. . .while I think of my own list of recriminations. The amazingly prolific Jennifer Rubin already has a list of 30 items. Interestingly, she doesn't have my top one on her list. More on that anon.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
30 reasons. By my rough count they break down to: 14 reasons: Running a sucky campaign. 11 reasons: Failing to tell people that Obama and the Dems are horrible, awful, scary, bad people. 3 reasons: Failing to realize that Sarah Palin is hte awesome. 2 reasons: Having no message, no coherent plans, and no idea why anyone should vote for a Republican after the last eight craptastic years.
In a way the list does explain why the Rs have had their butts handed to them two cycles in a row now. But not quite in the way Ms. Rubin thinks it does.
RIP the "party of ideas". The only ideas that the Republicans have left is that Democrats are icky and that Rovian slime is an adequate substitute for a rational governing philosophy. Apparently those ideas aren't getting the job done. Maybe you should come up with some new ones. I have a few suggestions.
How about a party that believes in limiting the size and power of the federal government. How about fiscal responsibility, you know, stuff like reducing the deficit and not borrowing a gazillion dollars from China. How about respecting the Constitution and individual liberties. How about keeping the government out of peoples personal lives (I realize that including wombs and bedrooms in this one is going to cost you some of your more, um, "ardent" supporters, but it might be worth a shot). How about using military force prudently and wisely when all other reasonable alternative have been exhausted. Oh, and the whole Neocon/Wilsonian thing? Not a good fit. If you think that the government is competent to run Amtrack its kind of hard to explain why that same government is capable of magically transforming third world cesspools into paragons of democracy. Here's a hint if a Trotskyist like Christopher Hitchens thinks you have a good foreign policy, you don't.
Just a few random thoughts. I might vote for a party like that when my side tosses up a stinker candidate. A lot of people on the rightish side of the left might. Check out the Tories, it's possible.
Or you could just stick with the crazyass Dixiecrat/Palin thing. If you decide to go that way instead say hi to the Whigs and Free Soil Party for me.
Ah, so you're recommending the old green eyeshade Republicanism with a libertarian approach to social issues. That's one way to go. Late Barry Goldwater.
I don't think that dog will hunt, especially as long as your side is offering free stuff and people think they'll actually get it. But who knows? After 4 years of Big Rock Candy Mountain from The One, maybe the old eat your spinach approach will have some allure.
By the way, I have a hard time having a rational discussion with people who use the term "craptastic" and think that Sarah Palin is a Dixiecrat. That's just snark (and not even especially clever snark). It doesn't tell me anything useful. But enjoy your victory dance. And enjoy the next 4 years. I'll be more than happy to play Statler and Waldorf on your guy's ass if that's how the game is played. I'm trying to be gracious here and frankly I don't need that shit on my blog.
Mark 1) Genuinely sorry if the tone of my post was inappropriate. I'll try to be less potty-mouthed and more cleverly snarky in the future. 2) Yeah, the kind of conservatism I could support is probably dead for at least another generation. But I can dream can't I? Barry Goldwater, sigh (I like spinach too, btw). 3) Ok, so Palin's not a Dixiecrat? What do you call grievance-based white identity politics then? White Pathers? Realamericanism? Help me out on that one.
What do you call grievance-based white identity politics then? White Pathers? Realamericanism? Help me out on that one.
Look, now you're doubling down. Your implication/assertion here is that Palin is a racist. What evidence do you have? Calling someone a Dixiecrat suggests someone who would want Jim Crow laws and overt segregation. Palin doesn't want that and the suggestion that she wants that sort of regime is ridiculous. And it's a particularly ugly slur. And you're smart enough to know that.
White identity politics? WTF? Based on what? That's what I object to, good sir. What's worse is this -- if you want someone with Goldwateresque tendencies, Palin is a hell of a lot closer to that than most of the other people on my side of the aisle. She's a westerner and she's run Alaska in a pretty libertarian manner. Check her actual record and see for yourself. Don't let your research end with Andrew Sullivan.
Palin has ben the classic attempt to "Quayle" or "Bork" someone. The left cannot handle the idea of an attractive intelligent conservative woman (doesn't fit the Woman's movement Johnny Bravo suit) so they have to attempt to discredit and destroy her. The same thing happens with African Amercian Conservatives, they are immediately being accused of being an "Uncle Tom."
How does one really deal with people who resort to tactics like that?
5 comments:
30 reasons. By my rough count they break down to:
14 reasons: Running a sucky campaign.
11 reasons: Failing to tell people that Obama and the Dems are horrible, awful, scary, bad people.
3 reasons: Failing to realize that Sarah Palin is hte awesome.
2 reasons: Having no message, no coherent plans, and no idea why anyone should vote for a Republican after the last eight craptastic years.
In a way the list does explain why the Rs have had their butts handed to them two cycles in a row now. But not quite in the way Ms. Rubin thinks it does.
RIP the "party of ideas". The only ideas that the Republicans have left is that Democrats are icky and that Rovian slime is an adequate substitute for a rational governing philosophy. Apparently those ideas aren't getting the job done. Maybe you should come up with some new ones. I have a few suggestions.
How about a party that believes in limiting the size and power of the federal government. How about fiscal responsibility, you know, stuff like reducing the deficit and not borrowing a gazillion dollars from China. How about respecting the Constitution and individual liberties. How about keeping the government out of peoples personal lives (I realize that including wombs and bedrooms in this one is going to cost you some of your more, um, "ardent" supporters, but it might be worth a shot). How about using military force prudently and wisely when all other reasonable alternative have been exhausted. Oh, and the whole Neocon/Wilsonian thing? Not a good fit. If you think that the government is competent to run Amtrack its kind of hard to explain why that same government is capable of magically transforming third world cesspools into paragons of democracy. Here's a hint if a Trotskyist like Christopher Hitchens thinks you have a good foreign policy, you don't.
Just a few random thoughts. I might vote for a party like that when my side tosses up a stinker candidate. A lot of people on the rightish side of the left might. Check out the Tories, it's possible.
Or you could just stick with the crazyass Dixiecrat/Palin thing. If you decide to go that way instead say hi to the Whigs and Free Soil Party for me.
Ah, so you're recommending the old green eyeshade Republicanism with a libertarian approach to social issues. That's one way to go. Late Barry Goldwater.
I don't think that dog will hunt, especially as long as your side is offering free stuff and people think they'll actually get it. But who knows? After 4 years of Big Rock Candy Mountain from The One, maybe the old eat your spinach approach will have some allure.
By the way, I have a hard time having a rational discussion with people who use the term "craptastic" and think that Sarah Palin is a Dixiecrat. That's just snark (and not even especially clever snark). It doesn't tell me anything useful. But enjoy your victory dance. And enjoy the next 4 years. I'll be more than happy to play Statler and Waldorf on your guy's ass if that's how the game is played. I'm trying to be gracious here and frankly I don't need that shit on my blog.
Sheesh.
Mark
1) Genuinely sorry if the tone of my post was inappropriate. I'll try to be less potty-mouthed and more cleverly snarky in the future.
2) Yeah, the kind of conservatism I could support is probably dead for at least another generation. But I can dream can't I? Barry Goldwater, sigh (I like spinach too, btw).
3) Ok, so Palin's not a Dixiecrat? What do you call grievance-based white identity politics then? White Pathers? Realamericanism? Help me out on that one.
What do you call grievance-based white identity politics then? White Pathers? Realamericanism? Help me out on that one.
Look, now you're doubling down. Your implication/assertion here is that Palin is a racist. What evidence do you have? Calling someone a Dixiecrat suggests someone who would want Jim Crow laws and overt segregation. Palin doesn't want that and the suggestion that she wants that sort of regime is ridiculous. And it's a particularly ugly slur. And you're smart enough to know that.
White identity politics? WTF? Based on what? That's what I object to, good sir. What's worse is this -- if you want someone with Goldwateresque tendencies, Palin is a hell of a lot closer to that than most of the other people on my side of the aisle. She's a westerner and she's run Alaska in a pretty libertarian manner. Check her actual record and see for yourself. Don't let your research end with Andrew Sullivan.
Palin has ben the classic attempt to "Quayle" or "Bork" someone. The left cannot handle the idea of an attractive intelligent conservative woman (doesn't fit the Woman's movement Johnny Bravo suit) so they have to attempt to discredit and destroy her. The same thing happens with African Amercian Conservatives, they are immediately being accused of being an "Uncle Tom."
How does one really deal with people who resort to tactics like that?
Post a Comment