Pity Party (not who you think)

[Rebel Yell]

Some good points, a bit exaggerated, but a good wake up call nonetheless.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Pity Party
May 16, 2008
Big picture, May 2008:

The Democrats aren't the ones falling apart, the Republicans are. The Democrats can see daylight ahead. For all their fractious fighting, they're finally resolving their central drama. Hillary Clinton will leave, and Barack Obama will deliver a stirring acceptance speech. Then hand-to-hand in the general, where they see their guy triumphing. You see it when you talk to them: They're busy being born.

 
The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light. They're frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness, his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.

The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned by Loss in Mississippi." It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat gave the Republican in the special House election. My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that. Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they think pertains now. In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss.

They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful, well-connected, busy and rich. They never guessed, back in '86, how government would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and wound up with their butts in the butter. But affluence detaches, and in time skews thinking. It gives you the illusion you're safe, and that everyone else is. A party can lose its gut this way.

Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they . . . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.

And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the country, the troops will rally in the fall.

"This was a real wakeup call for us," someone named Robert M. Duncan, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times. This was after Mississippi. "We can't let the Democrats take our issues." And those issues would be? "We can't let them pretend to be conservatives," he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be conservative every day.

The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why Republicans are losing: because they're losers.

All true enough!

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain." Analyses of its predicament reflect an "investment in the Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party, said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White House, and force Democrats to define themselves. "They should have some ownership for what's going on. They control the budget. They pay no price. . . . Obama has all happy talk, but it's from 30,000 feet. Energy, immigration, what is he gonna do?"

* * *

Could the party pivot from the president? I spoke this week to Clarke Reed of Mississippi, one of the great architects of resurgent Republicanism in the South. When he started out, in the 1950s, there were no Republicans in his state. The solid south was solidly Democratic, and Sen. James O. Eastland was thumping the breast pocket of his suit, vowing that civil rights legislation would never leave it. "We're going to build a two-party system in the south," Mr. Reed said. He helped create "the illusion of Southern power" as a friend put it, with the creation of the Southern Republican Chairman's Association. "If you build it they will come." They did.

There are always "lots of excuses," Mr. Reed said of the special-election loss. Poor candidate, local factors. "Having said all that," he continued, "let's just face it: It's not a good time." He meant to be a Republican. "They brought Cheney in, and that was a mistake." He cited "a disenchantment with the generic Republican label, which we always thought was the Good Housekeeping seal."

What's behind it? "American people just won't take a long war. Just – name me a war, even in a pro-military state like this. It's overall disappointment. It's national. No leadership, adrift. Things haven't worked." The future lies in rebuilding locally, not being "distracted" by Washington.

Is the Republican solid South over?

"Yeah. Oh yeah." He said, "I eat lunch every day at Buck's Cafe. Obama's picture is all over the wall."

How to come back? "The basic old conservative principles haven't changed. We got distracted by Washington, we got distracted from having good county organizations."

Should the party attempt to break with Mr. Bush? Mr. Reed said he supports the president. And then he said, simply, "We're past that."

We're past that time.

Mr. Reed said he was "short-term pessimistic, long-term optimistic." He has seen a lot of history. "After Goldwater in '64 we said, 'Let's get practical.' So we got ol' Dick. We got through Watergate. Been through a lot. We've had success a long time."

Throughout the interview this was a Reed refrain: "We got through that." We got through Watergate and Vietnam and changes large and small.

He was holding high the flag, but his refrain implicitly compared the current moment to disaster.

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

This is and will be the great challenge for John McCain: The Democratic argument, now being market tested by Obama Inc., that a McCain victory will yield nothing more or less than George Bush's third term.

That is going to be powerful, and it is going to get out the vote. And not for Republicans

.

[franksolich]

I'm wide awake, sir.

Remember, Operation Chaos has more than one purpose.

Its most-publicized purpose of course has been to extend the Democrat race for the presidency, making the Democrats fight among themselves.

And now it's time to lull the Democrats into the false security and confidence that it's in the bag.

Nothing is in the bag.

[DixieBelle]

It ain't over until it's over. November is a long way off. The Dems are fighting amongst themselves and they are hoping that they can convince the American public (at least the centrists and disallusioned) that they are viable. In fact, so viable and full of ideas that they have two choices whereas the GOP is only offering up more of the same (McCain). It's a brilliant strategy but it's also from the same old Democratic handbook they have been using for years. They are relying on ignorance and apathy to pull people over to their side. I have faith in the Conservative movement. I'm just as frustrated as the next person. The GOP and our current elected leaders have disappointed me. Tremendously in some areas. But I'm not about to go on a spittle-flecked rant and cut off my nose to spite my face. I'd rather have my party in power and work to change what's wrong with it than to punish my party by removing them completely so the other guys can REALLY go to work screwing up this country.

[Splashdown]

It ain't over until it's over. November is a long way off. The Dems are fighting amongst themselves and they are hoping that they can convince the American public (at least the centrists and disallusioned) that they are viable. In fact, so viable and full of ideas that they have two choices whereas the GOP is only offering up more of the same (McCain). It's a brilliant strategy but it's also from the same old Democratic handbook they have been using for years. They are relying on ignorance and apathy to pull people over to their side. I have faith in the Conservative movement. I'm just as frustrated as the next person. The GOP and our current elected leaders have disappointed me. Tremendously in some areas. But I'm not about to go on a spittle-flecked rant and cut off my nose to spite my face. I'd rather have my party in power and work to change what's wrong with it than to punish my party by removing them completely so the other guys can REALLY go to work screwing up this country.

Here's the thing...

If McCain wins, it will be from a push to the middle. He's pissed off his base. Even if he wins, will he be able to deliver down-ticket wins? I don't think so. I can see lots of middle-of-the-roaders voting McCain over Obama, and then voting democrats into congress and the senate.

Of course, mine is a suburban, Pennsylvanian perspective, but I'm scared there's going to be a lot more blue in the congress this term. Blue-dog democrats are pretty darn popular around here, at least. 

[DixieBelle]

^Yes. That's what I see happening as well. I can generally work with the blue dogs because most of the ones I've seen that have captured former GOP seats are pretty much the same on the issues. It's the whole party affliation and strong arming that happens in D.C. that concerns me. If blue dogs get in and have little senority or "juice", then the Dem party bigwigs will continue to strong arm them on votes to tip the balance of power. Bottom line: it's hard to trust anyone with a "D" after their name. Even when they seem indistiguishable from the "R's" in terms of policy at the local level.

We may need a little reality check to appreciate real GOP values. Sigh.

[Rebel Yell]

^Yes. That's what I see happening as well. I can generally work with the blue dogs because most of the ones I've seen that have captured former GOP seats are pretty much the same on the issues. It's the whole party affliation and strong arming that happens in D.C. that concerns me. If blue dogs get in and have little senority or "juice", then the Dem party bigwigs will continue to strong arm them on votes to tip the balance of power. Bottom line: it's hard to trust anyone with a "D" after their name. Even when they seem indistiguishable from the "R's" in terms of policy at the local level.

We may need a little reality check to appreciate real GOP values. Sigh.

See.....
http://anncoulter.com/

Don't let the "Blue Dogs" fool ya.

[DixieBelle]

^Yes. That's what I see happening as well. I can generally work with the blue dogs because most of the ones I've seen that have captured former GOP seats are pretty much the same on the issues. It's the whole party affliation and strong arming that happens in D.C. that concerns me. If blue dogs get in and have little senority or "juice", then the Dem party bigwigs will continue to strong arm them on votes to tip the balance of power. Bottom line: it's hard to trust anyone with a "D" after their name. Even when they seem indistiguishable from the "R's" in terms of policy at the local level.

We may need a little reality check to appreciate real GOP values. Sigh.

See.....
http://anncoulter.com/

Don't let the "Blue Dogs" fool ya.

which is why i said it's hard to trust anyone with D after their name. No one in my hometown was fooled by Childers. At least none of the ones who belong to the GOP.

Ann is rather strident (I do love her though!). I have seen some blue dogs from our area that aren't half bad. And considering some of the flakes in the GOP, it's a pretty low bar. Sigh.

I'm not so much worried about how some blue dogs treat their constituents because for the most part, I've seen pretty decent behavior. It's when they get to D.C. and have their arms twisted by the liberal elites that it becomes a problem.

[Rebel Yell]

^Yes. That's what I see happening as well. I can generally work with the blue dogs because most of the ones I've seen that have captured former GOP seats are pretty much the same on the issues. It's the whole party affliation and strong arming that happens in D.C. that concerns me. If blue dogs get in and have little senority or "juice", then the Dem party bigwigs will continue to strong arm them on votes to tip the balance of power. Bottom line: it's hard to trust anyone with a "D" after their name. Even when they seem indistiguishable from the "R's" in terms of policy at the local level.

We may need a little reality check to appreciate real GOP values. Sigh.

See.....
http://anncoulter.com/

Don't let the "Blue Dogs" fool ya.

which is why i said it's hard to trust anyone with D after their name. No one in my hometown was fooled by Childers. At least none of the ones who belong to the GOP.

Ann is rather strident (I do love her though!). I have seen some blue dogs from our area that aren't half bad. And considering some of the flakes in the GOP, it's a pretty low bar. Sigh.

I'm not so much worried about how some blue dogs treat their constituents because for the most part, I've seen pretty decent behavior. It's when they get to D.C. and have their arms twisted by the liberal elites that it becomes a problem.

Personally, and I know it sounds DUmmie like to picture a perfect world solution that will never happen, we need to throw out every single politician from Washington down, and start from scratch.

[DixieBelle]

Now that I can get behind!!! If only we could find a way to keep the govt running while we clean house.

[Rebel Yell]

Now that I can get behind!!! If only we could find a way to keep the govt running while we clean house.

Bring out the gallows for the crooked politicians, and you'll see them purge themselves.