA with his catchy “giant sucking sound” quip about American jobs being pulled to Mexico. Perot also authored a book (with economist Pat Choate), “Save Your Job, Save Our Country: Why NAFTA Must Be Stopped Now!”
Perot was a pro-choice, isolationist, small government candidate. So it is hard to call him a conservative magnet – he was a mixed bag at best. But his big draw was being against NAFTA and immigration:
Today, foreign professional workers can enter the US labor market, but only “temporarily†& only if an employer gets a certification that a qualified US worker cannot be found. Also, the existing US immigration laws place a numerical limit on the number of temporary workers. Put another way, American workers have priority for American jobs.
NAFA radically alters this entire concept. Under NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian workers in 63 designated categories may be hired in the US, even if qualified American workers are available.
I see a recurring pattern here. The Buchananite wing of the far right threw its support to Perot and gave us Clinton. So let’s not simply take for granted the hard right is infallible. The fact is it is very fallible and has run to rash judgements more than once to upend conservative policies. In fact, the Buchananites tend to follow Buchanan in declaring themselves anti-Reagan as well as anti-Bush Republicans.
Except that in 1992, Pat Buchanan made clear that he was no longer a Reagan conservative. As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer, not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed — Ronald Wilson Reagan.
By going over his time limit, Pat Buchanan bumped that great American’s speech out of prime time. It would be Ronald Reagan’s last address to a Republican National Convention. Any true Republican, knowing that he was speaking before Ronald Reagan, would, instead of extending his remarks (as Buchanan did), have cut them short, out of respect for the then-octogenarian Gipper. And acknowledged how humbled he was to be on the same platform as that great man.
I recall this time because I had voted for Carter in 1980 and learned my lesson to become a conservative independent by 1984 – rarely to vote Democrat again. All this anymosity towards Reagan was covered over after his death, but it was real at the time. As we pick the ashes of the 2006 debacle, we must face facts – history has repeated itself and it is at the hands of the impatient, far right that conservatism saw its losses. These hardliners have openly declared a willingness to fight conservatives if they do not get their way, and align with liberals if that is what it takes:
“If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” William Kristol has told the New York Times.
The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.
…
Kristol’s warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.
Granted, Kristol was aiming at Buchanan in this piece saying he would prefer Kerry to Buchanan, but what he also said clearly is he has no allegiance to the conservative movement if they oppose his wants and desires.
The point is Kristol runs a magazine, he does NOT represent conservatives in this nation. Yet he pontificates on Fox News as if he is one with the movement. But how could that be if he is willing to oppose the movement on a whim? In fact, he should be seen as an unstable, fair weather, loose associate of conservatism – as long as the movement suites his needs we can count on him.
Conservatism won in the 2006 elections. Protection of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman won handily in many states. The Embryonic Stem Cell measure went down in MO (I believe) and CA rejected numerous liberal spending measures. So conservative policies did quite well.
So what happened? Clearly the anti-Bush (previously anti-Reagan/Bush) Reps repeated their mistakes of 1992. What can we do? How did the Reps turn it around by 1994? The Reps in 1994 rejected the far right and found common ground with the broad American people. Bush and Reagan were elected by the people, yet many in their own party threw them under the bus because of that very same broad appeal that got them elected. This is not the first time the far right wanted to jam their agenda onto a coalition that only agreed on a limited portion of their agenda. The Buchananites and the Kristolites do not support the governing coalition, they use it to further their views. They are not open to debate and evolving ideas. They only see ‘useful’ and ‘not useful’ in terms of their agendas. That is why NRO and others spend days taking pot shots at their most successful conservative leaders – they are not out for common ground with Americans. They are agenda driven. And their agendas focus on specific solutions, not broad goals. That is why the Fence Only crowd paralyzed the Congress over the guest worker program. It was not on their agenda.
A lot of people commented on why I am a Bush Conservative and how ‘asinine’ that view is (as one person put). But I do have a long view in these matters, and with it I see the second far right disaster in two decades. In 1992 the anti-immigration nativists flocked to Perot who was no true conservative (pro choice, anti Gulf War???) outside their one issue. The result was President Clinton who dutifully ignored the warning signs of Al Qaeda while all his energies focused on the polls and creating (and later salvagin) his legacy. He also pushed for full amnesty and citizenship – another resoundingly bad idea. In 2006, the anti-immigration, nativists folks crippled Congress and refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform (which 2/3rds of the electorate support). As in 1992, the result was a fractured (in other words crippled) democrat party now in charge of Congress. And again the result will be losing focus on the threats to this nation while we are consumed by partisan investigations and the Democrat internal battles. Once again the hard line gambled all and decided if they could not have power, no conservatives would have power. They bet it all and lost. But this time we still have Bush who, unlike Clinton, is not concerned with his legacy but on protecting this nation. And that is why I stick with Bush and reject the Republican Gliterati. Those are my choices and the Bush wins hands down.
Once the long view comes into focus it will become clear what happened. And the first party to see what happened clearly will be able to adjust and grab the initiative for the next few years. That is what happened in 1992 after the far right threw the last Bush under the bus. We shall see if history will repeat itself on the upside as well as the downside. But be forewarned, it is just as likely the Democrats could finally see where things are heading and grab the initiative. Both parties are no fractured and relying on the independent voters to give them a chance to govern. Neither is party is looking very good. So small adjustments will look incredibly better.
Addendum: And who has been the loudest critics of Hispanic Sen Mel Martinez’s selection to head the RNC (a selection I was not keen on)? Well, you can guess it. The “Fence Only” crowd (at the Weekly Standard [Tripe] no less) took it as an attack on them probably because Bush is still trying to reach out to Hispanic voters – which makes them Citizens!:
BY APPOINTING Florida senator Mel Martinez to chair the Republican National Committee, President Bush sent a blunt message to conservatives: “Drop dead.” That’s the opinion of Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who has lobbied hard against Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration reform package. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it highlights the GOP fissure on immigration–one deepened by the recent election.
Martinez, a Cuban refugee who fled the island in 1962, supports the Bush vision of a guest-worker program for future immigrants and a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He is also a prominent GOP envoy to the Latino community. His elevation to RNC chief, says Krikorian, shows how “emotionally” invested Bush is in passing an “amnesty” bill. “This is something the president can’t let go.”
What the Fence Only crowd cannot let go is they are losing Hispanic voters. I reiterate – these are American citizens – not illegal aliens. And opposing a Hispanic US Senator because of fears the Fence Only crowd cannot control the agenda (that already happened in the House loss, but these new Buchananites can’t ‘let go’) is just the kind of broad insult which repulses people. Martinez is a US citizen and a US Senator. The fact he is Hispanic is the only reason these people are pushing the panic button. The Fence Only crowd is rapidly, and thankfully, isolating itself in a fit or purity. Not all conservatives are buying their fear mongering:
But not all conservatives agree about the House Republicans. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist thinks there has always been a functioning House majority for comprehensive immigration reform. So what happened last summer? “The radio talk-show hosts got out there and poisoned the atmosphere,” says Norquist, who worries that being overly harsh on immigration contributed to the GOP’s loss of Congress.
I know I have ruined my standing with Cons over this bitter medicine. But I, like Bush ,have much more important goals in mind than pandering to the far right when they are in a self destructive mood.
What if Pelosi does make common cause with Bush on immigration? How will House Republicans respond? “I think they’ll lay down on the railroad tracks in front of it, to keep it from going through,” says an aide to GOP congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, head of the conservative Republican Study Committee. “We lost the base a long time ago, and that’s why the House crumbled.”
Last Friday Pence lost his bid for minority leader to John Boehner, the current majority leader. Arizona’s John Shadegg also lost his challenge to incumbent Roy Blunt of Missouri for GOP whip. Both vote counts were lopsided. “I have never been so disgusted with my own party,” says another Republican House aide. “I find it astonishing that our leadership just seems to be skating through.”
Let them lay down on the tracks. The sooner we end this fiasco the sooner we can get right again. Pun intended.
Update: More evidence that Latinos and Hispanics left the GOP after all the success Bush had in bringing them INTO the debate on how to fix illegal immigration.
Why was Newt Gingrich for the prescription drug legislation?
I have no idea. Has he been asked that question? If so, what was his answer?
It’s true many senior’s need help with prescription drug costs. But one of the unforseen consequences of helping those who needed help was, many companies have dropped their own coverages helping retirees, once the Government Plan took effect. Many liked the company plans they had, but now they are gone. So it’s a double edge sword if you will. You can’t really blame companies, it saves them a lot of money.
Additionally, many drug companies give away their medicines to the needy. And Wall Mart will soon have Generics for $4.00 per prescription. So there are positives and negatives to having the new plan.
If I’m not mistaken, the plan ended up costing FAR more than what we were initially told. No surprise there! Welfare cost Billions more than any of it’s projections, prior to implimentation.
That’s it for me today, I have to work both days this “Week-end?” The joys of the Private Sector! To all of you, enjoy your day!
Ken:
The last time Buchanan ran he got 1% of the vote. Nader got 4.7% of the vote. That means that if Buchanan quadrupled his support he would almost have as many supporters as Ralph did in 2000.
Bush did not sell any out. His views on immigration are the same ones he espoused when he ran for office in 2000. They are the same as they were when he was the Governor of Texas.
No Bush is not the one doing the selling out here.
Folks I work for a home health care agency. A great many of our clients are either on medicare and medicaid.
I know people living on $900 a month whose med bills are almost half that. If you do not help them and they can not buy their meds and they get sick medicare has to pay for that anyway and it costs more. If you do not help them eventually a great many will end up on medicaid and that means you pay all the costs, not part. These are real people many of whom have worked hard for years and paid taxes just like everyone else.
I lost my taste for Coulter when she did that elitist oped about Ivy League people and how they are just better than the rest of us during that whole silly stupid unnecessary self destructive Miers nonsense.
I went to a state university myself and I guess that makes me white trash to Ms Coulter.
Terrye
Ms Coulter would probably prefer they die. I’m sure most didn’t go to Ivy League schools.
Malkin would be more compassionate. Internment camps are her preferred answer.
Why all this rhetoric about deserting Bush? He did not run for office, in case anyone didn’t bother to notice the lack of his name on the ballots.
All elections are local. In the respect that every person thinks how the person they are voting for, president on down, will help them and add to their lives.
And please, stop drinking the Koolaid long enought to realize that Bush is no conservative. The McCain-Feingold bill is unconstitutional, yet Bush signed it. He has signed every pork project put in front of him. Lower taxes and the WOT are his strong points, but those two things in themselves does not make Bush a conservative unless you count him as a JFK conservative.
I was once a Democrat. FDR, Truman, JFK Democrat. That party no longer exists and so I turned to the Republican party because they seemed to stand for the values I held dear.
As yourselves; what is a TRUE conservative? Is it someone who eschews big government, higher taxes and removal of personal responsibility? Is it someone who feels that the Founding Fathers got it right and there is no need to fix a system that isn’t broken? Is it someone who realizes that laws are made for the common good and giving excuses to those who break those laws because they are poor, mentally ill or somehow otherwise deprived should not be given a pass on adherence to those laws?
Republicans gave the election away. Republicans are held to a higher standard than those on the left side of the aisle and they failed the test. But to say that it was a mandate on the President is just well, wrong headed.
Anti Herman
MSCM where did you get that from?
It sounds as if you may be a member of NTDKA. but I’m not sure.
As I pointed out O’Reilly said he and Letterman were great friends but it was in jest. I don’t believe Ann and Mahr are friends. that’s not important anyhow.
The letters MSM is correctly preceded by the word “formerly”
And you said:
(Enacted under the traitor Bush).
If you believe this, you need to go away, nobody but Ken on this site would agree with you and you and he are not worth spending any time on.
First, you need to watch the story “obsession” on FoxNews then you need to get on your knees and thank God we had Pres Bush on 9/11, then you need to go to hell. Pardon Ken’s French.
Am I close-minded about this. Yes, so you won’t need to try to give a cute retort. It’ll roll right off.
NTDKA = nuts that don’t know anything.
Enforcement
My point is this:
“Conservatives” have ripped GWB over the drug benefit. Except for wailing about “spending”, they offer nothing. GWB has offered the avenue out off the imminent disaster (see my earlier post). That’s the true conservative answer. What’s Limbaugh’s answer? How do you transition out of our current disaster in public schools? What’s Coulter’s answer?
There are way too many pundits. It’s niave to assume that alot of these characters wouldn’t want Hilary back. Disaster for us but good for them. They can write books and be on TV shows.
For Enforcement:
Sorry I don’t know what “S-P” means. I guess you don’t mean Shore Police and believe or not, neither O’Reilly nor Letterman affect my political views.
All,
• The prescription Drug Plan has private benefit providers competing against other private providers, offering prescriptions at prices each plan has negotiated with the drug manufacturers. The market forces are working.
The alternative is the Dem idea of the government “negotiating” one price and dictating the protocols.
Conservative principles are preserved. Thank you Pres. Bush.
• On ” big government,” – Government has grown because of the War on Terror, Homeland Security, Border Enforcement, Prescription Drug Pan, and Demographics. If we lived in the 1800’s, maybe these wouldn’t be necessary.
The National Debt is smaller (as a percentage of GDP) than in 1995 or even 1952 (abt 65% now)
Thank you Pres. Bush for making Conservatism relevant to our times.
Re: Medicare Part D Drug Plan
I may be only person commenting on this string who is also currently dealing with this plan and I’d welcome a reasoned discussion of same sans finger-pointing and recriminations.
As far as I can see, the only good thing about it is that Wal-Mart and now Publix (a southern supermarket chain) and Target have come forth with their own low cost plans for generics that don’t generate huge administrative costs. These private plans don’t cover everything, but they’re available to all, not only seniors. I believe they will be so well received by the public, that more drugs will be added and the private sector will again triumph over governmental bureaucracy!
After the smoke cleared, my husband who takes a whole bunch of drugs with no generic alternatives has gone over the gap and in the end will pay as much or more than if he had not enrolled. I made out a bit better, but I’m not sure the paltry “savings” was worth the effort and I’m in the midst of deciding whether or not to enroll for 2007.
Although Newt Gingrich’s IQ may be 20 or 30 points higher than John Kerry’s, they’re both pathetic in their unhealthy craving for center stage. Newt had his chance, but chose to divert himself with a colleague and lie about it instead of minding the people’s business. He should retire gracefully, go home and tend to his knitting.
ERP:
I have had clients who went on the program and liked it and some others were in that in between place where it was some help but by no means a freebie.
At first they were not sure of what to do, but after awhile they figured it out.
It is not meant to pay for all drugs, it is meant to help people buy their own who otherwise can not afford it. I know people with good insurance who really do not need it. The problem with any of these programs is that they either do too much or too little depending on your perspective. A lot of my medicaid clients went back to medicare as first payer source with this drug program, but what medicare does not pay medicaid does in the end anyway.
And I wonder if Wal Mart would have put all those generics on that list of drugs for $4 if not for this plan.
ERP,
Plans are free to cover the “donut hole” congress created. Some do. And catastrophic expenses are still covered.
Gingrich doesn’t define conservatism for me.
You all have missed the point. The Republican lost because they are a bunch of wimps. Why didn’t they indict people like Ted Kennedy for treason for collaborating with the KGB to undermine and defeat Reagan’s policies? Why hasn’t Rockefeller been indicted for his Middle East meddling and aiding and abetting the enemy? Why wasn’t anyone indicted for the intelligence leaks? Why weren’t reporters jailed until they revealed the leakers? So what if they couldn’t make the cases stick. Did that ever stop the Democrats from indicting high rankling Republicans? Who was it said, “How do I get my reputation back?” One of Reagan’s appointees wasn’t it. Who remembers those who were acuitted? They could have done like the Clinton’s drag the cases out with delays, etc until nobody cared any more.
Why didn’t Fred Thompson drag all those Democrat hooligans before his committee and make them take the 5th before the TV cameras. He just issued a statement listing the names of those who would plead the 5th so they weren’t calling them as witnesses. Clinton would never have been elected the second time if the Republicans had not blown the many chances to inform the American people. They knew the MSM was not going to report anything unless it was presented in such a way that they couldn’t avoid it. They had CSPAN. Why didnt’ they use it? The Democrats did at every opportunity.
I believe the American people voted the way they did because they didn’t know about the many treasons and other questionable activities of the Democrats. We had a scandal in TN involving a man who embezzled millions from insurance and investment funds from state agencies and big companies. He acquired the contracts by giving big donations to the state and national Dem. Party. After giving to Dem. Gov. Phil Bredesen’s campaign, Bredesan’s campaign manager squired him around and introduced him to agency heads. All this broke before the last election. Yet, the embezzlement was reported once in a short blip on the back pages of newspapers, and no mention of the Governor, nor the Democrat Party’s involvement was mentioned. Bredesen would never have been reelected if the voters had known his invoovement in this scandal. On the same day this embzzler was served with legal papers he donated $20,000 to the State Dem. Party and the party Chairman said they weren’t going
to give it back. and they didn’t. This was reported only in the Nashville Tennessean newspaper. And Bredesan was reelected, of course.
Similar coverups of Democrat scandals also went unreported. While unsupported charges against Republicans and alledged scandals were given front page coverage . The Republicans didn’t fight back. They didn’t use the means at their disposal to get their message out. Instead of reminding people of Carter’s 21% inflation, the destruction of our military by neglect and cutting off of funds, the orders for our foreign agents to switch sides and work with insurgents in places like Rhodesia, South Africa, and Iran, which laid the ground work for today’s Iran problems, the Zimbabwe and South African genocide of whites (the most unreported story of our time) and a host of other problems that we are still facing today, and instead of reminding voters of Bill Clinton’s neglect of foreign affairs and lack of effective response after repeated attacks, and by his inactions led the terrorists to beleive they cold do anything and get away with it, because he was busy playing stink finger in the Oval Office, they concentrated on prattling on about the War in Iraq and the border fence.
The Republicans lost because they were trying to be the good guys and keep the election out of the gutter, while the Democrats slimed them and dragged them down into it. Somebody needs to tell the Republicans that nice guys finish last and the public’s memory is about two weeks long. The people loved Reagan because he wasn’t a wimp. He said what he meant and he did what he said he would do. All the talk about arms for hostages is a lot of bunk dreamed up by the Dems. to make Reason look bad.
duroing the campaign, Reagan said that the way he would get our hostages, taken during Carter’s reign, back was, “I’d give them a deadline when the hostages should be released and I’d tell them if they weren’t relesed by that time something very unpleasant would happen to them. Then, if when the deadline arrived and the hostages weren’t realeased, that unpleasant thing would happen to them.” Don’t you remember? They were stuffing those hostages onto planes while Reagan was being sworn in. Apparently the deadline was as soon as he became president. There was no need to swap arms for them. They were turned loose before Reagan had to take action. The “arms for hostage” slander was a smear made up by the Democrats which was never chanllenged.
Apparently the public’s is not the only memory that is two weeks long.
If the Republican’s want to win elections they have to act like men, not wimps.
ERP don’t understand your beef with Newt.
you said:
Although Newt Gingrich’s IQ may be 20 or 30 points higher than John Kerry’s, they’re both pathetic in their unhealthy craving for center stage. Newt had his chance, but chose to divert himself with a colleague and lie about it instead of minding the people’s business. He should retire gracefully, go home and tend to his knitting.
This may be a relavation to you, but Newt is not in government at the present time. Serious question, there are 536 elected people in government, 435+100+1, if everyone of them that had chose to divert themselves left and went home, do you think there would be 10 left? What about Senators that have drowned people? should they be there? I would put Newt several notches above Jon Carry in the IQ category. Carry doesn’t seem very bright to me. (well, he was smart enough to let gigiloism pay off)
Newt is very conservative compared to the average Republican. I think. But he is often wrong on his opinions, just as I am.
Then you’ll hate this:
It is assumed by everyone, and accepted as truth that hardly needs expression, that the brilliant and independent Michael Steele was not chosen as head of the RNC for the simple reason that he doesn’t look like someone who’d simply take orders. Mel Martinez was chosen for the reason that he will. I heard talk of what is called “the listâ€â€“the lengthening White House list of those who are to be treated as enemies. A White House preoccupied with the petty gave too little attention to policy, to the big picture. Thus the history of bungles…
The White House’s reaction to the recent election was, essentially, Now we can get our immigration bill through with the Democrats. That was a clue. I suspect the president will over the next two years do to Republicans what he did to Donald Rumsfeld: over the side, under the bus and off the sled.
He doesn’t need them. They’re not popular. They’re not where the action is. He’ll work closely with Democrats, gain in time new and admiring press–â€Bush has grown,†etc.
This is the path he will take to build his popularity and create a new legacy. If the Democrats let him.
More from Peggy Noonan
Newt was in charge of the Contract with America and he dropped the ball big time forcing his resignation and then the resignation of the next two speakers for adultery until Danny Hastert was able to be confirmed. That’s my gripe.
Naturally Ted Kennedy and many other liberals should have been indicted and put into jail or executed as the case may be for treason ala Kerry.
Ditto Republicans must act like winners not wimps, unfortunately lots of them are more comfortable “going along to get along.”
not only was Newt in charge of the Contract with America, he invented it and got it passed into law. He was not guilty of anything ethically as far as his house seat was concerned. His personal life is not germaine.
Do you mean the next two ‘potential’ speakers, I don’t recall any speakers between Gingrich and Hastert.
There is just too much double standard in the Congress. Any Repub with any taint, is out. No matter how bad a dem is, he stays until he goes to jail. In fact I think one of the last ones actually was still a congressman at the time he went to jail and then ran again while still in jail. That shaggy haired guy. Sheets Byrd, grand dragon KKK, Teddy, driver of crashed submarine with female passenger aboard.
Ken, you said:
Europeans test higher in knowledge about the world, eg
its geography, its political systems,its varying philosophies.
Even European countries with a reputation as decadent
(Holland and Sweden for example) have stronger family units
than America.
You been reading those Berkeley Profs again? Where is your proof? same place your proof about Churchill breaking up the British Empire? You still doing a google search on that? I told you I would provide you a link if you need one.
and you said:
You are simply a comparatively uneducated, naeive Europhobe
Let’s see, how does that saying go? If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. Yea, I think that’s it.
You are getting way behind in providing any proofs at all. You out of touch with reality? You need an appointment with Noam? to bone up on your “why it’s America’s fault” answers. Noam is no. 1 at that you know.
Thanks Christoph
You provide the perfecr example of the pundit driven mindlessness that has overtaken the conservative movement.
ERP, whatever Newts failings (we all have them), he is a man of supreme ideas. Our problem is we ignore the men of ideas like Newt and look to idiots like Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, Michele Malkin, and Ann Coulter.
I do disagree with AJ on one matter. This election was turned on Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff. Without this and the dozen other scandal both houses are retained. We should be thankful that the Dims panicked in September and broke Foley.
Two weeks before the election would have been a bloodbath.
Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard AJ. Reagan and Bush 1 were about as far apart as you can get. You would be an unprincipled toady if you could honestly say that you supported both of them equally. One called for Tax cuts the other called Tax Cuts Voodoo Economics.
You really don’t have any sort of philosophy except to say yes sir how high sir? That is not what made Republicans great AJ. Being a Rockefeller republican got us beat time and time again. It was the Reagan revolutionaries, of which I was one, who came in and threw the establishment out and started winning elections. You would have been one of those arguing that we should support Rockefeller and Nixon.