GOP

The party of Barry Goldwater is dead.

Via Captain's Quarters:

It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

Having been to the CLC, I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them.

Yes, the small-government advocates should be tolerated in the party of neo-fascism. Dismiss their arguments for fiscal responsibility.

Even though Ron Paul is a social conservative, as ready to invite Big Brother into the livingrooms and bedrooms of Americans as any gold-star Republican, his name is mud in mainstream Republican circles.

Why?

Maybe follow the money. This is the new face of conservatism.

(P.S. - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, either. Far be it! But compared to all the other Republican candidates, he's a fucking saint!)

The red blog says so, noting:

Not sure what "later this year" means...but I'm not sure who will attend the pity party.

Is the GOP timing for Mark Foley backlash? (Ha!) Or just another instance of a Republican acting ahead of the public radar? Health? Disgust? Fatigue?

Fascinating.

Brazilian and Argentine paleontologists have discovered the largely complete fossil of a new species of giant dinosaur which roamed what is now northern Patagonia about 80 million years ago.

This is bad news for Republicans, because, as we all know, dinosaurs are godless liberals for having existed outside of the Dominionist-approved interpretations of the scriptures.

Too bad this comes too late for Tim Russert find another opportunity to assert his pointlessness and ask the Democratic presidential candidates what their favorite dinosaur is?

They just can't seem to stand how Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican contenders for the White House. I can't count how many times I've heard the "expert" reporters on Washington Week, This Week, the NewsHour and other mainstream media outlets crow how Giuliani's private life, support of gay rights and acknowledgment of women's authority over their own bodies mean that he is in for trouble as the primaries approach -- even as his political star rises week by week when it comes to what the people want.

While there's no doubt that the front-runners today can't be considered de facto front-runners come 2008 -- witness how Hillary Clinton continues her slow implosion of being right but not very presidential with each and every public appearance -- it's funny how the media treats the candidates.

Note how the same pundits claim that Clinton is unstoppable.

Thesis: The folks in the media love a good story, and conflict makes for a good story. A Giuliani nomination would be rather dull conflict-wise, since on social issues he's much more like a Democrat. It's hard to paint black-and-white -- "right" vs. "left" -- political storytelling with Rudy carrying the GOP banner. (And if he by chance does win the nomination, then the media figures can delight in how he "defied expectations" -- just their own expectations, but never mind that.)

On the other hand, these folks love the idea of a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nod. Then there will certainly be a nice and ugly campaign to cover, full of overblown rhetoric that will make writing political stories so much easier and fun.

In other words, the drama the mainstream media are painting arises out of their own preconceptions, their own inside-the-Beltway brand of conventional wisdom.

[Personally I don't plan to vote for Rudy, even if he's up against Hillary (who is at best 4th in my Democratic nomination preferences, behind Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson -- and Al Gore, too, if he runs), but he's a hell of a lot less frightening than the brown-nosing John McCain, the two-faced Mitt Romney, the Dominion-minded Sam Brownback, the slicker-than-Willie Newt Gingrich and the other ugly-of-uglies in American politics.]

And it really is their war -- a war they've rubber-stamped and refused to oversee, let alone question, since it started.

Now they don't want to talk about it.

The day's events ended the initial phase of what looms as a yearlong
confrontation between the new, Democratic-controlled Congress and the
commander in chief.

Reid told reporters he would no longer attempt to win passage for
nonbinding measures and would turn his attention to legislation
designed to force Bush to change course. House Democratic leaders
intend to do likewise.

In typical Republican style, they consider anything that questions the Bush policy to be tantamount to inviting screaming suicide bombers into small town America. They also tried to claim that the Democrats just want to leave American troops hanging in Iraq.

Because if you don't kiss George W. Bush's feet, you must want to kiss the feet of terrorists. Right?

At issue are Republican attempts to prevent Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania from requiring that our troops are properly equipped with body armor, armored vehicles and training -- things the Republicans neglected to provide over their years of ruling Congress.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record),
D-Pa., has described a series of provisions that would require the
Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the
troops, and for making sure they have enough time at home between
deployments.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said these provisions were designed to protect the troops.

Republicans argued the effect would be to deny troops needed reinforcements and are expected to try to block the restrictions.

Yes, the GOP logic is it's better to send our troops in ill-equipped and un-trained so they can get into the fight faster. Never mind that we have Army and National Guard troops in un-protected Hum-Vees and Marines in amphibious vehicles that are designed to float, not to repel rocket-propelled grenades.

You know, the Republicans sure love to talk a big game, puffing out their chests, thumping like Kong, but when it comes down to it, they'd rather fund bridges to nowhere and tax cuts for rock stars and CEOs than give our armed forces what they need to do their job. It's a damned good thing the GOP is out of power for the time being, or they'd have us sending into Iraq green recruits wearing nothing but skivvies and Sketchers, and leaving defense of our homeland to the ROTC and Boy Scouts.