Oct 12 2007
GOP Success In 2008?
Lori Byrd has some words of advice on how the GOP could rally the conservative forces to win in 2008. Personally, with some key adjustments, it is more than plausible the GOP could make a resurgence. The problem is the coalition needs some internal wounds addressed. But let’s look at Lori’s suggestions:
1. Instead of taking positive action and doing the hard work necessary to elect strong conservative candidates in the primaries, whine about how the Republicans aren’t any better than the Democrats. It is sure as heck a lot easier to whine than to make phone calls, stuff envelopes and knock on doors for conservative candidates.
2. After a primary candidate is chosen (without any help from you), forget about how many more positions on issues you and the GOP candidate share, and forget how far left their Democratic opponent is, and instead work against the Republican in the general election (or withhold support from them) to “send a message.â€
3. Instead of disagreeing in a civil manner over various issues with those in the party, get emotional and accuse those on your side of being mean doodyheads. (If anyone doubts this is going on, I will gladly share evidence of it with you, but will admit that generally a word worse than “doodyhead†is employed.)
4. Bask in the misery of another loss and instead of working to get conservative Republicans elected in 2010, try to pull as many others as possible into your negative state of being.
All good points. Number three is probably the most important. Civil and serious discourse. The one thing I used to enjoy doing was going over to KoS or Democrat Underground and pull out some of the abhorrent commentary that was there. Got me lots of links to be sure. BUt it also implied to me that one of the core differences between the right and left. Emotionalism without thought was a trademark of the far left – until they won in 2006. Now it seems to be a trademark of those frustrated and unable to cope with being in the minority.
When debating serious issues it is important to take them seriously and treat those we want to convince to join us with respect. That means no name calling when we disagree. People who name call when they are losing a debate just cannot be taken seriously. I work in a serious business – space flight – and we don’t name call when are views don’t carry the day. And yes, we need a majority position on questions that just aren’t cut and dry like everyone else.
It also means not being shoddy and impugning people using false ‘facts’. The Frost debacle was first and foremost a lot of people jumping to disparaging statements about the Frost family on bad information. In fact, much of it was pure speculation. I note this comment from a post on the matter at John Cole’s Balloon Juice, a comment that I actually read on a leftwing site:
Option 1: Real Journalism
1. Call the Frosts to verify the details about them.
2. Call the agency that handles S-CHIP in Baltimore to find out their situation.
3. Talk to anyone else that can independently verify the Frost’s situation (i.e. doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.).
4. Publish the facts.Option 2: Wingnutosphere Journalism
1. Show up at the Frost’s house unannounced and spy on them.
2. Guess as to what the Frost’s situation is based on their car, the value of their house and some Google searches.
3. Talk to neighbors and co-workers to get the inside dirt on the Frost’s (do they throw lavish parties?).
4. Publish their personal information along with your opinion of their situation and invite further scrutiny from the general public based on misinformation.
All valid points. The smear some cannot see right in front of them was taking unvalidated information and wildly speculating from there. The point is many went off half cocked and are simply being called on it.
That is what conservatives do all the time with liberals. We call them on their mistakes and errors. The Frosts are the type of self sufficient, independent free spirits who should be natural conservatives. And the S-CHIP safety net is not a bad program as long as it doesn’t morph into a government take over of our medical freedom of choice. The debate should have been one on how the Frosts are the poster child for free market health care with a minimal safety net out there for when people get into rough patches.
And one comment on assets and means testing again. It is obvious to any who understand the true cost of insurance for a family of 6 (that would be us) in this area (other areas of the country don’t count) that the Frost assets would not cover their medical bills. And they shouldn’t. Including assets in a life long, monthly stipend program like Social Security makes sense. But S-CHIP is an emergency program for those who do not have the means to deal with a medical situation. And what kind of safety net leaves the family out on the street and on the welfare roles? Anyone still myopically focused on assets is insulting the intelligence of the body politic.
I go back to Lori Byrd’s item three. Civil debate. That includes civility towards the opposition – no matter how far in the sewer they slide. Civility and respect meant fact checking and doing a serious mea culpa when the facts did not support the overheated rhetoric. Civility means treating a family that went through these tough times with respect. Yes, there have been fakes produced by the Dems. Not this time. All you had was a family who supported a program speaking about their expierence through their son’s voice. Tough to argue? So what?
I have seen people say the boy and the family were fair game. Well, then so are the people who rushed to judgement and gave conservatives an ugly, black eye. The problem with this argument is just because you can do a thing doesn’t mean you should. This American family deserved the benefit of the doubt until HARD evidence to the contrary was produced.
As I said on the outset of this mess I won’t follow a party of Begala’s and Carville’s. It would be best of the reactionaries stopped trying to be first and focused on being best. I applaud Lori’s efforts to look forward and build bridges. I wish there were more like her out there. Maybe I would feel more positive about our future.
All good points AJ, but if the Presidency
comes down to Hillary vs Romney, you have to pick one.
I would prefer Rudy but I think I’d have to vote Romney.
I don’t trust him, but I don’t trust Hillary even more.
Anyways, it won’t be Mitt. It’s going to be Rudy vs. Hillary.
I don’t know who’s going to win, but the Brits have a saying,
“a week is a long time in politics” and it means that unplanned for
external events have a nasty habit of overthrowing all the best laid
plans.
Like a new Middle East War, which looks imminent.
I’m glad President Bush is still in charge, even if we can’t agree
on everything he does and does not do.
If it is Rudy versus Hillary, then a Democratic presidency is assured in 2008. Giuliani is unelectable nationally. And that’s without figuring in a walk-out or third party candidacy from the Christian far-right.
In spite of their continuing refusal to follow the wishes of their constituency and impeach Bush and Cheney, the Democrats will pick up at least 5 seats in the Senate, and more in the House. Plus the White House.
If Sooth is that scared of Giuliani, then he’s got to be the best possible nominee the Republicans could pick. Also fairly amusing to see him convince himself that Giuliani is “unelectable” but that Hillary, with far higher negatives than Giuliani ever will have, has a shot. Well of course you have to jump on Hillary’s bandwagon, since she’s going to be the nominee whether they like it or not.
Giuliani is my dream nominee. The Christian right is already talking about breaking away if the pro-choice, anti-gun, twice-divorced, thrice married serial adulterer is nominated.
As for the rest of the Republican batch:
McCain is a crazy old coot.
Thompson is a lazy old coot.
Brownback, Tommy Thompson and whats-their-names are a joke.
Giuliani is (see above).
Ron Paul is an outstanding guy but unelectable. Hell – I’d vote for Ron Paul.
Romney is definitely the strongest candidate – if the Christian right can get over the Book of Mormon.
Last night over at JOM I got inot with some people on the Frost thing.
Of course, they called me all sorts of names.
The thing is I think Bush should have vetoed that bill and I would like to see the veto stand, but the right has to realize that going after these people on a personal level looks really bad.
72% of the people out there support the Democratic expansion of S-CHIP. That means it is an uphill battle anyway. But when Michelle Malkin is doing drive bys of the family home and when commenters on blogs are treating these people like criminals, it it counter productive.
There are ways to go about this sort of thing and when I read the article in the Baltimore Sun I knew the right had completely over reacted.
It is going to make people wonder if the same kind of thing would happen to them if they spoke out in favor of something people like Red State or Michelle did not like. That is not the way you want people to see the right.
I think people on both the right and the left have gotten so far into their partisan hatred that they have forgotten how to act like normal people.
The Independents are getting sick of them all.
Sooth:
I really do not think that his religion is Romney’s problem. I think it is a personality kind of thing. People just do not warm to him.
Then that’s more bad news for Republicans. Cause he’s the only candidate with any chance at all. Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee is technically insolvent, with millions more in debt than it has in the bank.
The GOP can’t raise money–Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each brought in roughly twice as much cash in the third quarter as the top GOP competitors–and can’t recruit candidates. The party’s base is demoralized and threatening to walk if Giuliani wins the nomination.
Pete Domenici is just the latest Republican to announce he won’t seek re-election, Larry Craig is back in Congress, and the stench from the Mark Foley scandal remains strong. It would not be surprising if at least one or two once prominent Republicans–Curt Weldon, Conrad Burns, Tom DeLay–were indicted between now and next Fall.
I see the Democrats picking up 5 Senate seats and maybe 15 in the House.
Sooth:
I don’t think so. I know a lot of people right here in hicksville in who would vote for Giulliani.
I just looked at powerline and they are talking about the Frosts and they are actually linking to Michelle because she is posting pics of these people’s cars. Doing a drive by of their home was not enough.
Is there any indication that these people were supposed to sell their cars to get on this program? I don’t think so. So why do this? If they qualified for the program what is the point?
I’m sorry Terrye that you have chosen to misrepresent the discussion on JOM last evening. I observed the discussion and read a lot of people disagreeing with you but definately not calling you names.
As a matter of fact one poster took the time to go thru all of your posts, pointing out where you called others names!!
There was much ridiculing of your positions, but I don’t remember personal attacks.
Sadie:
Oh really? Great banana called me stupid. boris called me a liar. maybe you do not think that stupid and liar are names, but then you are not the one they were directed at.
And you know something sadie, maybe you should follow the link AJ has here and find out how the other side of the political spectrum sees this.
They are calling Malkin, Stalkin Malkin. The whole thing once again was ridiculous.
72% of the people in this country support the Democratic expansion of this program, if you are going to get on the opposite side of 3/4 of the people it is not a good idea to be attacking a family with injured kids when you do it.
It is dumb.
And one more thing sadie, telling someone that going after this family is dumr or stupid is not the same thing as calling them stupid. I did not call anyone any names when I pointed out that I thought this was politically bad for the right.
And the very fact that I would be held up to ridicule for not walking in mindless lockstep or that people would feel the need to back through all the posts blah blah blah because I am not going with the flow says something very unpleasant about that socalled big tent.
Pete Domenici is just the latest Republican to announce he won’t seek re-election – reason: health problems.
I don’t have a problem voting for Romney or Guiliani. I think that people are waiting until some of the primaries have gone past before contributing. Hell, I just l told NRCC and RNC that I would not contribute to them until they show us how serious they are in adhering to the grassroots, conservative but close to the center principles (not to the far right). Rein in uncontrolled spending. Rein in earmarks and pork. Reform the tax code in a very serious way and repeal the 16th amendment. In the meantime, make the Bush tax cuts permanently. Reform SSN and enact private accounts but not controlled by the government. Repeal the death tax permanently. Support the Bush Doctrine on the ME fully.
Perhaps, AJStrata should revive that topic about the “center” Republicans v. far right. It just came out after the November 2006 elections.
Why going after the Frosts was a bad idea, this is from the site AJ linked to, it seems there will be another PR effort on the part of the people supporting S-CHIP, this is part of John Cole’s post at Balloon Juice :
Ad Campaign Criticizes Pro-Life Members of Congress for Voting against Children’s Health Insurance
Washington, DC- Catholics United will launch a radio advertising campaign targeting ten members of Congress whose opposition to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have compromised their pro-life voting records.
The ads, which feature a mother urging her Congressional Representative to support SCHIP, will primarily air on Christian and talk radio stations from Monday Oct. 15 to Wednesday, Oct. 17 as Congress approaches a critical Oct. 18 vote to override President Bush’s veto of bipartisan SCHIP legislation.
“Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable,†said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. “At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children.â€
***
The script for the radio commercial reads: “I’m the mother of three children, and I’m pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation’s number one moral priority. That’s why I’m concerned that Congressman X says he’s pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That’s not pro-life. That’s not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that’s XXXXX.â€
**************
ATTN: Dan Riehl, Michelle Malkin, NRO, you have your marching orders. When the ad airs, it is your job to find out what you can about the woman reading the message. Some possible questions for you citizen journalists:
Is she really a woman?
What is her address and where can I find her house so I can drive by it?
Does she really have three kids?
Are they her kids?
Did she swap one in the hospital?
Is it possible she swapped one at the hospital?
Is she a good mother?
Is she really Catholic?
Does she go to church?
What was her last confession about?
Is she really pro-life?
Has she ever had an abortion?
Have her neighbors ever had an abortion?
Does she use birth control?
Has she ever done anything that could technically make her not Catholic? Not a good mother? Not pro-life?
And most important of all, what do her kitchen counters look like?
Terrye,
Too funny. Mind if I use it in a post?
AJStrata
Go right ahead. Cole has really been on this. And guess who he blames for all of it? Bush of course. It never ceases to amaze me how George Bush can get blamed for the antics of people like Michelle Malkin who obviously does not even like the man.
Just remember it was from Balloon Juice.