(April 13, 2003) "The Republican Ruins" (The Week)

[Tim4Hillary]

Full article here (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/95352/The_Republican_Ruins).

Having rendered themselves irrelevant on every major issue, Republicans consoled themselves last week with a delusional round robin. First, the Drudge Report, linking to a Pew Poll, featured a headline denying what most of us observe in the real world: “President Polarize: Poll Shows Historic Divide…Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era.”

Perhaps demonstrating that Drudge, not Limbaugh, is the maestro of the GOP chorus, the point was quickly picked up by Karl Rove on the house network, Fox News. Then the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson, one of the few Bush aides to emerge from that administration with a reputation worth having, vigorously banged the same tin drum, arraigning Obama as “the most polarizing new President.”

The charge is based on what could only be a conscious misreading of the Pew report. Analyzed honestly, the poll suggests that it is Republicans who are polarized, not the country. In their first months in office, according to Pew, both Obama and Ronald Reagan rolled up high, nearly identical approval ratings among voters—about five points higher than George W. Bush’s and ten points higher than Bill Clinton’s. However, contemporary Republicans disdain Obama; their faithful gather in a shrunken and angry corner of the electorate while the party’s moderates have defected to become independents who support this President with near-record enthusiasm. What the Pew Poll really shows is that Obama is on his way to redrawing the political demography of America.

In politics, the smaller a party gets, the more small-minded it becomes. With only 24 percent of voters identifying themselves as Republicans, the GOP is being miniaturized. The pettiness plays out on every conceivable stage—from the do-nothing, denounce-everything Republican minority in Congress, to the do-anything Republican attempt to overturn the Senate election in Minnesota, and the say-anything attacks of right-wing talk radio.

This is the Republican Party the country sees, a spectacle of resentments and recriminations vying for attention with a President who pursues sweeping economic change while conquering hearts and minds overseas and coolly dispatching the shoot-to-kill order that freed an American ship captain from Somali Pirates.

Republican intransigence does not constitute a strategy, but a suicide note. Undeterred by the steep rise in the ranks of Americans who believe the nation is now headed in the right direction—up almost threefold from the rock-bottom dregs of the Bush years—the Republican remnant continues on its march of folly. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who speaks to the sour soul of his party, propagates an alternate reality in which Americans are yearning to repudiate Obama’s activist reach for economic recovery, health care reform, and energy independence.

No wonder the latest New York Times survey finds the Republicans’ favorability collapsing to 31 percent, the lowest rating recorded in the poll’s quarter-century history.


The GOP’s crude nativism is matched by its crude nationalism, manifest in the predictable denunciations of the President’s success in Europe. Americans know that George W. Bush’s foreign policy of dictates and sneers was a colossal failure. For good reason, they prefer a President who can lead the world and not just insult it.

In the face of popular rejection, the Republicans offer nothing but the sound of “wind in dry grass.” You can hear it in their threat to unseat their own Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, who commits the mortal sin of occasional moderation, by nominating instead a right-winger with no chance of winning the state. Similarly, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the most successful Republican on the west coast, is despised by his own party.


The Republicans aren’t dead—just comatose. If Obama fails, they will be back. But that outcome appears increasingly chimerical. Meantime, amid the Republican ruins, delusion provides a temporary shelter and psychic self-satisfaction. How many defeats will it take for Republicans to rebuild a credible party of ideas? It’s bound to happen some day, but who knows how or when

[CGP]

Excellent article. I really don't think it could be said any better. The sooner the current form of the GOP dissolves and rebirths into something positive, the sooner this country can move forward in a more bipartisan manner. Right now, the GOP is an extremely ugly entity with its endless negativitity, endless hypocrisy, and endless opposition to REALITY!

[Horizon]

Excellent article. I really don't think it could be said any better. The sooner the current form of the GOP dissolves and rebirths into something positive, the sooner this country can move forward in a more bipartisan manner. Right now, the GOP is an extremely ugly entity with its endless negativitity, endless hypocrisy, and endless opposition to REALITY!

Well said.=D>=D>

[Tim4Hillary]

I thank God I'm not alone. @};-

[Classical Liberal]

The Republican party will recover easily once Obama and the Democrats fiscally and economically drive the nation into the ground. Obama represents no form of change from President Bush or the Republicans on this area; he is just more of the same.

The Republicans lost ground because they became a different variant of the Democrat party.

Articles like this are standard for the Left after GOP defeats. The GOP has been "finished" for like forty-some years now. It always comes back, because its message resonates with so many.

However, the GOP has to learn to adhere to its message and not just speak it.

As for an "endless opposition to reality," I don't know what on Earth that author is talking about. There is no party I'd say more blind to reality right now than the Democrats. They are proposing policies for the national level that have failed everywhere they are applied.

There is nothing "new" about what Obama is doing, it has been tried before numerous times and always to failure.

No wonder the latest New York Times survey finds the Republicans’ favorability collapsing to 31 percent, the lowest rating recorded in the poll’s quarter-century history.

The New York Times is a publication on the verge of bankruptcy that caters solely to a very Leftist audience. I highly doubt you could trust a poll from it on what folks think of Republicans.

This would be like National Review conducting a poll to find opinions on Democrats.

The GOP’s crude nativism is matched by its crude nationalism, manifest in the predictable denunciations of the President’s success in Europe. Americans know that George W. Bush’s foreign policy of dictates and sneers was a colossal failure. For good reason, they prefer a President who can lead the world and not just insult it.

Republicans do not dislike Obama's "success" in Europe based on any "crude nationalism," they do not like that he denounced America in a foreign nation.

And Obama only has "success" in Europe because he is perceived a socialist, and actually, NO, George Bush's foreign policy was not any colossal failure. Far from it actually. Most nations worked with the Bush Administration and most continue to do so. President Bush was the only one out of any of them to have the guts to call colossal boondoggles like the Kyoto Protocal, for example, for what it was (a sham).

Furthermore, leading the world is a lot different from being popular in the world. Neville Chamberlain was one of the most popular heads of state in history when he announced "No war with Germany." This old guy named Winston Churchill, wasn't given much attention at the time.

Mikhail Gorbachev was hugely popular. He also headed a tyrannical state that collapsed completely under his own watch. Ronald Reagan was considered widely a buffoon and disliked.

True leaders do not seek popularity, they do what they believe is right. The Europeans are the LAST people Americans should care about in terms of their opinions.

Similarly, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the most successful Republican on the west coast, is despised by his own party.

That's because he's not even close to being a real Republican. He's just a modified version of a Democrat.

And considering that California, the world's 7th largest economy, is the textbook case for how Leftwing (Democrat) policies will outright wreck an economy and drive it into the ground, the type of politician who is successful in the West is the very type to avoid voting into power.

California was made great under Republican economic policies. It was a truly classically liberal state, in that it did not have the old-line conservatives social conservatism and religious conservatism, but it otherwise was a model for free enterprise and had the best schools, infrastructure, economy, etc...in the nation.

Ronald Reagan was its governor for two terms.

Then the Left took control and ever since, California has gone down the crapper, now having among the most anti-business climate in America. The only reason people go out there as it is is because of the nice weather, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, otherwise it's a terrible state now: highest taxes in the nation, insane levels of regulations on businesses, the unions and environmental lobby have a stranglehold on the state government, infrastructure in the toilet, and now among the worst-scoring students (Obama and the Democrats want to take all these policies and apply them on the national level now, claiming that the Republicans ways have been "discredited" whatever).

You want more proof, take a look at the economies of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, New York State, etc...all Leftist states, all with the worst economies in the country.

The states with the best economies are the ones employing the supposedly "discredited" policies of the Republicans, i.e. low taxes, limited government, etc...like Texas, Florida, and so forth.

Texas also has five out of the seven largest windmills in America (yes, that evil Republican oil state, Texas, is the nation's leader in windpower). Why is this? Because in 1999, then Governor George W. Bush deregulated the electric utilities sector of the state.

What is Obama's solution to our energy problems? More government.

Bush and the Republicans spent tons of money, driving up the deficit, ignoring their principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government, and after Obama and the Democrats proceed to "California" this economy with their own even greater out-of-control spending, plus carbon taxes, union card check, increased regulations, etc....people will see the truth.

Festooned in Newt’s Technicolor dream coat, Congressional Republicans seem poised to dig themselves an even deeper hole as the anti-party, opposed to every measure the President proposes to restore growth, improve health care, or protect the environment. You name it, they’re against it.

That's because they're all designed to tank the economy and wreck the country and give more control the government while removing it from the people. You do not "restore" growth by raising taxes, enacting carbon regulations, increasing regulations, and union card check.

No business worth its salt right now will invest much because none of them know what Obama will do yet even as regards taxes, regulations, etc...growth requires investment, and investment requires stability.

Saying his plan to recover healthcare through making it "universal" will work, well I mean we'd had those debates before, it's a lot more complicated.

And as for the environment, once again, this gets confusing. If they mean carbon regulations, that in itself is highly controversial, considering no one even knows if global warming is real, if humans are causing it if it is real, if it will harm us or the current environment, etc...for example, technically carbon is not even a pollutant.

[Tim4Hillary]

You can always tell who reads the entire article and who doesn't. :eek:

[Horizon]

You can always tell who reads the entire article and who doesn't. :eek:

I found it amusing that the screen name is Classical Liberal, and Ideology is Conservative. Whatever.

[Classical Liberal]

I found it amusing that the screen name is Classical Liberal, and Ideology is Conservative. Whatever.

That is a mistake actually I should fix, and yes I did read the entire article.

[Jester]

I would say the ideas presented as part of the Republican budget and during the stimulus debacle were some of my favorites. Nuclear energy, 4% mortgages, suspension of capital gains tax, dropping the bottom two tax brackets another 5% each (especially considering I wanted the bottom two tax brackets to go to 0% years ago), etc, etc.

Obama's disapproval is rising while his approval drops. The independents are just as far from the Dems as the Repubs on the popularity chart.

And all too often I hear "I don't like what Obama did, but I like Obama". G20 agreement would be a great example. I put it out there, do you agree with the G20 agreement?

Or shall you discuss the *numberless* (rudderless) health care plan of Obama? Please tell me the number one thing Obama is going to do to fix this nightmare.

And I especially loved the *chimerical* reference in the article. Very objective considering this was the same talk 4 years ago, musical chairs notwithstanding.

[Jester]

That is a mistake actually I should fix, and yes I did read the entire article.

Just type nutcase or "The Enemy" under your ideology as the political spectrum view seems to be shades of blues and greens and the yellows and reds become infrared.

YouTube - Sevendust - Enemy


So when you fall to the ground
And finally get back to reality
And no one at all is around
So tell me how does it feel to be the enemy?

[hobbitt]

Analyzed honestly, the poll suggests

"Honestly" ? pfui.

Consider the source..

Shrum has been an Obama cheerleader (and Hillary and Bill diss-er) all along. Part of the Kennedy/Kerry contingent.

My question is this: with a new rash of Obamaphiles busily writing Op Ed pieces and others faithfully uttering the administration's talking points on TV this past weekend, what is it that The President is planning to do? The usual reason for a media blitz is to take attention away from that which is occurring elsewhere.... (and which will piss many off).

[smiledr]

That's because he's not even close to being a real Republican. He's just a modified version of a Democrat.

And considering that California, the world's 7th largest economy, is the textbook case for how Leftwing (Democrat) policies will outright wreck an economy and drive it into the ground, the type of politician who is successful in the West is the very type to avoid voting into power.

California was made great under Republican economic policies. It was a truly classically liberal state, in that it did not have the old-line conservatives social conservatism and religious conservatism, but it otherwise was a model for free enterprise and had the best schools, infrastructure, economy, etc...in the nation.

Ronald Reagan was its governor for two terms.

Then the Left took control and ever since, California has gone down the crapper, now having among the most anti-business climate in America. The only reason people go out there as it is is because of the nice weather, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, otherwise it's a terrible state now: highest taxes in the nation, insane levels of regulations on businesses, the unions and environmental lobby have a stranglehold on the state government, infrastructure in the toilet, and now among the worst-scoring students (Obama and the Democrats want to take all these policies and apply them on the national level now, claiming that the Republicans ways have been "discredited" whatever).





Very well said!

[greenleaf]

Yeah, the Republicans are in ruins. The party needs to remake itself or the Dems will have a permanent majority. Yeah, yeah, I heard the same thing in regards to the Dems just four years ago.
Both parties are corrupt and if left in power too long their excesses will sour public opinion and cause the desire to throw the bums out. And it starts all over again.
Sorry, I'm independently sick of both major parties.

[rickya]

You can always tell who reads the entire article and who doesn't. :eek:

I find it interesting that you just make an offhand comment instead of responding to his arguments. It seems that in here, if you are either praising Obama or denigrating the Republican party, you need not respond to the other posters with an actual argument.

[Suzan]

Yeah, the Republicans are in ruins. The party needs to remake itself or the Dems will have a permanent majority. Yeah, yeah, I heard the same thing in regards to the Dems just four years ago.
Both parties are corrupt and if left in power too long their excesses will sour public opinion and cause the desire to throw the bums out. And it starts all over again.
Sorry, I'm independently sick of both major parties.

genericstamp! Me, too!

[foxyladi]

genericstamp! Me, too!

lots of us are,,yep..:thumbsup:

[Classical Liberal]

Newt Gingrich made a good point I think when he said that on paper, there's two parties, but in reality, there's one party, the party of Big Government elitists, which has socially conservative elements and socially liberal elements (Republican party and Democrat party), and then there's the party of the people, which consists of patriotic Democrats and patriotic Republicans, who may be a bit more Left or Right than each other, but otherwise are for the blue-collar working person, love America, and do not like all this elitism and ignoring of the People occuring in Washington.

[Laura Cereta]

The GOP’s crude nativism is matched by its crude nationalism, manifest in the predictable denunciations of the president’s success in Europe.

:confused: His success at getting Europe to throw in bail-out money or his success in getting troop help in Afghanistan? Did I miss something?

In the face of popular rejection, the Republicans offer nothing but the sound of “wind in dry grass.” You can hear it in their threat to unseat their own Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who commits the mortal sin of occasional moderation, by nominating instead a right-winger with no chance of winning the state. Similarly, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the most successful Republican on the West Coast, is despised by his own party.

Supporting the unread stimulus bill was not "moderate."

Again, what is the definition of the word "success"? CA is broke and has one of the highest unemployment percentages in the country.

Festooned in Newt’s Technicolor dream coat, congressional Republicans seem poised to dig themselves an even deeper hole as the anti-party, opposed to every measure the president proposes to restore growth, improve health care, or protect the environment. You name it, they’re against it.

Are they against the issues or how the issues are being dealt with (spend, spend, spend)?

This is the Republican Party the country sees, a spectacle of resentments and recriminations vying for attention with a president who pursues sweeping economic change while conquering hearts and minds overseas and coolly dispatching the shoot-to-kill order that freed an American ship captain from Somali Pirates.

Was it that box set of DVD's that don't work that conquered the Brits hearts or the bow, AKA shaking hands with a short person, that took over the Saudi's minds? This sounds like it was written under the influence... of kool-aid.

[Jester]

I just watched Ron Paul on MSNBC, and the talking head said "yes, but people approve of Obama" and he chuckled "that is completely meaningless. This is not going to be solved by a personality. It is going to be solved by an economic policy."

"And we are out of time."

All the Republican party has to do is take stock and realize all the answers are in the Republican beliefs on fiscal policy. Apply those beliefs (individual choice) to social policy and they are the perfect party. It would not be that difficult. The Dems core platform is actually at odds with the individual.

On foreign policy, the party's are one in the same. Well, all the big modern wars happened under Dems, but let's forget that part.

[agatha]

I found it amusing that the screen name is Classical Liberal, and Ideology is Conservative. Whatever.


I find it amusing that the above is the best you can offer to a very thorough post. CL makes some excellent points. By all means, take a stab at comparing the current economy of Michigan or California to that of Texas and then take a look at the state governments. Go ahead...

[agatha]

Newt Gingrich made a good point I think when he said that on paper, there's two parties, but in reality, there's one party, the party of Big Government elitists, which has socially conservative elements and socially liberal elements (Republican party and Democrat party), and then there's the party of the people, which consists of patriotic Democrats and patriotic Republicans, who may be a bit more Left or Right than each other, but otherwise are for the blue-collar working person, love America, and do not like all this elitism and ignoring of the People occuring in Washington.



**==