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.

Last Thursday, I wrote:

And so, in the interest of "fair and balanced" reporting, we get to listen to bed-wetting cries that homosexuals are more dangerous than terrorists, feminists are the the cause of hurricanes, and liberal bloggers working for liberal candidates are scions of anarchy. In other words: hate and fear your fellow Americans.

FDR, one of America's greatest liberals in history, famously said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The radical right preaches, "There's nothing to fear but not being afraid enough."

Thus the hysterics we see on Fox News and other voiceboxes of wingnuttia. Be afraid. Boogie boogie boogie! Boogie boogie boogie!

Also picking up on this sentiment (I won't assume "echoing" as I doubt he has read this blog, at least lately), Austin Cline at [correction - mg] Jesus' General wrote on Sunday:

This week I'd like to write about the same topic I was going to address last week — it was more timely last week, perhaps, but it never goes out of style: the conservative, Republican use of fear as a political weapon against internal enemies, dissenters, and political opponents. On January 31st, Amanda Marcotte wrote about how conservative pundit Mike Gallagher actually admitted that terrorism would be a good thing for Republican political ambitions:

The bedwetting set can sure do the hysterics thing. They're hysterical over gays. They're hysterical over women's rights. And they're famously hysterical over barefoot gangbangers in rural Islamic countries.

Now they've been just beside themselves over two bloggers who were attacked by a hatemongering bigot, then fired by John Edwards campaign, then rehired by the John Edwards campaign.

They're also wonderful offering threats.

John Edwards ought to pray (softly, because you don't want your
staffers muttering about you being a "godbag" behind your back, right?)
that he doesn't get hit.

Hear me now, believe me later, Johnny E.: If you lay down with nutroots, it will be hard to get back up.

At MyDD, Chris Bowers writes:

William Donahue is scared to death of you. He just promised a
nationwide campaign to fight the success you have made possible. Ha!
Bring it on. It is about time this wingnut is exposed, and the media
shamed for treating him like a mainstream Catholic figure in the first
place.

Of course, this goes right to the heart of the radical right's claims that the rest of us must be tolerant of their hate.

Unfortunately, Edwards' public statement on his campaign's blog is rather middlin' and, to some extent, cowardly:

Now that the GOP hogfest at the pork trough is over, the profligate President Bush has decided to play at being a fiscal conservative:

President Bush on Wednesday challenged Democrats taking over Congress to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.

Whose "pet projects" is he talking about? After all, the Republicans have been running Congress. Does he really want to cut all the Republican "pet projects"? Will the profligate Republicans still in office go along with axing their earmarks?

Of course, since they were too busy -- or just plain lazy -- to be bothered with passing any spending bills for the 2007 fiscal year, the Democratic-run Congress will have to mop up the mess from last year's Republican-run Congress as well.

Dr. S sums it up well:

He talks about balancing the federal budget without mentioning that he was handed a balanced budget when he took office, mentions No Child Left Behind without mentioning what a failure that is, and mentions the USA PATRIOT Act (let’s not forget it’s a clever acronym) without mentioning what an affront it is to the principles upon which this great nation was founded.

The Bush cheerleaders have suddenly gotten the balanced budget religion, too. They love their hero.

As we knows, Democrats are only committed to increasing their power, not working with Republicans for the greater good.

And Cheney, Ney, DeLay, Abramoff, Libby, Bush, et al. are all selfless public servants. Uh huh.

TexasFreds has a more honest response:

Bush must be drinking again… A balanced budget?? In 5 years?? And he has 2 years left?? And he expects a Dem controlled Congress to spend LESS money than his Republican controlled Congress spent?? Maybe he’s NOT drinking, looks more like he has just lost his mind…

As Capitol Hill Blue reports, Bush also wants to make his tax cuts for the rich permanent. The corporate executives need a break, ya know?

In the Chicago Tribune Swamp, Mark Silva writes:

Bush took aim at "dead-of-the-night'' budget deals that funnel billions of dollars to special projects without any oversight, and he vowed that the government will produce a balanced budget by 2012 -- four years after he leaves office.

Bush is good at that -- starting things he can't finish. One might say it's his specialty.

Frankly, I'm surprised Bush even brought the subject up. After all, we had not only a balanced budget, but a budget surplus, when Bush took office. And now he wants the Democrats to clean up after his mess.

Just like the Democratic leadership of Bill Clinton led to the cleaning up of the similar budgetary mess left by Ronald Reagan and George the Elder, even while the GOP-run House was obsessing over The Blow Job.

The Republicans have a reputation for being disciplined and that reputation extends to the Republicans members of the House and Senate. The GOP Congressional members move largely in formation. Today that formation resembles a bunch of lemmings moving to perdition.

After a huge layoff, if I still had my job, but many of my colleagues did not, irrespective of the industry, when I got to my desk the next day, I would have to take a long and hard look at my own survivability. I would close the door and sit down and rethink what career issues were at stake for me. If I was a GOP member of Congress (or a Dem, too) I would take a long, hard, and frank look at myself and wonder if I should walk in lock step with anyone, except for those who determine whether or not I keep my job. I would look at those who no longer around and take a lesson.

Did the voters who put me in office put me there to be a GOP rubber stamp? I might have been swept in by a GOP tide and my State or District may have gone for George W. Bush, but did they want we to be one of the lemmings? When does discipline begin to become corrosive?

The Democrats are very far right of where they were a generation ago. It isn't that the country has suddenly shifted to "liberal" values. No. Then I look at Lincoln Chaffee, and he's out. It's not about the politics. It's about the party. It's about the way that Congress isn't doing its job. It is no longer behaving like one of the branches of government.

If this were a corporation, it would be equivalent to terminating an employee who is content to just sit around and sign off on everything without adding value. We've seen it in industry where the Board of Directors or the top management team kowtows to the boss. The word in my parent's generations for this was "being a yes man."

I would realize on the morning after that there is a way to disagree while still being loyal. I would recognize that the electorate (beyond the base) had come out to register their displeasure with those who did not demonstrate that they had a bit of a spine. I would understand that George W. Bush is a lame duck. I would know that "staying the course" has been repudiated at the polls, although I would know there are those who will continue to advocate it until the bitter end in November, 2008.

The vote on November 7, 2006, was in part a message to Congress that ideology was not as important as getting to work. If I were a Senator or Representative, I would know that a wakeup call had been sent out for us to get off our collective duffs and do the job we were getting perks and pay to perform.

I would know that George W. Bush and his inner circle are marching into history, but that my own career might span a number of terms well beyond that.

At one point coat tails can turn into anchors and loyalty can backfire if it appears I am not thinking for myself and not listening to the electorate.

I would know that in two, four, or six years I would be measured by what I had done and not purely on loyalty to the White House. The clock would be ticking and it would be the first day of the rest of my career.