Mar 04 2009
Conservatives Losing Ground With America
It’s clear why the administration and media are trying to hoist Rush Limbaugh as the figurehead for the GOP – it seems to be having a negative effect on America’s support for the GOP and conservatism:
Just 26 percent view the Republican Party positively, which is an all-time low for the party. That’s compared with 49 percent who have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
In addition, a combined 56 percent say the previous Bush administration deserved “almost all” of the blame or a “major part” of the blame for the partisanship in Washington, and a combined 41 percent say the same of congressional Republicans.
By contrast, only 24 percent say that of congressional Democrats and just 11 percent say that of the Obama administration.
When you see a concerted effort out of DC between the Dems and the media you know it is a poll tested tactic to swing public opinion away from the right. And it must be working well. I agree that Rush can be the most elegant and concise communicator of general conservative principles.
But he is also a flame thrower who uses veiled insults against the opposition – which tends to backfire if you want people to admit they may have been mistaken about Obama and the Dems. If you don’t give people some face saving, instead of the mea culpa you get dug in heels and backlash.
Rush egomaniac schtick also doesn’t work well. While many know he is joking, to many he sounds like and arrogant donkey. Again, if you want people to have a change of heart, making them feel (even accidentally) inferior never works.
So after 6 weeks of disastrous economic news and crazy liberal policies the public still supports Obama by huge margins:
In the survey, 68 percent have a favorable opinion of the president, including 47 percent whose opinion is “very positive” — both all-time highs for Obama in the poll. Moreover, 67 percent say they feel more hopeful about his leadership and 60 percent approve of his job in the White House.
All the while Americans have increased their disdain for the right. Now, in anyone’s political score card that result, especially in this economic environment, scores an “F” for the current crop of conservative ‘leaders’ and spokes people. Conservatism needs a drastic restructuring if it is to be effective against the dems.
And of course Obama can send some guy to Egypt to be tortured and that is okay with you. Legal shmegal.
My favorite line (or lines) of the day … from Chris Buckley who abandoned the Republicans to vote for Obama:
More here.
Terrye,
Dredging up “old crap”? This is recent news – Obama released the secret memos two days ago. I’m not allowed to comment on recent news because it hurts your feelings?
This is not about something that is borderline or subject to reasonable diffences of legal opinion. These memos were all secretly revoked – by Bush’s own OLC. Do you really not understand the significance of that fact? Name one court decision, judge, legal scholar, lawyer, etc. that supports the position that Obama currently has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to ignore the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, legislation, court decisions and treaties if he unilaterally decides that it is necessary to fight the GWOT as long as it lasts (which will likely be through the remainder of his 1st term)? Name one? That is what Professor Yoo said was the case in those memos. Get it?
I brought it up to show the hypocracy of calling Obama’s PR strategy of responsing to Rush (who openly says he wants Obama to fail) and trying to associate him with the GOP as “scary”. I read many comments on this blog accusing Obama of socialism, treason and this huge power grab all to harm our country for pursuing policies he campaigned on like a stimulus bill, health care reform, education reform, more diplomacy, withdrawing from Iraq. I get it that you don’t and will never agree with these policies – but didn’t we just have an election about these issues and the majority of us decided that is what we wanted?
Meanwhile, documents are released that conclusively prove Bush had formal legal opinions drawn from the Department of Justice OLC providing him the authorization to essentially declare martial law in the name of GWOT. These memos remained in effect from Oct. 2001 through anywhere between 2003 to 2008 depending on the particular memo. And your response is – dude, what’s the big deal, that’s old crap? That is what I don’t get about conservatives. They are supposed to be about limited government but they don’t seem to care that Bush set precedent for a significant expansion of the Presidential powers all in the name of the GWOT. A “war” that will likely last for a decade or more. It doesn’t even scare you now that the current guy that holds that same office is someone you don’t trust at all?
It is not about me hating Bush. I don’t want anyone having that broad of power in one person’s hands, even if it is Obama whom I do trust. That’s why I don’t agree with Obama’s stand on the Eygptian detainee or his continuation of Bush’s use of the state’s secret privilege in the Al-Haramain case. That’s why I sent the White House an email expressing my criticism – would you like me to forward it to you?
As for Pelosi, go ahead and bash her all you want. I think she is an idiot myself. She also knew about some of what Bush was doing and apparently didn’t do anything to stop it. So fire away my friend.
Conman,
It is old news because Congress has authorized the NSA-FISA changes multiple times (once with Dems in control) and the FISA Court has handed down decisions supporting the effort.
Just because you are in denial doesn’t mean the issue is still alive. Outside that little world in your head it is now established policy and law.
conguy, so you don’t think special conditions are warranted for special circumstances? Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war. Special protections were taken in WWII.
Do you recall that sometime around 9/11/01 there was a terrorist attack, completely by surprise? Do you think nothing at all should change immediately. Most people recognize that if a house is on fire, you call the fire dept and put in emergency procedures, at least until the emergency is over, sometimes you also operate in a temporary fashion until things get back to normal.. usually the firetruck can go back to the station AFTER the fire is secured. But I would venture that it should hang around until that time.
Would you have been thrilled with Pres Bush, if during and after the terrorist attack, He had done NOTHING different? Suppose he’d come out and said ” look this is no big deal, just a few guys decided to have a thrill ride, unfortunately a few people got killed, but hey, no big deal. Let’s all just continue with business as usual. Maybe it won’t happen again” I’m guessing you would have been calling for his head had he done so.
why don’t you re-read your comments just prior to pressing the submit comment icon to see if it really makes sense.
Conman:
So you think it’s “scary” that Bush would try to protect our country from threats and from people that we are pretty sure want to do us harm…yet there is nothing wrong with a WH machine that is trying to destroy a man for exercising his freedom of speech?
Your comparison is apples and oranges. When did Bush ever go after the NY Times, MSNBC (or any individuals within), or any other of the myriad of critics (Hollywood, music industry)?
This WH goes after every one that challenges them on policy. The 2 guys at CNBC, and Rush.
Yes, that’s very scary. That’s not supposed to happen in this country. However, protecting citizens from terror attacks – that IS supposed to happen and the SCOTUS agreed.
AJ,
These secret memos granted Bush far more power than the NSA-FISA changes adopted by Congress. The NSA-FISA legislation did not grant the President the power to ignore the First Amendment, legislation, court decisions and treaties. While it did provide the government additional surveillence powers which implicate the Fourth Amendment, it did not grant the President blanket authority to ignore the Fourth Amendment. Please read the memos so I don’t have to keep educating you folks.
Stephen,
Boy I don’t even know where to begin in unraveling your confusion.
First of all, the WH is not trying to “destroy” Rush or the other pundits. They aren’t arresting them, seizing their assets, or infringing on their First Amendment rights in any way. They are simply responding to the public attacks against them. Doesn’t Obama have First Amendment rights as well? It is not illegal or an infringement of First Amendment rights for the government to respond to pundits whom publically criticize them. Rush and all of these pundits started the attacks and will have plenty of opportunites to use their own media access to defend themselves. Since when did you because so concerned about hurting the feelings of pundits?
Second, Rush is loving all of this attention. Rush is an entertainer who likes to make lots of money. He is making a killing with all of this free publicity/contraversy and it plays well for his core audience who is very conservative. You don’t see Rush crying about the WH reaction or claiming that their responses are “scary”. In fact, he is doing the opposite and trying everything possible to keep this WH v. Rush PR battle in the news. Don’t worry, Rush is a big boy and can defend himself. The only ones crying about the WH tactic are the Republicans because they realize how effective it is working right now. Sorry, but that is politics. If they can’t handle it they should just pack up and go home.
Third, Bush and Co. criticized the media all of the time. Here is link that provides numerous instances of Bush attacking the NY Times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_New_York_Times. It is a pretty lenghty list (even though it is only a sample of examples) that only pertains to one newspaper. How about the time when Cheney pressured MSNBC executives to tone down Chris Matthews stories on the Plame outing. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/64579/chris_matthews_says_cheney_pressured_msnbc_brass_to_influence_content/ There are hundreds of other examples but I don’t have all day to educate you over something that is so obvious.
Lastly, your comments about Bush’s secret memos demonstrate that you really are incapable of understanding these issues so you should just stop embarrassing yourself. If they were necessary to protect us against terrorism, why did Bush revoke them? Are we to assume that you believe that Obama should have all of these broad powers since apparently you believe they are necessary to protect us? And no, the SCOTUS did not consider or bless these memos, especially the real scary stuff about ignoring the constitution, legislation, treaties, etc. Actually, the SCOTUS (currently comprised of 7 GOP nominees) rejected many of Bush’s arguments regarding his authority to indefinitely detain enemy combatants. I’d provide you links to the case, but that would be a waste of time since you obviously don’t understand basic legal issues.
Conman,
Ever here the story of the little boy who cried “wolf!”?
ROTFLMAO!
Forget it kid.
Redteam,
Nobody is arguing that Bush should have done nothing different after 9-11. It’s a strawman argument because there were far more than two choices – nothing or exactly what Bush did. So let me explain exactly what the problem was with Bush’s approach.
First, Bush significantly over-reached. He essentially granted himself the powers the equivalent of declaring martial law for the remainder of the GWOT. While I agree some changes were necessary (i.e. some reform of FISA, etc.), this extraordinary broadening of Presidential powers was way too far.
Second, he maintained these legal positions well past 9-11. I can understand the push to broaden his powers in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 since we weren’t really sure if additional attacks were imminent. But he kept these OLC opinions in effect 2 to 5 years after 9-11. While terrorism is still a serious threat, do you honestly feel today that the President should have essentially martial law powers for the duration of GWOT? I believe placing that much power in one person’s hands is far more dangerous to our country than anything the terrorist can do to us.
Third, he did all of this unilaterally and secretly. If he had worked with the other branches of government about what powers he needed to combat terrorism it would have been legitimate. That is what is meant by checks and balances. Bush had a Republican Congress and massive support from the country, he could have easily gotten the necessary changes approved. He would have been much better served going through the proper protocal as opposed to unilaterally declaring that he can ignore legislation and court decisions and decide himself what powers he had.
One last comment. 9-11 was no where near the threat to this country as the Civil War or WWII. Not only that, but they were finite wars that came to a definitive conclusion and then the president no longer exercised these war powers. The GWOT is not a traditional war and will last for a decade or more. Sorry, but making a comparison between the two shows an astonishing ignorance of history.