Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Crashing the Gate: A Review
By trevino Posted in User Blogs — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From the Diaries . . .
Originally posted at Spot-On.
Five years ago, the Republicans took over the government through nondemocratic means.
The first sentence of Crashing the Gate is a hard one to get past. It's a whopper of a lie even if its intended reference -- the 2000 election of George W. Bush -- is accurate. (It's not, of course: the judicial interventions at all levels in that year's Florida recount were each meant to protect the integrity of the democratic procress rather than supplant it.) Republican majorities in the Congress are hardly "undemocratic," and by all accounts, the conservative majority (which is, to the book's authors, synonymous with "Republican majority") on the Supreme Court was installed in the accepted manner. Hard to get past or not, it's a sentence worth reading, and a telling opener for the book-length debut of Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. Barely four years ago, they were nonentities: today they stand athwart the American left, yelling, "Go!"
To their credit, beginning with a sloppy assertion that despite this -- or perhaps because of it -- plays directly into the self-pity and paranoia of that movement, they try to lead the way. Crashing the Gate is their thesis of what is wrong with the American left and its principal vehicle, the Democratic Party -- and how to fix those wrongs. It is a work informed by their peculiar status as pioneers and even visionaries in the field of online political activism: and it is a work ultimately brought down by that same status. Surveys are difficult, and few are so ill-equipped to write them as direct and narrow participants in the subject at hand.
Full disclosure is in order: I was an early participant in the initial flowering of the political blogosphere with tacitus.org, and back in the day, my site and the then-nascent DailyKos, Moulitsas' vehicle, were peers of sorts. Since then, the latter has taken off to become the single most popular website extant (a testament to the singular hard work of its founder and a singularly fortuitous historical moment on the left), while my own peripatetic career has taken me ever further from blogging. I therefore have some observations on the character of the book's principle author -- and rest assured, this book would not sell as it does were it solely a Jerome Armstrong production. (Armstrong is not, in my limited experience, the brightest bulb in the box.)
Moulitsas is a genius, and probably the genius, of his field. That field is, strictly, the construction and maintenance of influential left-wing online communities. It is no small thing. Does it confer expertise and authority beyond itself? Moulitsas believes so. Hence Crashing the Gate. But the evidence outside the book is thin: beyond his principle arena, he has been consistently thwarted -- by himself. The public record is one of chronic foot-in-mouth disease, apparently spurred by hubris and a nasty vindictive streak. Most famously, his denigration of dead Americans in Fallujah in April 2004 almost destroyed his site. (That it survived and flourished thereafter speaks to the patriotic character of the American left -- a subject for a different essay.) Most infamously, he mocked the Santorum family's method of grieving over a tragic miscarriage. Then there was his foray into electoral endorsements in 2004 which ended in a 100% failure rate for his candidates.
And then there was the radio show he and I were on (warning: large MP3 file) with Ana Marie Cox and Glenn Reynolds several weeks back, in which he gave his version of his site's genesis. It's worth quoting at length for an insight into the man's mind:
When I started blogging back in 2002, it was a very difficult time for people who were liberal. This was right after the Afghanistan war, kind of the lead-up to the Iraq war. And it was a very politically confining time for liberals. Any kind of criticism of the Administration was considered to be treason or un-American. So it was in that environment that a lot of liberal bloggers came out. It's one of the few places you could get liberal voices.
....I came from this environment in which I didn't hear my voices (sic) being spoken about in the run-up to the Iraq War. I wasn't allowed to criticize the President -- not even on domestic issues, because that was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And I served. I wore combat boots. Nobody was going to tell me what I could and couldn't criticize, because I knew what the Constitution said. And therefore I started my little blog, at a time when very few people were blogging, and not a lot of people were reading them, just as an outlet for those frustrations.
It's a deeply silly exegesis of the events in question -- any bets on how often Moulitsas found himself "silenced," pre-blog, in Berkeley? But it is revelatory for this: it reveals him as an archetype -- an American leftist who cannot understand why his party is in the minority, who grasps at resentful myths like the martyrdom of Max Cleland and the theft of Florida 2000, and who conjures up an imaginary quasi-fascist society in place of the actual America in which to set anecdotes of persecution. This man, and his friend, want to fix the Democratic Party. As a Republican, I can only urge that party to take them up on the offer.
Good prescriptions spring from good analyses. The analyses in Crashing the Gates veer wildly from insightful to awful.
The chapter on political consultants, "The Gravy Train," is flat-out the best in the book, and the only one deserving serious consideration from both sides of the aisle. The authors give a good overview of the inside-baseball nature of the campaign-consultant milieu, and drive home their argument that inept consultancies and back-scratching financial dealmaking (and especially their attendant effects on media strategy) are a major drag on Democratic efforts. I learned a great deal from it: as a single long-form essay, it would have made an excellent study on a subject that deserves far more exposition than it gets. It's a true pity that the rest of the book does not display the same level of dispassionate rigor.
Moulitsas and Armstrong are frank proponents of outright mimicry of the mechanisms of GOP ascendacy. Alas that the book's assessment of Republican successes and governance is risibly simplistic: a catalogue of cartoonish betes noirs and unexamined myths ranging from villainous "theocons" to assigning the blame for the flaws of the Katrina response on the wars in Iraq -- and Afghanistan. Mistakes are made that belie even a passing familiarity with American political history: the era of LBJ is lauded as a golden age; and Richard Nixon is described as having "legitimate conservative credentials." Especially stupefying is the mystified response to America's historical turning-away from leftism after c.1970:
Historians can argue over how the backlash began: whether it was a bad economy or corporate hostility toward expanded government services, or the northeastern/southern divide over race and civil rights, or the emergence of the religious right and its cultural war against social progressives.
It's touching, in its way. An activist should be true and pure of heart. If ignorance is the price to be paid for this, so be it. I am thankful to be of a generation that only dimly recalls the nadir of the 1970s: but I regret that many of my generational peers do not.
In fairness, four-fifths of the book focuses not so much on what Republicans have done as what Democrats should do. And here, Moulitsas and Armstrong are on more substantive ground. They know this milieu, having been part of it, having shaped it, and having tried to work with it for the past four years. Among their targets are the "single-issue groups," as they term them: the activist organizations that push one cause above all else, and hence lose sight of the larger goal of Democratic victory. It's an interesting argument, and it has some merit inasmuch as it doesn't make sense -- to appropriate one of their examples -- for NARAL to endorse a pro-abortion Republican when the totality of Republican control will act against their cause.
But the authors give short shrift to the causes as such: they have no time for the principled in a party they describe as "stand[ing] for nothing." American leftists may surely need to learn to work together -- but surely the prerequisite for constructive cooperation is not the abandonment of belief? Were they the students of GOP success they attempt to be, they'd know it's a thesis that has found sad currency in modern Republicanism. Thus erstwhile conservatives find themselves defending Medicare Part D, political speech restrictions, Nixonian secrecy paranoia, and Wilsonian foreign policy as the price of governance. Moulitsas and Armstrong think this is the price of victory: but when Republicans finally suffer a serious electoral reverse, it will be the cause of their defeat.
It is these single-issue groups, then, that bear much of the authors' blame for Democratic electoral fortunes. "[E]ven in the minority, even as their world crumbles around them, even as they keep losing ground, they retain a certain amount of power -- or at least a facade of it." These groups force Democratic candidates to demonstrate fealty to their causes, thereby weakening the Democratic cause by -- well, apparently by existing. The authors' logic here doesn't withstand scrutiny. If a candidate is weakened by being beholden to a group espousing X, that weakening does not occur by virtue of being beholden, but because X is unpopular. Moulitsas and Armstrong list single-issue groups on abortion, guns, the environment, and labor as being problematic in this manner: but they cannot and do not acknowledge -- because it not not occur to them? -- that the harmful effects of these groups on electoral prospects may stem directly from their fundamental unpopularity with the American people.
We then go into an exposition on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. And here, again, we delve into the realm of the absurd. Let's accept that there is a network of right-wing and libertarian think tanks in America. I know, because I work for one. Let's further accept that they do possess a certain efficacy that has, at points, served the conservative cause well. But that's not the whole story: these institutions, ranging from the Heritage Foundation to Cato and beyond, were founded to level the playing field rather than solidify a preexisting dominance. Academia, the media, and the political elite were perceived -- rightly enough in most cases -- as being bastions of leftist thought. In the first two of those three, that's still true.
This situation bears no resemblance to the world-view of Moulitsas and Armstrong. We know that they view the media as hostile, for reasons having more to do with the psychology of frustration than an objective reality. Academia, presumably, is a "single-issue group." And so they buy into the mythos of the VRWC with tendrils extending into every corner of public life, because a malevolent monolith is a powerful motivator -- not least to oneself. Paradoxically, a primary source of their information is the organs of the VRWC itself, which of course are going to tout themselves handsomely. The authors aren't being uniquely naive: we got a left-wing hit piece done on my own organization a few weeks back. It was some of the best PR copy for us I've ever read.
The bottom line is that the authors don't really understand think tanks or their role in the political process. Think tanks are de facto single-issue groups, not meaningfully different from the advocacy organizations they denounce, devoted to the promulgation of ideological fidelity on their chosen issues. Moulitsas and Armstrong seem to think of them as factories, in the dark bowels of which victory is made. "[T]his new movement is not ideological," they write. But if they wish to emulate the institutions of the VRWC -- and they do -- then ideology is at the core of the work of those institutions.
So what's the solution for the Democratic Party according to Crashing the Gate? What would two professional web consultants and bloggers recommend for the renewal of the vehicle of the American left? Unsurprisingly, they recommend following the lead of web consultants and bloggers. The rise, flameout, and second rise of web-consultant-and-blogger favorite Howard Dean is lovingly recounted. The power of the "netroots" is extolled. And doubters are excoriated with all the fury of those who have seen the future -- and in it, seen themselves.
Our message is simple: You can get out of the way or work with us. Trying to stop us is a losing proposition.
No doubt. If you're a Democrat, facing off against the irate masses of the online left is a losing proposition. They may lack perspicacity, and they may lack equanimity: but they do not lack noise. For all the rhetoric about the power of the netroots, new paradigms, and empowerment, Moulitsas and Armstrong do not -- or cannot -- acknowledge that this is the fundamental source of their power, and the power of the dispersed tribe they have gathered to seize the Democratic Party, and eventually America itself. Irony of ironies: they have a Noise Machine. If Crashing the Gate is any indication, that's all they have -- and they don't fully understand it.
That's why there is one group for whom trying to stop them is not a losing proposition. That group is the Republican Party. That party -- my party -- has veered dangerously from its core principles. It bears responsibility for a poorly-executed war. It has overseen a tepid economy. It has plunged the finances of the United States into deficit spending that will eventually prove ruinous. It has moved a long, sad way from the ideals of 1994.
And it has crushed the Democratic Party for three election cycles running. Even now, it looks to retain power in the dismal circumstances of George W. Bush's final midterm.
Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong look to the lovely thing they have built -- their movement, as much as they disclaim leadership -- and they are justly proud. But there's one thing they cannot take pride in: a single electoral victory. Crashing the Gate is exculpatory as much as prescriptive. It makes the case that this is not their fault. But the truth, now, in 2006, is that it's as much theirs as anyone's on the American left. They are kingmakers now, because, within their movement, trying to stop them is a losing proposition. The only questions are: At what point will they accept responsibility for the state of affairs? And at what point will someone bring some sense to the noise?
The 2006 elections
by Commodore
will be the true test of this movement. If they can't achieve success in the current political climate, they never will. At some point all that noise begins to ring hollow when nothing comes of it.
That's true
by Ben Domenech
And of course, reading Witness only confirms it... but Nixon was lost to us a long time before he got elected POTUS. It's like saying that Bob Dole had conservative bona fides for what he'd done years before his milquetoast 1996 run.
A great review, though.
Markos & his "blog"
by MBIGOP
To describe the "man" behind the blog, it really boils down to a few key statements...
We all know about and have read his hatred for this Country, our military, our Republican Party, especially Conservatives.
The truth of the matter is, what he thinks is his biggest asset, his brillant mind, is actually his biggest weakness and liability.
Do you not realize why he stopped endorsing candidates, his 0-18 record was a anchor on his brillance, he is as complete phony.
Michael
It takes courage to . . .
by Kevin Holtsberry
read a whole book of this stuff, and for that I commend you. You have waded through the muck so I don't have to.
So what are you saying? Are you saying anger and loud, if dubious, assertions won't lead to electoral victories? Wow, who woulda thunk it . . .
Great thread
by independentone
I found this line to be one of the most honest lines I've heard at redstate:
"the Republican Party ... has veered dangerously from its core principles. It bears responsibility for a poorly-executed war. It has overseen a tepid economy. It has plunged the finances of the United States into deficit spending that will eventually prove ruinous. It has moved a long, sad way from the ideals of 1994.
And it has crushed the Democratic Party for three election cycles running. Even now, it looks to retain power in the dismal circumstances of George W. Bush's final midterm. "
My only question is .... why?
Is it that the dems really are so awful and disorganized that even in the face of such non-performance by the Republicans, the republicans still win elections? (This is my personal theory, which is why I favor an overhaul of the system which would put some power into 3rd party candidates, making us more of a parlaimentary democracy. Why must we be forced to choose between bad and worse?)
Or is it that the first premise of the book is true and that republicans are in power through non-democratic means? The problem with that argument is that its hard to extend the logic of the 2000 election through all of the hundreds of state-races, governor races, and congressional races too.
Or is it that republicans have stayed in power primarily through momentum stemming back a decade, but in 2006/2008 will be thoroughly trounced upon unless some substantive changes are made? (This is also a personal theory of mine - there is a huge division between Reagan-Republicans and GWBush Republicans).
It isn't that complicated
by Kevin Holtsberry
In the absence of a good alternative people will stick with what they got. Incumbents do well and GOP is the incumbent majority if you will.
The D's haven't really offered much, and enough Republicans have, that up until the balance has stayed with the GOP.
Whether recent activities have changed that dynamic is yet to be seen.
ummm some weird theory
by Ender
there is a huge division between Reagan-Republicans and GWBush Republicans
examples? where? who? what are the differences?
Interesting thoughts...
by HaroldHutchison
The notion of a divide between GWBush Republicans and Reagan Republicans is a little off. But there is a divide among Republicans - partially because the tent has gotten pretty large. In general, Republicans tend to almost universally agree in general terms on what seems like two issues: Tax cuts and national security/foreign policy.
Aside from that, there's a lot of disagreement and discussion on a variety of issues. Heck, I don't think Republicans agree on specifics of tax cuts and national defense (a very good friend and I are both Republicans - and we disagree on some aspects of how to best protect national security).
My thoughts? I think that we have an anti-liberal Democrat majority in the country - and have since at least 2004 (possibly going back to the 2002 mid-terms) composed of a variety of disparate elements (social conservatives, the libertarian/South Park wing, "Reagan Democrats", national security Republicans, pro-business people, etc.). Many of them were driven from the Democrats over a period of 30-40 years. Social conservatives see the Republicans as the only way to stop what they see as society's moral decay - and the Democrats have seemed to treat what they view as a problem as something good. But that puts them in direct confrontation with the libertarian/Soth Park wing, which doesn't want interference in its affairs (and Democrats try to do that via gun control and other intrusive measures). The Republican coalition is getting somewhat unwieldy - but there's enough general agreement on the two "big issues" that they can come together to a large extent. The real question is how much of it shows up at the polls on a given Election Day.
The Republicans are going to probably hang together as long as the Democrats maintain electoral viability. When the Democrats lose all real electoral viability (in other words, when they are unable to win elections even when an independent/third party candidate drawing significant support is in the race), the GOP is probably going to split into two factions, probably along the social conservative/libertarian faultline.
2006 and Dean
by owenz
For a liberal like me, the 2006 midterms pose some interesting questions. It's pretty clear that liberal voters are right now, more than any time in recent history, willing to do nearly whatever it takes to win. John Kerry's nomination was based principally on the belief among liberals that he, more than any other candidate, could beat Bush. I suspect liberals will be even more focused on victory - and less concerned with the policy/ideological positions of individual Democratic politicians - in 2006. (As trevino points out in his review, the "win at all costs" mantra presents some real risks, as conservatives who've chosen to support programs like Medicare Part D are now finding out.)
What I find interesting heading into 2006 is the infighting at the top of the Democratic Party. While virtually all DC Democrats believe liberals need to stand united, the question of Who Should Lead is decidedly up in the air. And I think it's safe to say that if 2006 is a big year for Democrats, someone (or some group) is going to break away from the pack and grab the mantle of leadership. Will it be Howard Dean? Will it be Hillary? People like Markos?
Howard Dean remains an intriguing figure for me, though not for the reasons Redstaters might imagine. As a figurehead/spokesperson, I find him highly ineffective. As a strategist, however, he's taken some interesting steps that may - or may not - bear fruit in 2006. First and foremost, Dean has raised record amounts of money (record amounts for Dems, at least) and invested that money in state and local party apparatus around the country. This has enraged the DC consultants, who consider big piles of disposable DNC money both the key to victory and their birthright, since they basically pay each other to design attack ads for monster fees. State and local Democratic Party affiliates really atrophied during the Clinton years and it remains to be seen if Dean's reinvestment pays off in the type of instant success he'd need to consolidate control within the Party...or if his moves has less noticeable affects. The downside to this strategy, of course, is that it leaves less money for massive ad buys in the days and weeks immediately before an election.
Like Markos and Jerome, I think Democrats need to adopt some of the strategies employed by Republicans over the last 30 years. I agree with Trevino that think tanks are inherently ideological. Their function, in my mind, involves identifying an ideologically driven issue (like overturning the estate tax) and developing long term strategies and short term tactics focused on tasks such as shifting public opinion (if the people initially oppose the idea), creating micro-legislation that slowly inches towards the goal, and working and re-working language, concepts, and slogans that allow one side to reframe a particular issue in a more favorable light. It differs from the kind of advocacy offered by a group like NARAL because think tanks don't seem to directly lobby politicians. Rather, they focus on shifting on public opinion through less overt means (although Heritage and Cato certainly maintain a public face).
Anyway, I think Democrats would benefit from similar groups pushing liberal ideas. Take universal health care. This seems like a perfect think tank issue - the kind of concept that a lot of people generally support in the abstract but don't believe can be made a reality. If a think tank like Heritage dedicated 10 years to shifting public opinion in favor of universal health care, while pursuing incremental legislative steps toward the goal and coaching Democrats in the use of language and slogans favorable to the goal...well...who knows. The point is, Dems don't have that kind of apparatus in place right now...and as a liberal, I'd like to get it.
Having not read Markos and Jerome's book, I'm really not sure whether or not my ideas are in accord with theirs, of course.
Their lying premise
by hunter
shows their weakness from the very start. They were nobodies when they started, and they will be nobodies pretty soon. America has little long term popular appetite for the kind of reflexive anti-American bigotry they represent. Their patriotic love for America is little different from the love of a violent spouse abuser for his wife.
2004 Election
by DavidP
GW won the last election with the smallest margin of any war time president. I think the last election was a referendum on the war and not on Republican policies. Not wanting to change horses in mid stream he was grudginly re-elected.
The 2006 election will be a referendum on Republicanism. And 2008 will be the moment of truth. I am afriad that three more years of this adminstration's incompetence will make the disorganized Dems and Hilary Clinton look attractive.
For what its worth I'm a Reagan conservative, and joined the Marines Reserves and NROTC, and proudly wore my uniform on campus.
I don't think it is enough to rely on the Dems to be more incompetent. It's not good for the country, we should be making things better. Go to school get a job, serve your country, be responsible citizen's, don't reward incompetence, malfeassance, and torture.
Do you think
by casualobservervations
most the country actually votes on issues, or would know if a candidate was ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative? I'd venture to guess alot of people based their vote on the most presentable candidate. Which, outside of Edwards, the dems just haven't put on the ticket. Kerry appeared to be a walking stick and Al Gore was a robot-man.
Just saying I would wonder how many people actually know who they are voting for and why outside of appearances and talking points. The success of negative campaigning and outright lying about an opponent makes me think that people aren't really in tune with ideology that much.
Whether or not you care for Bush's policy, he is presentable, until he goes off script. Clinton was very slick, and won quite readily.
Did a majority of Americans suddenly completely change world views during the election? I don't think so. Outside of their respective bases, I don't think either party or any ideology holds any majority until they put a candidate out there. At least as far as presidential elections are concerned.
Nixon
by AmericanGI
This is a bit off topic, but I became a Republican when Ford ran for President, I was 18. After Nixon many people thought the Republican party was dead. At a political function I met a Libertarian who was shocked I joined a dying party. Of course he was wrong and the Republicans soared to new hieghts. But it makes me think that no one party will always be in control, that it may be cyclical.
Let the numbers speak
by independentone
I should have said "Reagan supporters" rather than "Reagan republicans"
1984 Electoral Map
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html
Reagan: 59% of the popular vote
Mondale: 40% of the popular vote
2004 Electoral Map
http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html
Bush: 51%
Kerry: 48%
Why were so many people supportive of Reagan, and such a divisive amount for bush? Remember too that Reagan faced a 'hostile' (dem) congress and still managed to garner huge popularity. Was it just a difference in style?:
http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/2004/06/reagan-vs-bush.html
Style is part of it, but the reasons are less superficial than that. Hardly anyone respects bush's spending policies.
Dead on
by independentone
"I'd venture to guess alot of people based their vote on the most presentable candidate"
Sad as it is, I agree this is true.
Redstate, and even ko's readers are in the vast minority. Even as deluded as one group thinks the other is, at LEAST the people at these kinds of sites are TRYING to get a handle on what's important politically. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't know what the candidates really are like, or how they will vote on important issues, they just vote for a candidate on 'gut instinct' based primarily on superficial appearance.
This started with Kennedy who was very presentable on TV. Reagan had it down, his entire career was about looking good in front of a camera. Clinton had the used-car salesman thing going on, which revolted me but obviously convinced most americans to vote for him (which is why used-car dealerships are so rampant I guess). Johnson and Nixon I can't really speak to, I was too young to watch them on TV much, and I certainly haven't seen much footage from their contemporary competition. Bush was more presentable than Gore, and Kerry just seems too arrogant and hoity toity to be likeable. Bush's appearance during the first debate was his worst 'appearance'. He did better during the other two appearance-wise, and although he seemingly lost the 'debate', he won the election, presumably because of his better 'appearance'.
That said, it still takes someone who has a shrewd political understanding to win as well. Half of Kerry's failure was looking too arrogant/elite and the other half was making bad political choices. By contrast, although bush has made plenty of bad political choices as president, during the election he made very few of them.
If One Allows For. . .
by M Scott Eiland
. . .a mistake in capitalization and another in punctuation, Kos and Armstrong are spot on. The correct(ed) version:
"Five years ago, the Republicans took over the government through non-Democratic means."
Which, somewhat to the misfortunate of the Republicans, has been all that has been necessary--not being the bunch of incompetent clowns across the line. If there had been a significant challenge for them to face, perhaps GWB and the congressional Republicans would have been inspired to rise to greater heights of accomplishment. If the Democrats manage to permanently shed their well-earned label of being untrustworthy on national defense/security, and come up with a slate of appealing candidates to promote that new image along with other innovative ideas (whatever they might be), Republicans will have a serious problem that will require them to be at their best to deal with it. Fortunately--or not, depending on POV--there's no sign of that happening any time soon.
you are an excellent writer
by ProfFnard
as always.
and more kind to kos than I suspected you'd be, actually.
ironically, this review is one of the few things making me think I should get the book to read it... just to understand your points.
otoh, it's all so familiar, I think I've been through it.
you looking for somewhere to send your copy?
cheers.
You've been through it.
by trevino
With the exception of the aforementioned "Gravy Train" chapter, there is utterly nothing in the book unfamiliar to a regular reader of dKos over the pat 12-18 months. As for that specific chapter, look up Amy Sullivan's articles in the Washington Monthly on the same topics, and you're covered.
Tepid Economy?
by Neil Stevens
It was a nice book review right up until the end, but unfortunately you had to get in that jab at the Bush administration, didn't you? I might as well be reading the New York Times.
We have a 'tepid economy?' Horsefeathers, as it seems to be commonly said around here.
The indiciators of a strong and growing economy are all around us: growing tax receipts, growing trade deficits, low unemployment.
All that is with the price of oil gradually pushing its way toward historic highs, too, so I'd say the Republican policies must have been pretty good for allowing this economy to grow.
Reading the New York Times.
by trevino
It is as I wrote.
"An activist should be true and pure of heart. If ignorance is the price to be paid for this, so be it."
Your right about
by Shaggy Dog
the importance of a candidate being personal and presentable, but let's give a little bit of credit where credit is due.
You say: "Reagan had it down, his entire career was about looking good in front of a camera."
He was definately telegenic, but remember he did stand for things including:
- that the US could and would defeat the USSR.
- that the tax burden should be reduced
- that the regulatory burden on US businesses should be reduced.
As telegenic as he was, his presidential career was far more about the actions he took.
Neil
by Shaggy Dog
I'll do you one better-
You say: "I'd say the Republican policies must have been pretty good for allowing this economy to grow."
I'd say without the 2001-2003 tax cuts we would have had a massive global depression. Not implying that you do this, but for other people, its so easy to ignore the thing that DIDN'T happen. Just as we were hitting the recession business cycle we got hit with horrifying terrorist attacks on 9-11 (and convienently forgotten anthrax attacks) by any measure we should have taken a far far worse economic hit. So you are absolutely right to give credit to Republican economic policies for getting us through that with much less economic pain than we otherwise should have. It could have been alot worse- and would have been if Algore was president.
Thank You
by ocschuylkill
"That's why there is one group for whom trying to stop them is not a losing proposition. That group is the Republican Party. That party -- my party -- has veered dangerously from its core principles. It bears responsibility for a poorly-executed war. It has overseen a tepid economy. It has plunged the finances of the United States into deficit spending that will eventually prove ruinous. It has moved a long, sad way from the ideals of 1994."
In conversations that I have had with other Republicans (at least fiscally conservative one's) there is a great deal of hostility towards what "our party" is becoming. While, I'd have to disagree with your "tepid economy" comment the insane level of spending coming out of Washington cannot continue. The only problem I have as a libreitatian/South Park Republican, is that only the extreme social conservative even pa lip service to fiscally conservative ideals (I'm from PA so...).
Couldn't, wouldn't, or just plain can't
by rudgrl
come up with an original thought?
You have presented this ridiculous mind fart on various posts in an effort to only solicit responses in kind. It appears to me that you only participate on this site in a sophomoric effort to drag discourse down to a level at which you can participate - ie: an angry non-intellectual rant.
I neither maintain that discourse must be civil or intelligent but jeez man grow up, if not for our sakes then for the sake of your family, friends, children (God forbid).
Please lay off the caffeine, try some cocoa... a little Ovaltine perhaps?
Others here have discussed
by rudgrl
the divide (?) between Reagan conservatives and Bush conservatives. What about the chasm between Goldwater conservatives and Bush conservatives?
Some of the most hateful and vitriolic rants I've heard against Bush have come from Goldwater Republicans not liberals.
Having said that and as a Democrat; Moulitsas, et al, can wax nostalgic as to what is wrong with... whatever they want (just as Will, Fukuyama, and Buckley have done in the last week) including the Democratic party, the problem remains that it will do no good.
There will never be a scenario in which the Democrats "get their act together", it ain't happened ever it ain't gonna happen ever.
Will Rogers said it best - "I'm not a member of an organized political group, I'm a Democrat." Republicans organize and make politically convenient alliances (sometimes at the cost of their personally held political ideaologies) in an effort to "win" at any cost, and I do mean "any" cost. As Democrats we'll never compete with that machine and we shoudn't want to.
When and if the Democrats take back control of Congress or the WH it will be voter response to the party in charge just as it was in '94 for the Republicans not some "master plan".
In reading the post and subsequent threads it seems to me that the one sentence that solicited the strongest response is the books opening line (having not read the book and having no interest to do so I'll have to defer to trevino's representation): "Five years ago, the Republicans took over the government through nondemocratic means."
Having no real interest in stirring up a hornets nest of responses, if the Bush v. Gore decision was a constitutionally "just" decision and not a FUBAR of a constitutional decision why did the majority have to put in a caveat that their decision applied only once to this decision?
Not being a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer I can only read and interpret a SCOTUS decision with my laypersons "smell" test factor. And I'm having a real problem remembering any SCOTUS decision that was so narrow in its focus and application. I mean if it's a good decision for Florida why wouldn't apply nationwide? Isn't that what the SCOTUS is supposed to do, decide the tough cases for nationwide application?
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
I once figured I could
by bloochthe link is here - should use preview nt
by dglennGot it!
by dglennYou can skip to the end to
by Robert L. Mayothat video is 21 minutes long
by David HinzAlmost
by Robert L. MayoWho would that be?
by SteveLAor
by dglennBrilliant!! 555
by dglennNot for lack of trying. <NT>
by Moe LaneThere are three major problems with wind power
by ehostermanObama is so far behind the curve
by bloochThat explains the power outages...
by dglennRecommended for the
by FlagstaffHang in there, Lance
by Charging PiperI would also let it drop,
by FlagstaffIts in a book.
by Mason617
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
And I'll leave aside for now quibbles with your analysis of conservatism ("tepid economy," really?).
One item: Nixon did not have true conservative bona fides and certainly veered to the left in office, but the man was propular with conservatives in the 40s and 50s, he did bring to office some genuine conservative credentials (on crime, on his promises - only spottily adhered to - to appoint 'strict constructionist'/'law and order' judges, on his prior staunch anti-Communism).