’)
- Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr
Right now, at this moment, those of us on the left should enjoy the complete and utter impotence of the conservative right in America. The White House, House, and Senate are all Democratic. The Republican party doesn’t even have a leader as a victorious Howard Dean passed the torch to Tim Kaine (remember when they told us Dean would be a disaster?). The conservative media – Rush, Hannity, Fox, Wall Street Journal, and of course Drudge – are utterly unable to do anything more damaging than useless flailing.
It’s not going to last long. Unlike the premature triumphalism of the right after 2004, you don’t hear much talk of historical realignment in favor of the Democrats. Now, demographically it’s possible – the Republican party seems intent on keeping itself the party of white southern males, which is their perogative but as our current president shows that group is now a part of the American coalition and no longer its leader by default. In all likelihood the Republicans will find their voice again and win elections once more. I hope it isn’t any time soon, but I’m not going to pretend it ain’t happening.
In the near term it’s probably Democrats that will get in each other’s way – the election is in the past and people won’t feel quite the urgency to present a united front. But right now, we can enjoy this moment.
We’ll always have this memory.
I really want the GOP to get its act together in the next four years. I voted for Obama, but I want the GOP to be strong and able in case Obama’s economic plans don’t work. The Republicans have to be the backup. As frightening as that is …
but I want the GOP to be strong and able in case Obama’s economic plans don’t work
The problem is GOP economics boils down to “pray the market heals itself”. Which is clearly impractical.
Oliver, I gotta hand it to you — I not only have nothing I can nit-pick here, but I agree with you pretty much 100%. I almost could have written this — even the “enjoy it” sentiment, but I’d be telling others to do that, not engaging in it myself.
Well, that and the “I hope it (Republicans reascendant) isn’t any time soon” thought. Don’t think I’d say THAT.
Very well put.
J.
For the most part the economic collapse not only happened under full Republican control of all branches of government, but also because of Republican “philosophy” regarding reckless deregulation.
How could Republicans ever possibly repair a crisis of their own doing? Americans decided this was the case on November 4th.
There are a few Republicans who do believe in fiscal responsibility, and they were practically drummed out of the party for not supporting every wasteful spending decision made by Chimpy.
I would be surprised if these people leave and start a new party once the Evangelical/Palin crowd decides to throw their weight around come 2012.
And I’ll be laughing hysterically.
wouldn’t be surprised, that is
Jaim, have you ever heard of a couple fellows named Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Or looked at the leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Ever heard of several Republican-led efforts to rein them in, but were blocked by united Democrats who insisted that there were no problems?
There’s blame on both sides there, and no whitewashing you can do can erase the Democratic fingerprints on the mess.
J.
By the way, Jaim, congratulations on making Oliver’s title so very appropriate. “A fleeting moment” of civility and dispassionate, insightful analysis, before you spew your fraudulent talking points and generic invective.
Do you even bother to read an article before you parrot your bullshit yet again? I swear, if Oliver were to take your comments and switch them around on the various and sundry threads you comment on, no one would notice.
J.
Which is part of “getting their act together.” I’d say losing that belief in the magic fairies of the free market is job one.
Every time Jay lectures another commenter on civility, Allah kills a kitten.
Actually, the default Republican position seems to be “let the problem linger long enough and Barack (& Democrats) will inherit the blame.” I can’t say that I agree with that stance, but I would certainly note that it worked in November.
We Americans are a fickle bunch.
It will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the obstructionism that seems to be shaping up in congress.
As for the economic mess, for me it all boils down to the fact that the markets are run more by emotions than by logic. So if the President can instill a sense of greater confidence we might see better results than just throwing money at the problem, like they did with that whole TARP mess.
“have you ever heard of a couple fellows named Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Or looked at the leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
They brought down Bear Stearns, AIG and Citibank?
I want the GOP to be strong and able in case Obama’s economic plans don’t work.
In the abstract, yes, but it has to be a GOP with different plans and different solutions and different ideas. Right now they’re focused on trying to preserve the “remnant” of true believers.
There’s going to be a time when the GOP will win because the people think that Democratic ideas are old and stale and counterproductive and not up to the problems of the time. People will vote for the GOP because it will offer compelling ideas that seem worth trying, not because they’re recycling the greatest hits of Sts. Reagan and W.
The last thing I want is a GOP in its current form with its current leaders to be strong and able.
And “Fuck the poor.” Don’t forget that one.
And “Fuck the poor.” Don’t forget that one.
And it’s couched in racist, Lee Atwater-style “Welfare Queen” bullshit. Love bunch, those Republicans are.
“It’s not going to last long. Unlike the premature triumphalism of the right after 2004, you don’t hear much talk of historical realignment in favor of the Democrats. Now, demographically it’s possible – the Republican party seems intent on keeping itself the party of white southern males, which is their perogative but as our current president shows that group is now a part of the American coalition and no longer its leader by default. In all likelihood the Republicans will find their voice again and win elections once more. I hope it isn’t any time soon, but I’m not going to pretend it ain’t happening.”
This is the key. Unless the Republicans change, they will be in a permanent minority, because the demographics have changed.
The Southern Strategy no longer works, because there are not enough white males to rule the country on their own. The Rural population is too low. Minorities are voting at higher numbers. Etc.
If all the Republicans do it act like Republicans today, only more extreme, then they will never win another presidential election. Eventually the Democrats will wear out their welcome on their own, but if they are just 50% competent (which is at least three times more competent than the Bush administration) then it will take 12 years for that to happen. But by the time that happens, the extremists in the Republican party will have pushed out enough moderates, that they will form a third alternative.
J.G. Thayer: “Jaim, have you ever heard of a couple fellows named Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Or looked at the leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”
Explain how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the economic meltdown.
While you’re about it, Mr. Tea, please explain how Mssrs. Frank and Dodd “blocked” the GOP controlled Congress from doing anything.
I’m with Tyro. I might be happy to see the GOP come back in 16 years, when they’ve accepted guaranteed health care (for example) as common sense.
And “Fuck the poor.” Don’t forget that one.
And it’s couched in racist, Lee Atwater-style “Welfare Queen” bullshit. Love bunch, those Republicans are.
–Mister ed
Conservatives Have Answered Obama’s Call
Conservatives don’t think ‘Fuck the poor’, ed. Whether they are secular or religious, rich or poor, good economy or bad; they help the poor.
Liberals…not as much.
Conservatives Have Answered Obama’s Call
Uh-oh:
“Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute.”
That explains why he left so much out of his wildly misleading piece.
Anyone so easily misled would also believe that massively regressive tax cuts help Teh Poor, opposing SCHIP likewise, or that we had to invade Iraq. Or that income inequality didn’t skyrocket under the Cheney Administration; that median income didn’t slightly decrease while the top 1% went way, way up.
Uh-oh:
“Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute.”
That explains why he left so much out of his wildly misleading piece.
–ed
Uh oh-
“Mister ed is a recent graduate of the Jessica Alba School of ad hominem attacks.”
That explains why he’d make an accusation without bothering to explain on what basis he makes that accusation.
For starters, Einstein, Mr. Brooks talked about controlling for religious donations, but never shows where or how. Later, he says that righties donate to all sorts of charities, yet never elaborates.
Propaganda is as propaganda does.
Love how you ignore everything else I wrote, genius.
Love how you ignore everything else I wrote, genius.
–ed
I didn’t ignore everything else you wrote. I didn’t ignore that you accused conservatives of a ‘Fuck the poor’ mindset. I offered a recent study with statistical information gleaned from a period of years and over several different studies from different organizations, that that was not the case at all. You termed it ‘wildly misleading’, without supporting that accusation. You nitpick about the article not providing that statistical information you’d like to see doesn’t even come close to justifying an accusation of ‘wildly misleading’.
I wish there was a link to that poll in Brooks’ article. My Google-fu failed to turn it up.
Google-fu Brooks’ book, QIB.
‘Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism’
You’ll find all the supporting statistical documentation you need.
You can probably get it at your local library, too, if you want to be a liberal hero like Jessica Alba and not admit you’d ever pay one penny for a conservative author’s book.
Google-fu Brooks’ book, QIB.
Is that how Gallup is publishing their results these days? Man, I heard times were tough!
You’ll find all the supporting statistical documentation you need.
Surprisingly, Mr. Brooks’ 2006 book doesn’t even mention the Gallup poll he says was conducted in May, 2008.
RE: “Conservatives give more money–blah, blah, blah.” Let me toss out a couple of quick points any college freshmen in a Research Design class point out. Number 1, Are we talking total money donated or percentage of income? Who’s more likely to be a conservative, the upper 5% (who have more money to give) or the lower 5%? Number 2, using myself as an example, I’m a social worker with a Masters in Social Work and probably don’t donate as much as the MBA who makes 3 times my income. Does that make me less “compassionate” than that MBA? Number 3, Talking with staunch conservatives after a couple rounds of truth serum, they will openly say they don’t like those smelly poor people and don’t want any of their money going to help them.
“Are we talking total money donated or percentage of income? Who’s more likely to be a conservative, the upper 5% (who have more money to give) or the lower 5%? Number 2, using myself as an example, I’m a social worker with a Masters in Social Work and probably don’t donate as much as the MBA who makes 3 times my income”
Percent wise you probably won’t be able to either, because a much higher percentage of your income goes to things like food and shelter.
Percent of disposable income would be the best measure. Don’t know where you can get there. Or if you can get that.
Blahblahblah… Dennis doesn’t like the topic: Republicans have been repudiated, so he wants to change the subject.
Dennis, you don’t strike me as the religious type– conservative or liberal — so I seriously doubt your charitable donations are anything to write home about. Quoting from hack demagogues doesn’t help your case. Want the Republicans to be relevant? Wait a while, do something useful with your life in the meantime, and demand that the Republicans start believing in something relevant, useful, and moral– three things of which they’ve been lacking.
Uh oh-
“Mister ed is a recent graduate of the Jessica Alba School of ad hominem attacks.”
Someone here doesn’t know the definition of Ad Hominem.
Percent of disposable income would be the best measure. Don’t know where you can get there. Or if you can get that.
Also volunteering. Time is money. But that’s too simplistic. You’re also THERE.
Someone here doesn’t know the definition of Ad Hominem.
Duros62
Mister ed states “Uh-oh:
Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute.”
Mister ed in that statement ‘replies to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject’.
I think what he did pretty well fits the above definition.
The source is an unreliable one with a specific extremist agenda, Dennis who has a basic desire and motivatin to mislead, specifically for the purpose of taking in gullible dupes like yourself. And in any case what we can see is that this post– a reminder of your gutter ideology’s absolute failure and irrelevance, has flipped you out enough that you need to scream “look over there! a distraction!” Yest another example from th3e extremist right unable to reconcile themselves to reality, and we’re seeing a daily meltdown from the likes of Hannity, Rush, and the rest of the deluded followers while America celebrates.
Plus we got rid of Dick Cheney as well, thank god!!!
How would donating blood rank, I wonder?
I’m one donation from my seventh gallon.
J.
Me: “Percent of disposable income would be the best measure. Don’t know where you can get there. Or if you can get that.”
Ed: “Also volunteering. Time is money. But that’s too simplistic. You’re also THERE.”
Exactly. If you are so rich that you don’t need to work, your entire life can be donated to ‘charity.’ Although holding social events for charity does help raise money, I bet a lot of times the people attending care more about the social event and less about the charity.