14
   

Fragmentation of the conservative coalition

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 07:50 am
Quote:
Rush Limbaugh, behemoth of rightwing radio, took to the airwaves to declare war on two enemies: Barack Obama and the Republican party. Bloggers at FreeRepublic.com, an internet hub for conservatives, announced a boycott of Fox News and John McCain's aides fell over one another to leak embarrassing details about the campaign to the press...

"Ladies and gentlemen, it is worse than I thought," Limbaugh told listeners. "What the Republican party, led by disgruntled and failed McCain staffers, is trying to do to Sarah Palin, is unconscionable ... There are country-club, blue-blood ... Republicans who want nothing to do with a firebrand conservative [who] can fire up people." He added: "We're going to be taking on two things here [over] the next four years: Obama, and our own party establishment."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/08/sarahpalin-republicans-rushlimbaugh
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 07:53 am
@blatham,
It's kind of beautiful.

In an HOT jolie-laide sort of way.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 08:25 am
Betcher bottom dollers that this fellow (or his wife) was at the Bozell bash...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson,_Jr.
I'd also expect Eric Prince or his mommy too.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-03/the-man-behind-proposition-8/
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 04:26 pm
@blatham,
DancingMan, I just sent you this link (forgot where the thread was).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127130/posts

Quote:
Boycott of FOX
Vanity | 11-06-08 | Veritas 2002

Posted on November 6, 2008 1:07:54 PM by veritas2002

I propose that we punish the FOX Network for its hatchet job on Sarah Palin.

For one week beginning at 3:00 PM today no one tunes them in. We will demonstrate the power of conservatives when their ratings plummet dramatically.

Will you join me?

TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: boycottfox; cameron; crushfox; defendpalin; fox; foxcnnmsnbc; foxnews; palin; protectpalin

more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 301-305 next last
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 05:12 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Will you join me?


Yes... pass it on.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:04 pm
@blatham,
hehehehe

the Saul Alinsky references have started to make their trip over from freep
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:51 pm
@ehBeth,
from there to here?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:53 pm
@blatham,
yup

fun fun fun
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 07:05 pm
@ehBeth,
ah, geez... does this mean the rest of us should tune in to Fox to counterbalance the boycotters?


Ack...
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 07:31 pm
@JPB,
I don't know. Those conservative boycotts are pretty effective.

Life in the US just hasn't been the same since Disney World closed because of the boycott. These days the only way to entertain the 8 year olds is take them to the firing range and have them fire Uzis.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 11:15 am
@parados,
Quote:
I don't know. Those conservative boycotts are pretty effective.


Indeed. Had it not been for the widespread boycott of his so-called 'music', one could imagine Elvis being successful.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 11:21 am
@ehBeth,
By the way, bethie, you have me pegged there. When I eventually run for political office here in the United States, it seems a certainty that my readiness will be questioned. A good bumper-sticker motto will be needed to counter doubts.

"Vote Blatham...he'll hit the ground dancing"
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 12:08 pm
Deroy Murdock at National Review...
Quote:
What the Republican party badly needs is a Night of the Long Knives.

The GOP has been laid low, thanks to politicians who swapped their principles for power and lost both. As the chief electoral vehicle for conservative and free-market ideas, the Republican party cannot regain America’s confidence "nor should it " until the guilty have been cast into the nearest volcano.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRmYmIzZTk3NTU1M2VjYWY3N2E3YmY1ZmY3MzI0Mzk=
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 08:39 am
@blatham,
Rubbish article Bernie. It plays or preys upon economic and political illiteracy I'm afraid.

Anyone as biased as you are has nothing of value to say.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 09:25 am
It takes a fellow conservative to question McCain's honor.

McCain Owes Sarah Some Straight Talk

Quote:
Where's John McCain's honor when we need it?

We'll find out tonight, when the Arizona Republican appears on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno. In the week since the election, Mr. McCain's campaign team has leaked some nasty stuff about Sarah Palin. These leaks are personal, and they speak more to the character of Mr. McCain and the leakers than they do to Mrs. Palin. So it will be telling if Mr. McCain stands up for his partner and says how offended he has been by what some of his staffers have done to her.

Two weeks or so before the campaign was over, the first round of McCain campaign rumors alleged that Mrs. Palin was a "whack job," and characterized her clothes-shopping as "hillbillies looting Neiman-Marcus from coast to coast." More recently, she has been alleged to know as little about geography as Barack Obama knows about the number of states in the union (at one point, he put it at 57).

The unmistakable message here has nothing to do with Africa, the North American Free Trade Agreement or bathrobes. It is the campaign team's cry, "It's not our fault. How could we ever win with this woman on the ticket?"

The first point to make here is the most obvious: This is the language of losers.

....
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 01:38 pm
@FreeDuck,
McCain as whistle-blower on the McCain campaign? Wouldn't Limbaugh just **** his pants.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 07:19 am
Quote:
Steele, Gingrich clash to take over RNC
The Washington Times is claiming an exclusive on the internal struggles between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele for control of the Republican National Committee.
Quote:

A behind-the-scenes battle to take the reins of the Republican National Committee is taking off between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

Neither man will acknowledge his interest in the post, but Republicans close to each are burning up the phone lines and firing off e-mails to fellow party members in an effort to oust [the current] RNC Chairman ... in the wake of the second consecutive drubbing of Republican candidates at the polls.

A bevy of backers for each man, neither of whom is an RNC member, say the committee needs a leader who can formulate a counter-agenda to President-elect Barack Obama's administration and articulate it on the national stage.


If this infighting sounds like more reason for Democrats to rejoice, I'd advise caution. It was a good thing that Democrats had a big fight four years ago over the future of the Democratic National Committee. Right now, shakeups are just what the Republicans need.

And although Steele's race may make him seem like a good counterweight for Republicans in the Age of Obama, if Gingrich really wants it I'd put my money on him. He's got far better connections to the Republican establishment, many of whom he helped train and elect. On the other hand, Howard Dean was not the establishment candidate by any stretch (sorry, Harold Ickes), and Dean managed to work the hustings of the rank-and-file party members to win. But while I wouldn't count out Steele either, the GOP tends to be a more establishment-run party.

One thing is certain: The RNC needs new blood. In fact, bonus points if you can even name the current RNC chairman without googling him. He was so invisible during the 2008 cycle I was half-expecting to find his image on milk cartons. (The answer, by the way, is here.)
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

I'd bet on Gingrich as well.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 03:31 pm
I'm going to post this whole piece here. Both analyses (Brooks and Kilgore) look to be basically correct. One might wish it otherwise but better to be realistic. I'll comment more on it in a bit...
Quote:
The Anatomy of Conservative Self-Deception

By Ed Kilgore - November 13, 2008, 9:15AM
For those Democrats who were settling down with a bag of popcorn to watch an orgy of ideological strife among Republicans, it's beginning to become apparent that the war may be over before it began. Sure, there's plenty of finger-pointing and personal recriminations over tactics and strategy, some of it focused on the McCain-Palin campaign, and some looking back to the errors of the Bush administration. There's clearly no consensus on who might lead Republicans in 2010 or 2012. But on the ideological front, for all the talk about "movement conservatives" or "traditionalists" at odds with "reformers," it's a pretty one-sided fight. And one prominent "reformer," the columnist David Brooks, pretty much declared defeat yesterday:
Quote:

The debate between the camps is heating up. Only one thing is for sure: In the near term, the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the G.O.P.

They are going to win, first, because Congressional Republicans are predominantly Traditionalists. Republicans from the coasts and the upper Midwest are largely gone. Among the remaining members, the popular view is that Republicans have been losing because they haven't been conservative enough.

Second, Traditionalists have the institutions. Over the past 40 years, the Conservative Old Guard has built up a movement of activist groups, donor networks, think tanks and publicity arms. The reformists, on the other hand, have no institutions.....

Finally, Traditionalists own the conservative mythology. Members of the conservative Old Guard see themselves as members of a small, heroic movement marching bravely from the Heartland into belly of the liberal elite. In this narrative, anybody who deviates toward the center, who departs from established doctrine, is a coward, and a sellout.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Now there's nothing particularly new about this dynamic. It's exactly the way conservatives reacted to the 2006 debacle, and in fact, to virtually every Republican defeat since about 1940 (with the exception, of course, of 1964). They've never been shy about saying that "moderate" or "liberal" Republicans are not only wrong, immoral and gutless, but are in fact losers. And there's nothing new as well about their take on George W. Bush; it's pretty similar to their ex post facto take on Richard M. Nixon: a potentially great leader surrounded by venal hacks who sacrificed principle in an illusory search for short-term political gain and personal riches and power.

There are, however, two aspects of contemporary conservative self-justification that strike me as somewhat new.

The first is the iron conviction that there is a popular majority for core conservative policies at the very moment when they have been repudiated. Sure, conservatives have long postulated "hidden majorities" that can only be tapped by a more rigorously ideological approach, but only in the context of long periods of Democratic ascendancy. There was nothing self-deceptive about the conservative belief in the 1970s and 1980s, up through 1994, that large numbers of conservative Democrats, particularly in the South, could be picked off in an atmosphere of ideological polarization. But that realignment has clearly run its course. Just as importantly, the big conservative victories of 1980 and 1994 were pretty self-evidently based on a popular desire to restrain or reform the governing Democrats, rather than representing a referendum on conservative ideas. I say that's "self-evident" because both Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich got into immediate trouble when they promoted a truly conservative vision of what government ought to do and not do.

Maybe Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress will quickly overreach and produce an opportunity for this sort of negative victory in the near future (though there simply is not the kind of low-hanging demographic fruit to pick that benefitted past conservatives). But it's hardly the moment for loud-and-proud conservative governance. After all, many of the scandals and failures of the regime of George W. Bush (like Nixon before him) flowed from the natural corruption and misgovernment that so often befalls conservatives who are forced to operate public-sector programs and agencies that they don't actually believe in.

Furthermore, Karl Rove's famous strategy for building a permanent Republican majority, which relied on strategic public-sector activism deisgned to attract Latinos (immigration reform); seniors (Medicare Rx drug benefit); and married women with kids (No Child Left Behind), was based on the recognition that there simply wasn't a majority for hard-core small government conservatism. That all these initiatives became major grievances for conservatives is a sign of political self-deception. Conversely, conservatives don't seem to have internalized the fact that every major conservative assault on the heart of the New Deal/Great Society legacy (Ronald Reagan's and George W. Bush's efforts to "reform" Social Security, and Newt Gingrich's drive to "contain costs" in Medicare) has failed dismally in the court of public opinion.

In a parallel development, during both the Reagan and Bush years, public support for conservative efforts to make the tax system more regressive has declined steadily once the free-lunch assumptions of supply-side economics proved to be a fraud. And there has never, for a moment, been anything like a popular majority supporting the sort of broad-scale reductions in government services that could eliminate the fiscal problems associated with the conservative tax-cutting agenda. There's a reason John McCain's campaign based his fiscal-discipline message on the small but symbolic issue of appropriations earmarks, rather than the big-ticket "entitlement reform" that virtually all movement conservatives support. And for that matter, George W. Bush's "Big Government Conservatism," like its Reaganite predecessor, was an accomodation to public opinion rather than a gratuitous betrayal of conservative principle.

If today's conservatives succeed in convincing each other to embrace a more forthright message assaulting entitlements, progressive taxation, public education, regulation of corporations and Wall Street, just to cite a few domestic policy examples, they are almost certainly cruising for more electoral bruising.

Aside from self-deception about the popularity of their core ideology, today's conservatives seem to be deceiving themselves as well about how to deal with Democrats in a way that maintains some credibility. Compare how they talk and think about Barack Obama to how they talked and thought about Bill Clinton. Throughout the Clinton administration, conservatives constantly alternated between attacking Clinton as a liberal disguising his true intentions, and as an unprincipled trimmer who was "stealing conservative ideas." The latter impulse largely prevailed. Throughout the impeachment crisis, Republicans trying to drive Clinton from office were cooperating with him on a considerable array of domestic and international initiatives, and begging him to lead the country into such perilous waters as Social Security "reform."

It seems to me that conservatives today have almost completely internalized their own rhetoric about Obama's "radicalism," "socialism," "anti-Americanism," and so forth. If you have read or listened to movement conservative pundits recently, it's hard to avoid the impression that they truly think this temperate man pursuing Clinton-style centrist policies is determined to enact "socialized medicine," create vast new "welfare" programs, legalize infanticide, surrender to terrorists, and use the power of the state to censor or perhaps even jail his opponents.

Perhaps both these phenomena are at least partially attributable to the rise of conservative ideological media networks that enable their consumers and producers alike to live in a parallel universe that is largely impervious to adverse information. That's a problem for some people on the Left (e.g., those who are convinced that Bush and Cheney will stage an "emergency" and launch a military coup to thwart Obama's inauguration) as well as the Right. But there's a reason that so many folk on the Left like to call themselves "the reality-based community," just as there is a reason that leftbent Democrats cut Barack Obama a lot of slack during the presidential campaign while movement conservatives hobbled John McCain with an endless series of demands and complaints that arguably guaranteed his defeat.

If I'm right, or even half-right, about this, Barack Obama, Democrats, and progressives may have a large window of opportunity to build a majority against an opposition party that's drunk on the locusts and wild honey of the political wilderness they inhabit.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/13/the_anatomy_of_conservative_se/index.php#comment-3285747
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 06:39 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
For those Democrats who were settling down with a bag of popcorn to watch an orgy of ideological strife among Republicans, it's beginning to become apparent that the war may be over before it began.


That must sadden Bernie. He has expressed glee at watching the orgy of infighting.

In actual fact it all depends on how Mr Obama works out. If he doesn't it will be either more extreme versions or back to basics with the traditionalists.

Bernie just likes theories which allow him to display political acuity. And he hasn't a clue.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 08:32 pm
@dyslexia,
I so like Barry Goldwater.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 06:28:15