Quit lying to yourselves, your readers, and the country, and we might win more elections.
And that goes for you, too, Dean Barnett, who had the nerve to tell us AFTER the election that “In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who had a bad client while writing this blog. ” I guess Dean was just following Hugh’s lead, as Hugh stated that the electoral loss created “a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn’t shoot straight.”
Had you all spent the last four years admonishing the GOP when they deserved it, we wouldn’t have Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Reid. If you hadn’t spent the days after the Foley revelations wondering how the media and Democrats had wronged us, we might have won a seat or two. You acted like party hacks- you were party hacks- and now there isn’t much left of the party. So much for the intellectual honesty of the blogosphere and the new media. It’s Karl Rove with a keyboard.
In short, fat, drugged, and stupid is no way to go through life- ask Limbaugh, who also joined you in a few years of bullshit.
In other news, the GOP has finally decided to stand up to this administration because they are angry about the utter and complete betrayal of all the party’s principles over the past 6 years the timing of the Rumsfeld dismissal:
Donald Rumsfeld’s abrupt resignation from the Pentagon the day after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress has infuriated some GOP officials on and off Capitol Hill.
Members and staff still reeling from Tuesday’s rout are furious about the administration’s decision to dump the controversial defense secretary one day after their historic loss, they said in a series of interviews about the election results.
President Bush announced Rumsfeld’s resignation on Wednesday and named Bob Gates, a former CIA chief and president of Texas A&M University, as his replacement.
“The White House said keeping the majority was a priority, but they failed to do the one thing that could have made a difference,” one House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. “For them to toss Rumsfeld one day after the election was a slap in the face to everyone who worked hard to protect the majority.”
They are upset he was not dismissed prior to the elections, because then they might have saved some seats. Not, as they should be, upset because he should have been dismissed months/years ago for rank incompetence.
It is still all about the power to these guys- not doing the right thing, not the guys bleeding in Iraq. We need to be out of power for a while.
Joe1347
I wonder if dumping Rumsfeld was necessary to protect the Bush Admin from the inevitable barrage of subpoenas from Democratic House and Senate investigative committees (i.e, preserve their power as John Cole asserts)? The remaining high-profile architect of the Iraq Fiasco – Cheney – will likely claim some form of executive privilege and hide under a Supreme Court bench for the next two years. With Rumsfeld gone – who should or will the Democrats hit with subpoenas? Beating up on the Generals doesn’t seem like a good idea (need to look like you still support the troops). I wonder if this is the reason why Rumsfeld was kept around to just after the election – since if Rumsfeld was replaced say 7 months ago. That replacement would actually know something that could be damaging to the Bush Admin – while the new guy brought in post election can just claim that he doesn’t know anything. Especially since the new Sec Defense isn’t part of the existing Admin and can therefore claim complete ignorance of the Iraq Fiasco.
cd6
I LOVE that the righty wingnuts reaction is “we must get more conservative”
The dems took this election with the support of the independants, and instead of trying to win back the independants, wingnuts was the GOP to run away from them.
If they truely are that stupid, they might want to just get used to being sad on election day.
jake
Hey, they bought the ribbon magnet and put it on their car, what else do you want? Sheesh.
But to be semi-serious for half a second – The question is, will people sit down and reflect for a moment on what they did wrong or will they be too busy grinding their teeth because they lost and plotting how to win? The longer they spend doing the latter, the longer they’ll need to sit in the Time Out corner. Here’s hoping sanity returns sooner rather than later.
VidaLoca
What Joe is saying seems pretty sensible to me. The only thing I’d add is that the reason Bush moved as quickly as he did — announcing the change the day after the election, instead of waiting some decent interval before making the move — is that he wanted to get the new Secretary confirmed during the lame duck session rather than waiting for the new Congress to be seated. Once again, the only thing that matters to Bush is Bush, and in a way it’s really no big deal: politics as usual in the Land of Small People.
Thing is, by waiting as long as he did rather than making the change 2-3 years ago, it’s really too late for the new guy to do much to change the situation. The “fresh eyes on the problem” train has left the station; the only thing Gates can insofar as Iraq is concerned, is come up with a new arrangement for the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.
Bombadil
Joe1347, how does Rumsfeld’s resignation preclude him from being subpoenaed?
Bombadil
Lookds like Jonah Goldberg’s choo-choo has gone chugging around the bend, as well.
Bombadil
*Looks
ThymeZone
Exactly and precisely right.
VidaLoca
Bombadil,
I don’t think Rumsfeld’s resignation does preclude him from being subpoenaed, but it does change his status as a witness — whereas in the past he was the head of the DoD with a whole staff apparatus behind him, now he’s just a private citizen and essentially out of the loop. He’s of historical interest, certainly, but that’s about as far as it goes. Meanwhile, Gates comes on with no history, he can’t speak directly about anything that took place before his confirmation.
KarenMcL
Hmmm…I THOUGHT I read about *someone* leaving the GOP party.–
Then I read this barf and drivel:
“…we wouldn’t have Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Reid. If you hadn’t spent the days after the Foley revelations wondering how the media and Democrats had wronged us, we might have won a seat or two. You acted like party hacks- you were party hacks- and now there isn’t much left of the party. So much for the intellectual honesty of the blogosphere and the new media. It’s Karl Rove with a keyboard.”
WE…WE…all about the “WE” of the GOP Party.
You should be thanking your Moon, Sun and Stars we are no longer STUCK with these fuck-ups, liars, stinking rotted corruption and plague of a Congress.
Me thinks yer nothing more (and always have been) a Pus-filled GOP Blister on Bush’s ass carping about some Faux Moderate/Democratic ideals, John.
GROW UP and PICK a Party and THEN STAY THERE based on your ideological FIT. But stop trying to Whine your way back to square one. It’s disgusting. Or just STFU for the next two years instead and see what happens before ya wish some imaginary Do-Over for yer shit-canned party.
ThymeZone
Culled from Outer Blogaria.
There is so much absolutely stupid crap out there in righty blogville right now, I have to believe that it’s going to set the GOP back years in its struggle to bounce back from the bitchslap we gave it the other day.
Iraq is not what damned the GOP? It’s what has drained all of the oxygen out of politics and government for four years, and will for at least another one or two, and completely paralyzed their party and turned it into something Barry Goldwater wouldn’t have anything to do with.
Sooner or later, just being willfully ignorant has got to have consequences. Doesn’t it?
Blue Neponset
I think the days of dog whistle politics and demonizing your opponent about everything are going to go away for a while and that is all the Krempasky’s of the Right know how to do. Honest debate on the Right side of the blogosphere has never and, IMO, will never appear on the water carrying blogs like Redstate.
P.S. if anyone wants to argue with some honest Righty bloggers then come to theforvm.org Our Righties are just as wrong as the Krempasky’s of the Right, but they (most of them anyway) aren’t water carriers; they actually believe the things they write and on occassion have changed my moonbat-like mind on a few things.
neil
Hell yes. I’ve seen that Limbaugh quote already, but I don’t think I fully appreciated the extent to which it reveals his moral bankruptcy. “I am no longer going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried” — that’s utterly shocking, he’s admitting that he hasn’t believed anything he’s been saying about the Republicans for years! He’s not a pundit, he’s an anchorman, and what’s more, he knows that what he’s been saying is wrong and bad!
It reminds me of another apostate, Lincoln Chafee. I used to like that guy, but upon seeing what he said yesterday I lost all respect for the man.
So in other words, you were knowingly harming the country by continuing to run as a Republican? But why?
You’re a shining beacon of morality, Linc.
John Cole
KArenMcL- I edited your post to get rid of the extra italics, which made your already incomprehensible post more so.
I have never pretended to be anything other than a Republican. I am, howevr, disgusted with the current GOP, and I want to reclaim it from the lunatics and the hacks. If that makes you think that I am a “Pus-filled GOP Blister on Bush’s ass carping about some Faux Moderate/Democratic ideals,” then so be it. I believe I have been pretty clear about what I believe and what I think, although, since you are new here, I will cut you some slack for ignorance, but not for being a total bitch.
I have no idea what this means, either:
You are either with us or against us, ehh? Go have a cup of coffee and then figure out what the hell you meant. BTW- I helped to ‘shit-can’ the party.
ThymeZone
Courtesy of DKos, Molly Ivins shows us how to drive this new Congress car-thingie.
Jimmmm
You didn’t have to defend them, Hugh. You could have displayed what some call “intellectual honesty.” But then, neither quality has ever been an arrow in your rhetorical quiver…
firebrand
John’s right. The Republican Party deservedly got an ass-whuppin’, and if they don’t learn the right lessons from it, they deserve to be out in the electoral wilderness. There needs to be a return to sane conservatism in this country so we can have a real debate between honest conservatives and progressives as to how to best govern the country. The last 6 years of Bush doctrine have been nothing less than an exercise in insanity, and the mistakes need to be laid out in full, studied, and learned from.
Oh, and KarenMcL, why don’t take your hate-filled partisan ass and go back and actually READ what John said, instead of trolling by trying to put words into his mouth.
Bombadil
Well, the GOP is out, so there’s that. It just hasn’t stopped the willfully ignorant from remaining, well, willfully ignorant.
Bless their pointed little heads, they’re now eating their own young.
Zifnab
Hehe. Yeah, um… wow. Three days after the election and I’m tempted to use the word moonbat on a fellow liberal. Sorry, John, some scars run deeper than others. I’m sure Karen just needs to simmer down a bit and actually spend some time on the site learning to chill. But for a second there I had visions of “Darrell in blue”.
Jimmmm
Oh … my … FUCKING God! This, from RedState Comments:
“It’s going to be grim. ’08 may be the last real chance at any type of majority for conservatives – and then it will be back to the special interest swamp for another 40 years.
“Starting to look like the only guaranteed way that the country would swing sufficiently right again is if we’re attacked ala 9/11.”
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/we_fight_on#comment-349639
Darrell
John brings out the big guns, calling the other side “liars” and “hacks” for not following his oh so principled lead. You know, I don’t believe “liar” Barnett has hesitated to criticize Bush on his big spending or flawed Iraq polies and other areas.. he just honestly believed that even with their problems, the Republicans were a better alternative to Pelosi, Durbin and company in control.
Not “lying”, not being a “hack”. An honest sincere judgement. But now you yourself are taking it to a dishonest extreme, characterizing them as a bunch of cheerleading lying hacks because you didn’t think they went far enough. Whatev..
Zifnab
I’m sure they’ve all got their fingers crossed.
John Cole
WHen you admit that you spent the last few weeks/months advocating a case that you, yourself, knew was bad, you surrender all claims to the adjectives “sincere” and “honest.”
And besides all that- you are missing the point. Again. Had they spent their time fixing the flaws in the GOP, rather than waving pom-poms and cheering ‘the Democrats are worse,’ the GOP might have righted course.
Richard 23
Ha! You wish, America hater.
ThymeZone
Something you yourself would never do.
ThymeZone
Actually, no, a very dishonest and crass judgement.
And you reap what you sow. Half the country is bad for America, and that’s the basis of your appeal?
Well, guess what? That appeal is now working, and it’s your half that lost.
Do you really want to stay on track with that absurd appeal? The one that says big spending, irresponsible revenue policy, government intrusion into private life, surrender of liberties for unfulfilled promises of “security,” endless war with no plan for closure, healthcare policy made by lobbyists, millions with no health insurance, immigration policy built on lies and fear and totally out of control, government promoting torture as an intelligence strategy, pandering to religious special interests, and rampant corruption … all “better” than some undefined alternative?
I hope you think that’s a winner, Darrell, because it is, for us. Not you.
cd6
That is true. Darrell never calls anyone a “hack.”
He generally prefers “you lefists are dishonest to the core.”
Zifnab
But Democrats are going to raise our taxes. And besides, Gerry Studds had sex with a 17 year old page in 1973.
Joe1347
Unfortunately from Bush’s post election actions – it doesn’t look like he doesn’t have any intention of changing course. If anything I expect that the rhetoric (from the White House) accusing Democrats of “hating America” and “Loving the Terrorists” will become even more strident in the coming months – along with more ‘stay-the-course’ in Iraq until there aren’t any US troups left to send over. Imagine the rhetoric (from Bush and his minions) when the White House come begging for the next Iraq Fiasco $100 Billion supplemental.
Of course, Bush could quickly save the Republican Party (from the rightwing nutjobs) by a few ‘simple’ actions. Dumping Cheney and replacing him with Colin Powell would be a good first start. Otherwise, say hello to President Hillary in 2008.
Baby Jane
Pardon my ignorance, but are the editors at Redstate paid by right-wingers (Limbaugh, Hewitt, et al.) to perpetrate this nonsense on their flock? The uniform and synchronized absurdity of all their messages us uncanny. I mean, how many times can a roomful of monkeys type in unison “We don’t need no stinkin’ bananas” before you start scratching your head?
Darrell
The hell we do.. People make choices between imperfect alternatives all the time while being completely honest and sincere in making those choices. Nothing dishonest or insincere about it. It’s called reality (versus utopia). In fact, to claim otherwise as you are doing is itself a form of dishonesty.
Silly me, I don’t recall Redstate or other conservative sites running fundraisers for Abramoff’s defense fund, do you? And while lecturing me how I don’t “get” it, you continue to characterize them as liars waving pom-poms.
With Bush, I think most conservatives were floored by what a wild-ass big spender he was. I think we were caught by surprise by the corruption in Congress too – neither was defended by Redstate or other conservatives, and I’m not sure what more could be done to ‘fix’ it, other than with Speaker Pelosi, which although that is the reality now, is not a good direction for the country in the opinion of many conservatives. Of course you’re free to disagree, but all this “liar”, “hack”, “waving pom-poms for Bush” crap doesn’t speak well of you.
Should be working
Bah. I believe Bush made up a term for this called Revisionist History. They are pulling a Kerry, “I voted FOR the Republicans before I voted against them.”
ThymeZone
Pie’s here.
Otto Man
Actually, I’m starting to think they’re paid by George Soros. Nothing could help the Democrats more than for all of these right-wing nuts to stay in a state of denial about the election, to believe that it’s somehow an endorsement — and not a rejection — of their far-right conservatism, and to think that they just need to get redder and redder to win in ’08.
Sshhhhh. Don’t wake them from the delusion. It helps everyone — they get to believe they’re still on top, and the rest of us get our country back.
ThymeZone
Mmmmm. Pie.
Steve
What’s funny is that before the election I agreed with my friends at Daily Kos on like 99% of everything. Now I find myself regularly shaking my head in disagreement. It’s kinda funny how the Republicans were so awful on everything that it was a no-brainer for people to agree on it. Again, we see Bush as the uniter…
Baby Jane
Kneejerk reactionist hippy moonbat.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
You are right. John left out a descriptive category that would cover people who are blindingly wrong, but believe so passionately in their wrongness that they will make any excuse once their wrongness is exposed, to mitigate their responsibility; and to maintain what remains of their credibility so that they can keep on perpetuating their wrongness.
“Fucktards.” He left out “fucktards”. Honest, sincere judgement: give me a break.
Joe1347
Like myself and I suspect many others – we foolishly thought that Bush actually was a conservative Republican. You know – Fiscal Conservatism, no Nation-Building, Less Intrusive Federal Government, Strong National Defense, and Integrity among others. Obviously, the Bush Admin is none of those pesky things that we actually thought that conservative republicans believed in (and followed). Hopefully the Republican moderates take control of the minority leadership positions in the House and Senate. Hopefully another John Rhodes will emerge like a Phoenix from the Ashes. Otherwise it’s President Hillary in 2008 along with another 40 seats going Democratic.
Zifnab
For instance, Cheney/Rumsfield made a choice between reading the intelligence that Iraq did have a weapons program and the intelligence that they didn’t.
The Republican Congress made a choice to allocate epic amounts of funding to Indiana because they choose to assume it was a more likely terrorist target than Washington D.C. or New York.
Duke Cunningham made a choice to accept $2 million in bribes, and Ted Stevens made a choice to railroad through $250 million in funding for a bridge to an Alaskan island with a population of 50.
The entire US Government made a choice to virtually abandon the hundreds of thousands of Louisiana citizens who were displaced or killed by Hurricane Katrina. Just like it made a choice to write legislation that only affected a single individual in the Terri Shavio right-to-die case.
All these choices were made in perfectly good faith. The fact that they didn’t work out had nothing to do with rank corruption, partisan hackery, or willful ignorance. It was merely the path they choose to handle REALITY with rather than the Utopic fiction that Democrats daily delude themselves into. In REALITY, Republicans don’t raise your taxes. Also, Gerry Studds had sex with a 17 year old page in 1973.
Steve
That’s an awesome standard. Yeah, we tried to downplay the corruption at every turn and falsely portray it as a bipartisan scandal, but at least we didn’t hold a bake sale for the guy. That’s truly classic.
You want to know how to seriously take on the job of cleaning up your own party? Here’s a good start.
As John has said multiple times, it’s not just about how you act in the week before the election, or what we like to affectionately refer to as SYFPH time. It’s that too many excuses were made during the years prior to that. Every Democratic criticism was met with a flurry of denial and talking points. Well, guess what, sometimes the Democrats were right. Enjoy the fruits of denial.
A lot of conservatives want to pat themselves on the back for criticizing the GOP exclusively from the right. “See how intellectually honest we are… by the way, liberals are wrong about everything!” Here’s the thing. People like government spending, unless you give it all away to the poor. They really love it when you give them the illusion that it’s all “free” by providing them with tax cuts at the same time. Politicians want to get reelected, so this is how they behave. If you really want smaller government, if you really want spending cuts, if you really want these politicians to act against their personal self-interest… you’re probably going to have to do more than make a few comments on a blog and pat yourself on the back for being independent. Just a tip.
grumpy realist
I’m wondering if some of Chafee’s comments were out because now he can’t be pressured by the Rovites (you back us 100% otherwise we withhold money the next time around). There seemed to be a bit of relief in his comments. And his claiming he’s not going to help Diocletian’s Horse into the UN is nothing more than a big “you and what army?” to Bushco.
The one thing this last election did, I think, was torpedo Rove. We’ll have to see if it will torpedo his “dirty tricks” style of campaigning, as well….a few more FBI investigations might help.
capelza
Steve…haven’t been to Kos in a bit, I can imagine that the hard lefty types are going to town over there right now. I guess I should go check it out.
Eh, I like Lincoln Chaffee. Did I read or hear last night that he put a block on Bolton’s nomination? If true, it’s a nice parting shot…who can hate a soon to be ex-Republican who voted against the torture bill?
The best part of this post election GOP handwringing..is, well, everything!
John Cole
When did the Prescription Drug Benefit pass? How long did it take before we were running a deficit?
The GOP corruption and the K Street project and DeLay’s entire corrupt operation have been known and widely discussed for some time now.
And, as I will state agin, one of the big reasons that it is soon going to be Speaker Pelosi is because Red State, Hugh Hewitt, and others REFUSED to make the GOP correct itself, so the voters had to take care of the job Tuesday.
Jay
I assume this was the thinking before the National Day of Prayer, Write Bigotry into the Constitution, Save the Stem Cells crapola began.
VidaLoca
People make choices between imperfect alternatives all the time while being completely mendacious about their motives and cynical in their desire to elevate their own interests above the common good. This is not a phenomenon that’s particular to any one group, party, or period in history — it’s just surprising how often they fall back, once found out, on claims of their honesty and sincerety in making their convenient choices.
ChristieS
KarenMcL, since Krista isn’t here yet, I’ll step up to the podium and represent the female butt-whooping you have so richly earned. The guys on this site seem to be taking it easy on you as you’re both a “girl” and new to this site. You’ll get no such concession from me.
You stupid wench. You know nothing about what John Cole has gone through to get to this point. He never ONCE claimed he was a Democrat. He is a Republican who is so sick of his party’s behavior that he VOTED for Democrats. It is NOT the same thing.
I’ve done the exact same thing to Democrats when THEY’VE gone flying off the deep end. The only way the entrenched politicians get the damned message is when they’re yanked up by the short hairs and booted out of office. That’s historically proven, btw.
You DARE to come onto this site where we’ve never heard of you and spout such bullshit. Fly-by TROLL is what you are, you stupid, hateful bitch. And I definitely meant the stupid part. You showed an inordinate amount of blatant idiocy and well deserve to be “thumped” by all the Democrats on this site for “showing your ass” as my folks call it.
Stay home until you’re no longer so wet behind the ears, infant. You might actually learn something if you climb out of the Democratic Underground site.
Sorry for taking up the cudgel, John. The brat pissed me off some.
jg
The way to fix it was to get your head out of your ass and realize they were never conservative. They were not governing according to the values they say they shared with you. They just said that to get your vote.
Steve
One of the popular diaries yesterday was about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine (where you can’t put a political message on radio or TV without giving the other side “equal time”). While it may have made sense back when everyone watched the same three networks, what’s going on now is essentially that people want to use their newfound power to outlaw Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Give me a break.
Chafee also blocked Bolton in committee the last time he came up, back when he was still facing reelection, so this isn’t even a change in position. I’ve seen him question Bolton and other nominees, and he’s a guy who actually takes foreign policy quite seriously. In any other year, I would have been happy to support him as a “good” Republican.
I think people are too hard on the guy for not switching parties. His late father was a Republican icon. This is the party he’s worked for and supported since he was a little kid. Can you really blame him for trying to change the party from within, for trying to keep them from throwing themselves over the cliff? I think there was a lot more to it than simply wanting to bring pork home to Rhode Island, but even if there was, so what? That money helped the people of Rhode Island. If he was just out for himself, he could have switched parties and guaranteed himself reelection for life.
How can any Democrat not respect the one Republican to vote against the war, when many from their own party went along with it, often for cynical political reasons? He cast plenty of votes I didn’t like, but that kind of political courage should be respected.
manyoso
Well then why didn’t most conservatives say so? To be sure, some did –> John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Dick Armey, etc, etc.
But certainly not you Darrell. Ok, maybe you said something in some passing comment, but when critics of the administration pointed out what a wild-ass big spender he was, you guys (Redstate.com et al) screamed at the top of your lungs that this was irrelevant because Democrats were worse! You didn’t care very much for anyone criticizing the administration. When John Cole, Andrew Sullivan and others did criticize and point out that the administration you guys shouted them down as being hypnotized by the lefty moonbat hordes.
Again, rank dishonesty. Redstate.com did all they could to defend Tom Delay and smear anyone that said he was corrupt. Redstate.com did all they could to poo poo the overwhelming ties between Abramoff and the Republican Congress. When Foley came out Redstate.com insisted that it was all a Democratic dirty trick. You fell over yourselves time and again rushing to DEFEND the culture of corruption of the K Street Republicans.
You could have joined Democrats and non corrupt Republicans in seeking an ethics investigation. You could have joined Democrats and non corrupt Republicans in opposing Tom Delays stacking of the ethics committee and rule changes to save his own ass. You could have stopped looking the other way OR shouting ‘Democrats are WORSE’ at every revelation of profound corruption. You could have expressed disgust and horror.
In short, you could have done many things but continue the braindead hackery that you DID exhibit!
VidaLoca
John,
While I don’t disagree with your position that the conservative blogs should have taken a much more critical stance on the debacle in the GOP much earlier, do you really think it would have made much of a material difference had they done so? (other than, of course, improving their credibilty immensely on the morning after).
You’re more knowledgeable on this topic than I am — but personally I don’t see much evidence for the argument of influence of blogs on the right, and only slightly more on the left.
Teak111
The Bush admin is all about CYA now and I agree with the first comment, dumping Rummy makes him an easy scapegoat for any oncoming investigations.
“Ahg, yes Madam Chairwomen, I heard your question. That was Rumsfeld’s decision.”
We’ll being hearing that about torture, Abu Ghraib, no-bid contracts, poorly armored humees, lack of insurgency planning, etc, etc. Its exaclty how the mob works when they see the feds getting close. They allow a “sucker” to ascend to the top only to take the fall when the Feds rush in.
As far as GOP pundits and Radio/TV hacks, its hard to undrink the koolade, guys. You just look stupider. Is Rush expecting to have any cred now? Of course. He will reverse course and start to hammer the Dem Congress. The c-change in power is the best news he could have hoped for. Same with all the others. Its more palitable to be critical of the other party then a bootlicker of your own.
Steve
John McCain, too. Unlike guys like Dick Armey who don’t have to face reelection any more, McCain actually stood up and tried to give his colleagues a reality check. “Guys, we’re spending way too much, this thing is out of control.” Yet, to “real” conservatives like the folks at Redstate, McCain is an utter apostate. They spit on his primary chances for 2008. They should have been cheering him on every time he urged the Republicans to cut back their spending, but no, he’s evil because there were issues where he didn’t toe the party line.
Tom Coburn from Oklahoma was also one of the few voices for fiscal conservatism in the Republican Senate. Over on the left we view the guy as a loon (I mean, he went on during his campaign about lesbianism in the schools, and such…) but I was impressed that he actually tried to do something about the massive giveaways. He may be a nut, but he’s a principled nut. Of course, as a freshman, he got utterly ignored.
capelza
Steve…on Chaffee, I agree completely..I wish that guy well and hope that if he desires he could return to Congress or in public life somewhere. I was glad that another GOP seat went down, I just wish it could have been someone else..does that make sense?
Chaffee reminds me so much of my old Senator, Mark Hatfield, who I miss very much.
ChristieS..you tell her!
manyoso…100%
The Other Steve
I talked to one of my coworkers today who mistakenly voted for Bush. Mainly cause she’s ill informed and believed the rhetoric.
She said her and her husband were relieved the Democrats won. They couldn’t believe they said that, but they were so tired of the Republicans and the way they behaved.
I think the Bush divisive rhetoric is what lost this election. The Republicans look like petulant children, and the Democrats come off looking like adults.
But Red State, Hugh Hewitt and others don’t understand why they should have had to correct Bush. See, they think it’s because of spending. But that’s not it. It was all the divisive pandering. But these guys cheered all of that stuff on.
I think kos has the right take on this when attacking the pundiots who keep claiming that the reason Democrats won was because they became more conservative. I will admit that Democrats since Clinton have gotten more fiscally conservative, and less idealistic, but it’s a different conservatism.
What has really happened here is that the Republicans shifted further right. The public doesn’t want to go further right, they want the center.
And today the Democratic party represents the center.
This leftist attack is a battle Republcians are still waging left over from 1975, the claim is no longer relevant and the public realizes that. I think Republicans are in bigger trouble than they realize. The boogey man today is conservatism, because we have seen the face of it with Terri Schiavo, Iraq, etc. and it’s not pretty and we don’t want it.
Teak111
Is stupider a word? The irony is killing me.
jenniebee
Why “we?” I personally don’t think that a group whose opinions largely mirror what you’ve written over the month or so (an admittedly short time) that I’ve been reading here needs to be out of power. I think it’s good to draw lines that respect personal privacy, to reject the K-street buying and selling of legislation, and to refuse to stifle criticism for the sake of power.
But then, that’s why I vote Democrat. I’m constantly amazed over what Republicans who are dissatisfied with the marriages of convenience their party is made up of will continue to hold their noses and support for the sake of keeping the Democratic Bogeyman at bay. Sure, Dems should have lowered taxes on the middle class in the 70’s, but that was a long time ago. The way I see it, the Democratic party today is one of lessons learned, with long-term middle class prosperity a top priority and balanced budgets combined with reducing downward pressures on wages seen as the key to that prosperity.
As much as the Republicans have changed around you, the Dems have changed too. Come on in, the water’s fine.
Marie
It’s all water under the bridge. The people have spoken and they chose to give the power to the Democrats. Now let’s see what the Democrats do with it.
I’m really wondering why some of you are surprised at the selfishness of politicians. You don’t seriously think the democrats are going to be any different,do you?
Baby Jane
If McCain gets to pick the drapes in 2008, that would be a sure sign of the irrelevance of blogs. That guy is getting hit by buses left and right.
Steve
One thing the righty blogs did, to their credit, is push for a more conservative speaker to replace DeLay. The default replacement was Roy Blunt, who was like business as usual, totally in the pocket of lobbyists, and there was even a conference call where Blunt tried to bully the blogs into supporting him. They told him to fuck off and went with a more conservative candidate.
But still, this came pretty late in the day, considering how many years they spent making excuses for DeLay and dismissing his corruption as well as his un-conservative record on spending because he was, quite simply, a very effective Majority Leader. Every accusation that could have brought him down was met with cries of “partisan witchhunt” from these enablers. So again, they got what was coming to them.
Zifnab
*note: Do not piss off ChristieS
That’s the fundamental problem with this batch of “Republicans”. They’ll pass Patriot Acts and Military Commissions and billions in earmarked kickbacks to friends back home, but they won’t even actually touch the stuff the base gives a damn about. Abortion? Still legal. Vouchers? Not any time soon. Gay Marriage? Let the states handle it. War on Terror? Yeah, that’s going great, just don’t turn on your TV.
I think historians will look back on the first half of the first decade of the new millenium and realize that the real losers of the Bush Admin are the very conservatives who put him in office. They didn’t get anything they asked for, and they had their philosophy trashed in the meantime. Bush’s incompetence and the 109th’s disgusting display of corruption will leave people foul mouthed about the very idea of conservatism for a generation.
wilfred
Blogs have influenced me a great deal, mainly by showing me that whatever my own views may be I’d rather not have any political association with the likes of redsate, lgf, etc. The low life smear campaign run on those sites (Jim Webb is a pervert!?)convinced me that while I may not have much in common with people on the left I’d prefer them to the schizophrenic Christian right.
Blogs exposed the re-emergent Birchers amongst us – change a few words at redstate and you’ll be reading Red Channels, right down to the fear campaign.
Should be working
Primaries dude! I hope all of us pay more attention to primaries, and throw hacks out of the respective parties, a-la Cynthia McKinney.
The Other Steve
I find the original comment laughable. Conservatives were surprised at what a wild-ass big spender he was?
I came to realize that Republicans were not fiscally conservative sometime around 1990 or so. After watching Reagan and the Bush the Greater toss our budget into the debt zone. It was my main motivator for voting for Clinton in 1992, that is… I can’t trust these guys, I’m trying something different.
And it worked, we had a balanced budget and controlled spending. I think much of American now realizes this.
Bombadil
Remind me never to piss off Christy
manyoso
Re: McCain, Coburn…
There are three kinds of fiscal conservative now:
The realist fiscal conservative is a balanced budget kind of guy. The realist fiscal conservative is not nearly as keen on giving away tons of revenue to the rich, because he is PRAGMATICALLY aware that it is much easier to cut taxes than to cut spending. The realist fiscal conservative believes in balancing the nation’s checkbook not on bankrupting the country by getting rid of all revenue.
The fanatic fiscal conservative does not believe in government revenue. The fanatic fiscal conservative believes that the best method for handling the nation’s financial book’s is to get rid of taxes and … wait …
…
…
Wait for the day that the fiscal crisis becomes so bad that the fanatic fiscal conservative can then say that the only fix is to cut all non defense programs. The fanatic fiscal conservative believes in creating financial crisis as a means to an end.
AND THEN EXISTS THE naive fiscal conservative.
The naive fiscal conservative is a dumb-as-a-post combo of the realist and the fanatic. Like the fanatic, the naive fiscal conservative does not believe in government revenue and wants all spending eliminated (or nearly all), but sees no reason not to cut taxes AND SPENDING at the same time. The fanatic conservative is shrewd enough to know that this would lead to a one way ticket out of political office, but not so the naive fiscal conservative.
I think the Democratic party is now pretty firmly in the realist fiscal conservative camp. To be sure, there still exist some Demo’s who never saw a spending increase they could resist, but the newer Democrats are all about fiscal sanity.
I think the Republican party is now a combination of the fanatic and naive fiscal conservative.
Here is the crux: when Redstate.com calls on Republicans to get back to 1994 when it comes to fiscal discipline, they are basically saying that Republicans should adopt a naive approach instead of the fanatical approach.
I think they don’t trust that McCain is either fanatic enough or naive enough. Coburn is, I think, naive.
capelza
Bush isn’t the only wild ass spender. good grief…they think those bills arrived on his desk by magic?
jcricket
To be completely serious, I think conservativism lost the debate already, at least as far as spending/taxes. I don’t actually think it’s an accident that when conservatives ascended to power, they spent like drunking sailors while cutting taxes. Conservatives know that spending programs we have cannot be cut without public revolt.
The honest conversation is between “tax and spend” and “cut, cut and replace/give-up”. Adjusting the marginal tax rates a couple of percent for the highest-income earners, reverting the capital gains tax to 20% and raising the SS wage cap would probably eliminate the deficit and about 90% of the SS problems. Combine that with “Medicare for all” healthcare and you’d probably eliminate the financial and societal problems with the two biggest entitlement programs. Now if you just reflexively don’t believe government should offer those services, feel free to argue that to the public.
Despite their “tax loving” image, most actual Democrats would be happy to have a debate about which services the government should/not pay for, and which services can be made more efficient (cheaper). If you get rid of those services, you can cut the taxes that pay for them. If we make programs more efficient, you can cut the taxes (or expand the programs without raising taxes).
But Libertarians and even traditional conservatives want to start with “the government shouldn’t pay for those services” and so they usually start by just de-funding them (creating the fiscal crises Democrats need to resolve).
Davebo
And now the GOP is naming Steele as Chairman of the RNC!
The guy who tried to con voters into believing he was really a democrat.
Obviously Tuesday has taught them nothing. Better be ready for a decade or so in the forest John.
Teak111
Its also important to consider 911 in all this. Bush may have been your basic small govt conservative before 911. He certainly displayed such as Gov of Texas, but 911 scared the govt. big time. From there, the power grab was on and the unitary President was born, driven, I think, from behind the scenes by Cheney/neocons (but not to devious purpose, I believe they did what they thought was right to protect the country). Afghanistan was a positive step, but Iraq was an over-reach brought on by over-confidence and it the GOP machine on the defensive.
I beleive Bush is somewhat of an empty suit. Fine as a GOP front man, but no David Lee Roth. When Iraq went south after 2004, he was abanduned by GOP talent/thinkers and left only with the koolade drinkers and the nation took notice. I’m rambling, sorry. Point is Iraq proved to be a major over-reach and cost the GOP power, and if Iraq is still a mess in 2008, we may see a Dem in the WH. Without Iraq, the GOP would have stayed in power becasue it has one of the best political machines since Tamany Hall.
Shorter Teak111: Iraq=GOP Hubris
Baby Jane
The Republicans seek solution for America’s homeless.
manyoso
Steele should make any decent intellectually honest Republican puke. This is the guy who bussed in homeless black people from Philadelphia to pass out pamphlets to bamboozle folks into thinking he was a Democrat.
Good job assholes. ROTFLMAO!
Dreggas
Redstate, Hewitt, et al. are nothing more than prisoners of the same base that the republicans have become prisoners of. You feed kool-aid and red meat to people long enough and they become vicious and when you impose absolute ideological purity by shouting louder than the rest you create a monster because one false step and the pack you trained will eat you alive which is what we are seeing now.
The republican party has been run like an authoritarian dictatorship. They purged their own so many times it wasn’t funny so why should this night of the long knives be any different? They will continue it, they will go further right all the while believing that is what people want despite the fact that the wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage have failed.
It’s not unlike the gun wedge issue now failing because the Dems have pretty much backed off on that one, even Howard Dean, a pragmatist not even nearly as liberal as some would say, has called the wild eyed gun control debate dead.
Barring this being viewed as a nazi comparisson look at the rise of the 3rd Reich in germany. It was structured much as the rise of the current hard right social-conservative rise within the republican party. First they crushed their own opposition, then played on the christianist base with wedge issues meant to draw votes. Once that was in place and they had assumed absolute control, even cowing their own moderates (see Chafee) they began to go to work on the opposition. Through the Cynical use of patriotism they pummelled the rest of the opposition and for them 9/11 was the equivalent of the german defeat in WWI in regards to the feelings of anger and resentment and their skewed view that we were left weakened as a result of policies made by previous admins despite the fact that they were responsible as they had controlled congress.
Then, once power had been consolidated and the mouth-pieces (read propagandists) were the ones peddling the talking points and controlling the news cycles it began to spread into the electorate and people bought into it. It did not help that there was a pre-established base of propagandist mouth-pieces such as Limbaugh and coulter feeding a steady diet of red meat.
I still do not buy the idea that Limbaugh was carrying their water and didn’t believe in what he was saying simply because when he was trashing Clinton he was promoting people like Delay and others who were as much a part of this as Bush.
Now what we are seeing is the disenchantment and disillusionment of the base. They are eating their own claiming they just weren’t pure enough, they didn’t clap loud enough etc. For what it is worth, let them and let them go further to the right, they won’t be missed.
As for the republican party it’s a tainted brand. It became what it was supposed to be against and people wanted a return to Sanity. Democrats, for all of our own short comings, represent sanity at this point as we learned from our own losses for the most part.
Anyway just my two cents from the shadowlands.
Jay
Not at all. Chafee is like a man who owns a house that has been in the family for years in a nice neighborhood. That man would be loath to move even when skinhead bikers moved in on one side and started cooking meth in the yard, and people who held in-house church services involving venomous snakes moved in on the other. Basic human instinct: Stand your ground, defend what’s yours, fight for what you believe in.
Pb
In short, yes. Of course they’re still politicians, mind you, but I don’t think they’ve *ever* been as bad as the Republican party has been lately.
manyoso
Steele Democrats Look Back
jcricket
While McCain has always been a lot more socially conservative than people seem to realize (outlaw all abortions, no sex ed, favors flag-burning amendment), he used to be a pretty reasonable person. Something about continually being portrayed as “too moderate” to win Republican primary elections for Presidential nominations has turned him into something else.
He loves the “maverick” image, but he’s happy to cave to people like Bush & Falwell when it helps his electoral chances. He caved on the habeus corpus/torture issue (and worse, made it appear that Bush gave in on something). He appears at Bob Jones University. He thinks Falwell is OK now.
The press loves McCain, so they don’t seem to report the shift, but it’s there.
Steve
The stunning thing about the clueless GOP is that they fail to realize that stunt will be remembered in the black community much longer than the fact that Republicans ran a few black candidates for high-profile offices this time around.
With that one dirty trick from Election Day, they probably set themselves back a decade as far as making inroads into the black vote. And they don’t even get that there’s a problem. If they got it, they wouldn’t put one of the guys associated with that dirty trick at the head of the party, would they?
Steve
Wow, here’s a stunt that I didn’t even know about, from the WaPo blog:
It’s hard to imagine a more ham-handed or offensive way to try and capitalize on Steny Hoyer’s “slavish” gaffe, that’s for sure. The Republicans may have enjoyed some nice majorities, but they sure haven’t learned much.
Dreggas
McCain is a sad excuse for a man at this point. He can’t even claim to be a maverick anymore. He bowed down to bush et al. and caved in so many ways it wasn’t funny. From war policy to detainee policy he caved.
He might have been a maverick at one time but he was beaten into submission by these assholes and he has shown no intention not to continue to submit.
It’s sad because even as a democrat I respected McCain at one time, now…not so much.
Pb
Steve,
It’s all about appearances. They probably thought Clarence Thomas was going to win them the black vote too! I mean, either they really are that stupid, or they just don’t care about black people.
manyoso
Noted without comment.
Steve
My roommate in law school was black, and he made me cancel our newspaper subscription because they ran a pro-Clarence Thomas editorial. Such anger!
In a related “liberal academia” story, the law school nearly had to cancel a faculty debate on the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill controversy when they couldn’t find a single faculty member willing to take Thomas’s side. Ah, Ann Arbor.
Zifnab
Can these guys even leave office without compulsively lieing through their fat lie-filled teeth? This is disgusting.
ThymeZone
That’s what we call a false dichotomy, Pb.
They are that stupid, and they really don’t care that much. Plus, they thought Thomas’ nomination would innoculate them against the taint of racism they did, and do now, richly deserve for winking at the Confederate flag crowd in the red states. They would never actually do anything to injure or insult a black person, but they crave the votes of those who would. Can you say “macaca?”
(A word that George Allen made up, by the way.)
Zifnab
I was first in line chanting McCain-Fiengold in ’08 a few years ago. Now, I’m just dreading the McCain-Lieberman ticket.
Pb
ThymeZone,
Yeah, you’re right–scratch the either there, could be both… :)
RSA
I blame the pressures of having to raise an illegitimate black baby in secret, not to mention the mental instability that remains from his incarceration and torture in Viet Nam. Seriously, though, while I can see how Bush et al. can work with McCain (it’s easy to look someone in the eye if you have no shame), but how can he cozy up to them?
manyoso
Easy. He thinks that by groveling at Bush’s feet he’ll inure himself to the likes of Redstate.com. Of course, he’s kidding himself, but that is what he thinks.
Baby Jane
The frog in the pot that slowly comes to a boil may have, at one point, thought he was in a jacuzzi.
manyoso
BTW, I just want to go on record as saying that McCain is eventually going to find out that groveling at the feet of the far right is as politically counterproductive in the long run as John Kerry groveling at the feet of the neocons by voting for the Iraq war.
Dreggas
RSA,
He has no principles period. He is kissing the ring of the emperor to save his own skin and rather than standing up and saying “You, sir, have wronged me and should apologize” he just comes hat in hand back to the fold. It’s like someone who gets a beating then says “please sir can I have some more”.
He lost me when he refused to be a mensch and stand up.
HyperIon
Darrell says:
to argue that one can be agnostic on government corruption is absurd. but then, consider the source.
ThymeZone
That is Grade-A material, sir.
You have invented the FrogSpa.
However, in the case of McCain, it’s worse. The man will do anything, cozy up to anything, kiss the butt of anythning, say anything … to further his political interests. “Whore” does even begin to describe his character. Whatever you call ambition on steroids, that’s what he has.
I am reminded of the character Richard Rich in A Man For All Seasons.
Bombadil
And that has to be trumpeted far and wide over the next two years. He is no more a “straight talker” than is Darrell, and has sold whatever soul he has left to a party that abandoned him long ago. Now that Frist and Allen are toast, the Democrats need to take serious aim at McCain and (for now) Romney, and show them to be the pandering apologists that they are.
An aside re: Romney — Massachusetts has had a history of electing Republican governors in the recent past, with varying degrees of success (Weld was pretty good as a social progressive/fiscal conservative, Celucci less so), but Romney has left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth. Deval Patrick’s trouncing of Healy can be attributed in some part to a repudiating of the Romney/Healy administration.
Dreggas
TZ,
Whore is exactly what he is, but he ain’t gettin paid which just makes him the GOP equivalent of a sperm burpin gutter slut and he needs a lot of chapstick.
John Cole
Go Christie, it’s your b-day.
Baby Jane
Thank you kindly, Madame.
FrogSpa Soup is Good Food.
Bombadil
I notice that John is a more frequent visitor to the Responses sections nowadays, and is less likely to assume that the Darrell’s of the world are “arguing in good faith”.
I like this place even more now, if that’s possible.
The Other Steve
He is arguing in good faith if you assume Darrell doesn’t know the different between truth and a lie.
emix
Was John McCain ever really “tortured” in Vietnam?
He didn’t suffer organ failure or permenent injury.
What if he had valuable information that could have saved Vietnames lives? Would not the waterboarding of John McCain have been justified? Perhaps he grandfathered himself in with the recent “concessions” he got from the Bush administration on the torture bill.
ThymeZone
And assume that Darrell’s adversaries also don’t know the difference between truth and a lie.
And assume that Darrell has no ability to find the truth, even though it is easily available and for free.
And assume that Darrell is just too busy to answer the pointed and necessary questions that are directed at him, in which correspondents seek explanations for his views or support for his assertions.
And believe that Darrell really, honestly thinks that half the American people are evil, corrupt fools who not only don’t understand that Darrell is arguing in good faith but will use any lie and any trick to attack him and deflect him from his important message.
And …. well, you get the idea.
Freedle
Over the last 20 years, that is what they have been conditioned to be. One can dance all around it but the right in America is more like a cult than a political party and they certainly look to cover for the cult before they give a damn about America. Most of them don’t see that but that is the same way with cults, they don’t see it. Just like a cult they are conditioned to believe anything they want is patriotic, anything they want is what God personally has taken an interest in, like tax cuts is all God desires. This is what has been bred into them by the conservative leadership, it isn’t going to leave. In fact, they have worse coming down the road. Wait till these homeschooled bots arrive on the scene in full force, wait till you get a load of the lawyer’s Falwell is training to tear this nation apart.
Look at who they are touting to take Melman’s place. These people are disgusting. Steel should be an outcast but no, he will be the Republican’s leader. They like people with NO PRINCIPLES. That is who they are.
Look at this:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001979.php
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001980.php
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/no-were-not-that-stupid.html
One can hope and pray, but this cult mentality is in their souls, they are not going to change. They will just work on being more deceptive, more dishonest in hopes of conning the country again, that is all they have in them. Look at McCain, their likely candidate, watch him grovel at Falwell’s feet, watch him play the “Kerry hates the troops” disgusting deception – why? because they can. They have no soul.
Do you not see that they really think the problem is they weren’t extreme enough?
Face it, the Republican Party is an anti-science homophobic authoritarian movement, that depends on manipulation and deception to “win” and this time the country didn’t fall for it. But you can bet they will be back.
Here, Maher says Republicans are like Scientologists, that is close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/republicans-scientologi_b_33764.html
la guy
This election turned on two issues: corruption and incompetence.
What’s amazing is how bald-faced these guys (Rush, Hugh, Dean, RedState, et.al.) are about acknowledging that they were part and parcel of the GOP corruption, and how they now pile word-upon-word to convince their followers that it wasn’t _really_ their fault. They’re all now “liberated” and “relieved” to be free of having to “defend,” “carry water” and “stick my neck out” for the incompetent and corrupt GOP.
These aristocrats of partisan punditry want to avoid accountability for their admitted dissembling. They think they can lie their way out of what they lied their way into.
As president Bush said “Fool me once, shame on you…Fool me twice…”
Tsulagi
Actually wasted the time to read both the Barnett and Hewitt posts. Good to see there are still constants. Still pulling bullshit out of their asses and proclaiming it insight.
Among one of the many little ass nuggets from Barnett: “It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame “the people” when they don’t vote as one would dictate.” Guess like I didn’t really hear “stay the course” in the past, I didn’t hear if you don’t vote for us the terrorists win. You can either vote for Jesus or Osama. You can vote for democracy in the ME or for cut and run failure. So I guess telling the electorate they’ll have only themselves to blame before the vote doesn’t carry afterwards.
But they did have blame for the moderate “mavericks” Pubs like McCain and Graham. Guess those two didn’t suppress their gag reflex enough with Bush to satisfy Hewitt. Plus in the collective wisdom of the Barnett/Hewitt couple, the country lost a great statesman in Santorum. But Hewitt offers hope to his readers. Now the president has a great opportunity to nominate that great patriot, Santorum, to the SCOTUS if a slot opens.
Yeah, that’s what the Republican party needs to lead itself back to power. More Santorums. Good to see Barnett and Hewitt remain as sharp as ever. Maybe that couple can take over for Mehlman and Rove.
Richard 23
LOL. I prefer “cum guzzling gutter snipe!”
I hope this doesn’t piss off ChristieS. I wouldn’t want to make her angry.
Jay
Sad to say but I think the Admin. was taken aback when the average black person’s reaction to replacing T. Marshall with C. Thomas was a resounding “GFY!” What did the brown folks want? Marshall was black, Thomas was black. Same thing, right? However, this is what happens when one really does think members of a minority group are “all alike,” and failing to notice such nuances as Marshall had a brain and Thomas is dumber than a box of dead waterbugs.
Pick two from Column A and two from Column B. (Bigots are about as stupid as you can get while still maintaining the ability to walk upright). Bob Earwig, Michael “Puppy Love” Steele and their ilk can’t care because blacks, especially the poor (along with women who leave the kitchen) are the fall back when there isn’t anyone else to hate. Right now the rabble are using the immigration problem to pick on all Hispanics. Gays & lesbians are currently a favoured target for these rampant pigs but they’re so darn hard to pick out of a crowd because they stubbornly refuse to conform to the leather queen/lumber jane stereotype. That and so many of their own keep falling out of the closet. (Ahem.) But give it some time and we’ll be back to “inner-city thugs” and “welfare queens.”
Pooh
That was Don Young (R-buttf*****) (short version, during the Mapplethorpe-NEA scandal, he was asked during an assembly at a Fairbanks HS what was so wrong with the photos. “People Buttfucking” was his reply. Good times.)
Stevens bridge near Anchorage, connecting land convenient owned by…his extended family to downtown…other than that, carry on…
SeesThroughIt
Well, not really. I’m inherently wary of single-party rule. It just plain doesn’t work. I am a big fan of divided government, though–such as the one the midterms have provided.
I thought the Steele shit was just wingnuts blowing smoke. But it’s actually for real. Wow.
Steve
Setting ideology completely to the side, I would defend to the death the proposition that Thomas is a better judge than Marshall. His legal reasoning is more solid, his philosophy is more coherent, etc. Thomas draws comments like “he’s so dumb he doesn’t even ask questions!” “all he knows how to do is agree with Scalia!” but seriously, those accusations are way off base.
That doesn’t change the fact that nominating Thomas was a huge slap in the face to everything Thurgood Marshall stood for, and everyone knew it.
Steve
Is that true? I already knew Mama Murkowski owned land that will get connected to the mainland by the Bridge to Nowhere. Wow, these people are so shameless.
Bombadil
If it does, naybe we’ll see her in a loin cloth, hunting bear.
John Cole
I could be willing to support the loin cloth part. Not sure about the bear bit, though.
ThymeZone
Not sure it still doesn’t pale in comparison to Denny Hastert’s Prairie Parkway earmark deal and his erstwhile “landlocked” property in Illinois.
You gotta love these guys. I mean, they are entrepreneurial in their zeal to line their pockets, and Gawdy Love ‘Em, you have to respect that.
wordyeti
I think that the real tipping point, if you will was the articles in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Times, all calling for Rumsfeld’s head. All timed to come out the Monday before the elections. This was no accident.
This was a bare-knuckle shot from the military services, saying to the Bush administration “We’ve had all we can stand, and we can’t stand no more.” If Bush didn’t get rid of Rummy and start mending fences, the next thing you could expect to see is the military services refusing to give him his friendly and useful backdrops of smiling, laughing troops every time his poll numbers take a hit because of the shitty news coming out of Iraq. So when it came down to “Rummy or you,” Bush reacted by tossing Rummy to the wolves.
Now the struggle is going to be between those wanting more of the same, don’t back down an inch or admit that anything is wrong, because that will start the whole house of cards collapsing –
-and-
The pragmatists, such as Baker, who are coming in to try to figure out what can be salvaged from this dog’s breakfast.
Regardless, it’s going to be a while before anyone in the administration sees smiles in the hallways at the Pentagon.
Pooh
I think Tim debunked this one months ago…Tim?
Pooh
Yup. In many ways, Alaska is one of the more efficient patronage mills around. Stevens’s son, Cousin Ben (we call the elder “Uncle Ted” because like a kindly uncle, he always has goodies for us) is the real pick of the litter. Of course, his office recently got raided by the Feeb, so we haven’t hears as much from him since then. (Prior to the primary, the scuttlebutt was that Young was going to step down and CB was going to run in his place for the House. That rumor died a richly deserved, Federal Bureau Investigated death…)
Steve
Heck, that’s nothing compared to Harry Reid’s land deal… where he wasn’t actually involved in any government action to improve the value of the property… but still, I’m quite certain Reid’s is far, far worse!
mrmobi
I find that very apt, TZ. Among the many disappointments of the past six years has been the transformation of the real hero and straight-talking McCain into the Portrait of Dorian Gray that he has become. He will allow himself to be degraded and used, so long as the prize of the Presidency stays in his sights. It is a sad thing to watch.
How angry do you think he will be when his Party decides he’s too “liberal” for the job?
Jon H
“Not sure it still doesn’t pale in comparison to Denny Hastert’s Prairie Parkway earmark deal and his erstwhile “landlocked” property in Illinois.”
The Dems should put a pig farm next door to that bastard’s property.
ThymeZone
The man ought to write a book. “How To Make Millions Buying Cheap Farmland And Then Moving Barrells of Federal Pork Next Door.”
Chapter One, get yourself elected to Congress ….
yet another jeff
Not bears…nothing sexy about bears…no matter how Scooter Libby tried to write it…
jcricket
Here you go
Darrell
One of the biggest pain in the ass changes was when Denver closed Stapleton and opened the new one out in the boondocks. I understand that former Denver mayor, later Clinton-transportation secretary Pena’s family made off like bandits with land they owned there. That has got to be the most unnecessarily inconvenient airport in the country, as there has got to be 15 – 20 miles of barely inhabited land between the airport and metro Denver. Thanks to Dem pocket lining corruption.
As for Alaska’s bridge to nowhere, I actually met an Alaska DOT guy at a conference about 9 mos back who told me it was a politcal hot potato (of course), but that on the east coast, similar or more expensive bridge projects had been constructed linking isolated areas. Not to excuse the Alaska project, as it is a sparsely populated state, but just to point out that this kind of wasteful bridge project does not appear to be unique, or only occuring in Republican districts as seems to be suggested here at BJ.
The Other Steve
Our airport is right next to the city.
And all we get from it is a bunch of noise, and a bunch of people who live next to the airport complaining about noise.
Frankly, I think it’d be better to have an airport outside of town.
Granted, that’s what O’Hare was when they built that, now look at everything which has built up leading out there.
Baby Jane
Whatever…it’s just a figure of speech, Mr. Wizard. I mean, really, who boils their frogs anymore anyway, when you can just pop’em in the microwave.
Steve
I always wondered why the Denver airport was so far out in the boondocks (or, as they say in New Zealand, waikikamukau). I figured it was the taxi driver’s union or something!
DragonSchoar
I recall an interesting essay by a rather liberal person I’d read – he said that, let’s face it, most people supported a lot of conservative positions – give us a balanced budget low, taxes, nose out of my business, protect us against foreign threats, keep my crime low. Positions that, frankly, anyone could agree with, even if we argued about methodology.
What we’ve ended up with is conservatism being about anything but conservatism. When one of the most Republican people I know became a rabid Deaniac, that was the first sign for me something was wrong.
Pooh
Ok, I haven’t studied Marshall’s jurisprudence closely, but I have to ding you here Steve. To a lesser extent than Scalia, to be sure, Thomas is very coherent about originalism when it reaches policy results he likes. Other times *cough*bushvgore*cough* not so much…At least someone like Posner is explicit that he’s evaluating policy outcomes.
ChristieS
LOL…alright, alright already. I was a little testy earlier. But she deserved it. You don’t put in time on this board, you don’t get to bash the host. Especially when she had no clue what she was spouting about.
ThymeZone
Again, the innovative material!
You’ve invented FrogPockets!
This could make us rich ……..
Steve
Oh sure, I’m not saying Thomas is some kind of judicial god. For example, Mona and I had an interesting disagreement at this very site about whether Thomas was intellectually honest in the Oregon assisted suicide case.
But Marshall, I mean, I don’t think he even tried to fit his decisions into a judicial philosophy. I suspect he would have openly scoffed at the notion. I hope I’m not implying any disrespect, he was a great man.
CaseyL
Interesting take. But is it possible Marshall didn’t think SCOTUS Justice’s needed, or even should have, a judicial philosophy per se? They’re there to determine whether a challenged law passes Constitutional muster, not to enforce a specific philosophy.
It seems to me that having a judicial philosophy is the sort of thing that makes someone a judicial activist – deciding cases not on their merits, but on how they fit into one’s philosophy.
Thomas is a proponent of something called “Natural Law.” He decides cases based on how they fit into that – yet Natural Law isn’t, SFAIK, a recognized legal philosophy (meaning, it hasn’t undergone rigorous scholarly analysis).
Marshall was a champion of civil rights; that was his moral background. But civil rights – particularly the kinds of cases he heard – isn’t a “philosophy,” it’s a legal/political issue.
Krista
The things you miss when you’re busy working…
Actually Christie, you left me in the dust, hon. That was a beautifully worded butt-whooping. My hat is off to you.
puddlejumepr
Interesting comments. One of the things that has struck me most about the way the Republican party has choosen to govern is that they believe that because they were in the majority they could ignore the desires and views of everyone else. They completely shut out the Democrats and even the moderate Republicans from any voice in government. For the most the rank and file cheered this behavior. I can’t even count how many times I read Republicans demanding that their party use its slim majority to produce legislation with no thought to what the other 49% of the country might want.
Stip away all of the corruption and hypocrasy from the Republicans and you still have a method of governing that is based upon shoving legislation down America’s throat rather then building concensus. Forgotten is the fact that each legislature sent to Congress is meant to represent the views of citizens who have a right to be heard. Political partys are not mentioned in the Consitution and did not exist at the countries birth. The idea of majority rules was created under the expectation that each legislature would vote according to his own conscience in accordance with the needs of those he represented. It was not intended that you got to be Represented if your guy was part of the party in power.
In a nation as large as our, where even 5% of the population represents about 60 million people, it is foolish to believe that you can ignore what a half, a third, or even a quarter thinks forever, and still have a functioning socity. It is lucky indeed that Americans are reluctant to take to the street to make their voices heard, and luckier still that the Republicans did not stay in power long enough to find out were the tipping point lies in mass dis-enchantment.
I pray that the Democrats rule more wisely and try to craft solutions that most of us can live with. I pray too the my fellow American’s learn that Democracy is not about getting your way, but getting our way.
Krista
That’s the kicker right there. Why did they have to defend them? If they couldn’t shoot straight and they were that horrible, why defend them? Because they were the right party?
When your only reason for defending a politician is because of what letter is after their name, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
louisms
Whoa! I’m just visiting for the first time and expected a conservative blog. What’s with all the rational voices? Comment after comment is trenchant, insightful, evincing open minds and balanced perspectives (excepting Darrell). And there’s pie!
Is this what happens to conservatives when they have “their fingers pressed forcefully down on the fiery braille alphabet”* of their party’s ineptitude and moral bankruptcy? I’ve found new hope for our country.
*that phrase is from Tennessee Williams- I just love it. phrase.
pie
Darrell likes me!
jake
Too much pie. And stick around, I heard there will be ponies for all at some point.
This is rather sad actually. So many people think Conservative = mAnn Coulter, Flush Limpbag and the rest of the radical wing nut brigade.
Rod Stanton
Hugh has been a liberal Republican for decades. He backed the current batch of liberals because in his heart he belives that the government is the solution to almost all problems. He like Bush has looked down his nose at Reagan and his followers for years. In some of his post election shows and colums he blaims the GOP’s massive defeat on wayward Reagan folk. He does not use the names Ronnie or Reagan but the groups he attacks are the folk who were the core of Ronnie’s support for 40 years. Groups who want to “get the government off our backs”. You can be a liberal Republican and still be a good Republican. The problem I have with the lawyer from John Wayne Airport is that he says he is “center right” and the only way he can say that honestly is if he thinks Ronnie was far left. But then Bill Clinton is a lawyer, nuf said.
louisms
Well, JAKE, Coulter, Rush, Savage, O’Reilly et all are the loudest, most publicized voices on the right, I suppose because the MSM loves sensationalism. And the particular brand of conservatism exemplified by the Bush regime has been in the limelight for the last few years- please don’t claim that Bush isn’t a “real” conservative, as conservative support for him has been pretty overwhelming- so it’s not surprising that libs like me wouldn’t expect rationality from the right.
It’s heartening, though, to see that “the other side” is peopled, in part, by decent, sane folks, not just militantly irrational, authoritarian neo-fascists wrapped in cloaks of hypocritical sactimony. I will return often to this site, to retain a balanced perspective, knowing that them-and-us thinking is as dangerous coming from the left as the right. Sensible conservatives and liberals together, compromising and striving to find a middle ground, are our best hope for dealing with the multiplicity of problems we face in the coming years.
So thank you, John Cole, for this illuminating site. And thanks to all the bloggers for broadening my perspective on conservative thought.
Richard
One difficulty with consensus building, when faced with a party that isn’t, is that you’re screwed either way. The Republicans have been, as you said, pretty much ignoring the other 49% of the country (remember the “mandate” statement after the last election).
If Democrats acted the same way, they’d be attacked for it, and rightfully so. If they attempt to build consensus then a) they’re portrayed as weak, and b) you end up in a situation where the Republicans get 100% of what they want half the time and 50% of what they want the other half – not an ideal solution from the Democrat’s standpoint. Its a hard position to be in, and as long as the “ram it down their throats” approach works and is endorsed, the likelyhood of people actually standing back and working for the good of the country as a whole is a lot less.