Nov 19 2006
More Anti-Bush Republicans Political Suicide
The Anti-Bush Reps don’t seem satiated with losing Congress. They are now out to lose 2008, thinking naively that distancing themselves from the only Conservative in a position of power will win influence with said position of power. It seems the anti-Bush republicans have not finished self destructing. Well that is all well and good. The more they raise up their heads and announce themselves, the easier it will be to relegate them to the political wastelands. I have no intentions of supporting Reps who let their frustrations get the bettter of them. If they cannot show self control they are not showing leadership qualities. When will the Anti-Bush Republicans realize they are alienating the Bush conservatives, and this will not a be a rift that can be repared. Demonstrating a penchant for only failure is not a way to create political influence.
AJ…
Ever been to a ball game, your team is loosing, “Big Time”? People start heading for the parking lot at the top of the 7th, might as well beat the traffic. Some of that going on.
I’m not into that, bought my ticket, win or loose I’m there for the whole show, and who knows sometime the home team gets lucky and pulls one out. Now that’s not quite the same of knowing that your team is getting beat badly and the pitcher’s stuff is getting poor and the bull pin ain’t got nobody worth a darn warming up so you’ve sunk, but hey there’s always the chance until the last pitch of the 9th inning.
But I still may think and even say my team stinks and maybe we need to change the manager, a few key players and maybe even the way we are playing the game, but it’s still my team.
That’s the WaPo that carried the story, one of the flagships of the Formerly MSM. I usually refrain from anything they write. Very unreliable. Kinda like the callers on CSPAN
Well a lot of people had a falling out with Rumsfeld, but the truth is if Bush had not gone after Saddam, had he allowed that dictator to get away with ignoring the cease fire and funding terrorism after 9/11 these same people would have been walking away from Bush years sooner. That is the thing about being a hanger onner. Adelman does not have to make the decisions, all he has to do is run his mouth.
Hell even Al Gore said it was time to deal with Saddam on our terms.
I think people just want to go to the days of the media lying for Saddam and covering up his crimes out of greed or fear or both.
Enforcement:
In truth you do have to be a little wary of callers to C-Span or anywhere. The important thing is how people vote, now who makes the most noise. I think we tend to forget that sometimes.
One thing I have wondered about, why was it that the fence only people did not get all happy when Bush signed the Fence Security Act? They had been making all kinds of demands, not satisfied when the appropriations bill was signed because they said that without the fence bill that meant nothing and then they got the fence bill and no one seemed to care. It was almost as if they were so into complaining and acting all paranoid and betrayed that they could not be bothered to be happy about the bill.
I know, it has been a whole month and the fence is not built yet, so it goes without saying that the Buchanan wing has been lied to. If Bush realy cared he would wave his magic wand and make a 2,000 mile long fence just pop right up out of the deserts and mountains and rivers. Bad man.
Terrye you do agree tho that the WaPo, as the NYT are extremely unreliable sources don’t you? As I said earlier, I listen to Washington Joournal and have always questioned the truth of the callers, but they are fun to listen to at times..
Can’t answer tht about the “fence only” crowd, don’t know any of those., Ditto Buchanan wing. I read some that may be Buch Wing, but don’t know for sure. Never hear anything from “fence only” crowd, what are you hearing from them and who are they?
Enforcement:
Yes, I do have my doubts about the WaPo and NYT. Like I said I also have my doubts about callers, lots of people just would never do anything like call in. The people who do tend to be people of stronger opinions. Obviously.
My point about the fence only people is that they made such a big deal out of getting the Fence Act passed { I thought Kaus was going to have a cow} and then when it was the immediate reaction was: what have you done for me lately. This is the government we are talking about here, they do not do anything immediately.
Terrye,
The fence was not embraced by the President as a tool to control illegal immigration, and there is no unique funding line to build it, man it or repair it. Many, including me think it’s a bit of a sham, passed so the Republicans could point to “See we are doing something”.
The President has yet to get aggressive on this issue and he has many powers using presidential directives that he has chosen not to use. Take a look at what Clinton did with Presidential directives in his closing days in the the White house.
There is really no reason to “abandon” Bush, he is out of office in 2 years anyway. In fact, Bush was the only effective campaign angle the Democrats have had because every time they attempt to speak about their values, they lose ground. So rather than take a proactive forward-looking approach where they put forth their vision, they instead go for the Bush bashing approach.
All of this “Bush abandonment” might be an attempt to take that wind out of the Democrat campaign sails. Once everyone agrees to abandon Bush, the Democrats are forced to actually come up with an issue.
There comes a point when they can point a finger and say a problem is all Bush’s fault but they are forced into the “yes, so, but what are you going to *do* about it now” corner. Casting blame works for about the first 15 minutes. After than you need to come up with a plan to actually handle the problem. So far I have not seen the Democrats with any plan other than run away and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. This notion that if we remove all of our people from the forest then as far as we know no trees are falling, is idiotic.
Had the Democrates stayed on board with Iraq instead of jumping off the ship practically as soon as troops crossed the border, we probably wouldn’t have the situation we have now. War is very much psychological. It is often not so much won by beating an opponent physically as it is making them give up their will to fight. The Democrats have bent over backwards to give the enemy hope. Every word out of Murtha’s mouth is a morale booster for the enemy. The Democrats are probably more responsible for getting our kids killed over there than the Republicans are. If they would have presented a solid front and made it appear that it didn’t matter which party was in office, the terrorists were still going to get their butts kicked, they might have put down their arms. Now they see a Democratic victory as their victory and the Democrats are going to deliver them that victory by pulling out the troops.
Strategically the Democrats are idiots. The Republicans are idiots in a different way. They are completely unable to get their message packaged and put out to the people in a way it can be understood. This is mostly the fault of a press that works for the Democrats. What the Republicans really need is a propoganda operation as large as the one the Democrats have. There need to be some major US daily papers and broadcast conglomerates owned and staffed by Republicans. Until that happens the Republicans will be elected to offfice only because they suck less than Democrats. Democrats will be elected, screw things up, Republicans elected to replace them until the media convinces the people to give the Dems another chance, rinse/lather/repeat.
The Republican party would stand its best chance by abandoning the far right and going federalist on most of the major social issues. In exchange for casting off 5% of the electorate, they stand a better chance of picking up the 15% of the electorate that is not Republican but tends to lean that way. Either that or the Democrats will cast off the nutroots and pick up that 15% and be in power for a very long time.
Lets see now if we can cover this as easily as possible. First off AJ you are absolutely one of the best strawmen builders in the world. Not able to deal with real arguments you construct opponents you are able to deal with, though even with those you resort to personal attacks instead of countering ideas. I was there for the Reagan Revolution and it was first a revolution against the sort of Toadying to the Establishment Republicans that you seem so enamored by, then we struck the Democrats. Vigorous debate defined the moment.
In your world there can be no debate, there is only following the orders of the Fearless Leader who you worship beyond all rational reason. You are dangerous to leaders because instead of challenging their ideas with your counter proposals you merely say yes sir. Yes men are dangerous.
In your world and those who believe that loyalty wins elections none of the below happened…or worse they happened but hey its all good because Bush said so.
1. Bush for the entire time we have been involved in an arguably in a war for our very survival has steadfastly refused to name the enemy. We are still fighting a tactic…except for that brief shining moment in time when, I know your heart leapt for joy, we started fighting against extremism. In that ill-fated attempt to rebrand the war.
2. For this entire war being fought in two major fronts as well as all around the world has steadfastly refused to up defense spending to at the very least the levels we had during Clinton. Even though by Candidate Bush’s own mouth was too low. Currently we are at 3.7% GDP in spending…Clinton’s average was 3.9% of GDP and he didnt even have a war, much less a two front shooting war with guerilla wars all over the world. See http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/11/04/asking-whether-rumsfeld-has-done-well-with-what-he-has-is-perhaps-the-wrong-question.htm
3. Allowed Saddam enough time to get his weapons secured.
4. Gave the medal of Freedom to one of the main failures of 9/11, Tenet. When he left the CIA was just as crippled as when he arrived…
But none of that counts against Bush…?
Pierre
Terrye
You used to be a Polipundit regular. When the fence act was signed, all they did was bitch that GWB was signing “reluctantly”.
They got mad when a cautioned that completion will drive most of them to suicde. They didn’t get it.
Enforcement:
A sham? What is the point of bothering with people with this attitude?
There was an appropriations bill and people bitched and moaned and whined that it did not mean anything until the actual Fence Security Act was signed and then the Fence Security Act was signed and it seems like it did not even slow these people up. The other day I did hear someone complaining that even if they got the 700 mile fence like they were supposed to it was not enough because they needed a 2,000 mile fence.
Even when they get what they say they want they complain, nothing is ever good enough…so why bother trying?
I think the sham is the issue. Obviously the only thing that really matters to the people raising hell about this is that is gives them something to bitch about.
And then they somehow think it is okay to not vote Repbulican [because after all the Republicans have not as of yet made it a law to shoot a Mexican every day now have they? Well that just proves they are not serious right?]…
But by not voting Republican they just make it more likely that they will not get what they say they want. So I am beginning to wonder if the sham is the immigration whiners themselves. So far they have not won one seat for the GOP with this issue, if anything they lost them seats and then even when they did blackmail lawmakers into giving them what they said they wanted it was not good enough.
I am to the point where I just don’t give a damn anymore.
Crosspatch:
I agree with you on just about everything. But I still hope that the Democrats will be restrained. I am hoping that the ISG will come up with something that will give enough of them political cover so that they will not yank the troops out. I think it would be a disaster for the country if they did. I hear people complain that Bush did not fight the war hard enough, but with this kind of an oppposition party and with a treacherous press I don’t know that it is possible to fight a war hard enough.
anti Herman:
poliopundit went stupid over this issue. Flat out dumb as a bucket of rocks.
I am sorry…. the post to enforcement was meant for Steve.
Pierre:
For all you know Saddam moved those weapons out of there between 98 when Clinton bombed Iraq and 2000 when Bush came to office.
The Republicans can’t get their message out because MSM won’t. If they try, they twist it so that it is unrecognisable in meaning and content. Wilson called Bush a liar and it was on the evening news on every station within one news cycle. And was repeated over and over for days, weeks, months and years. Why, because the lefties wanted it to be so and they made it so. Now, how can you govern when print and news media are willing to take you down at every turn. I’m surprised Bush was re-elected. President Bush has shown such conviction and courage over the last 5 years in my opinion those who bug out on him now are the losers, and have lost my respect and vote for ever.
Kathie..
Yea that’s the ticket, blame the MSM for not helping sell the message, no questioning if the message is one that can be sold or appeals to people, blame the MSM. Think long and hard about the message the Republicans sent out in the last election.
“We Suck Less”….scary Democrats…scary scary scary, a message totally bereft of ideas or explanation of why the President and Republicans in general do a better job of governing than Democrats, which I tend to believe they do.
Ronnie was able to deal with the media in his day and this outlet, the blogs and the internet or for that matter FOX was not in business, how did he succeed.
One of the major handicaps for President Bush has been his poor communications skills and for that matter the poor While house communications organization. I keep hoping that Tony Snow will put some fire in the belly there, but so far they are better, but not outstanding.
Steve:
I have heard give Bush give some very good speeches. His speech in September 2002 was one of the best major addresses I have ever heard from any president. I grew up in Oklahoma and I live in Indiana so believe it or not Bush does not sound that bad to me. Maybe the problem some people have with his speech is partly their problem.
In fact I rather like to listen to his press conferences some times. And besides, he won the White House. Not just anybody can do that. I get so tired of people who could probably not win an election for dog catcher treating someone like Bush like a moron. sheesh.
But Kathie has a point about the media. It is not all just the media’s fault of course but I do think the willingness of the media to take some joker like Wilson seriously does underline a problem. And btw I can remember people saying that Reagan was stupid and senile and all kinds of things.