This Week's Cover

Here is another autopsy:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/liberal.republicans/index.html

What's Joe the Plumber going to become?
.
A spokesman for the mentally ill*?
.
*Apologies to the mentally ill. They really don't deserve this. Perhaps I should qualify this to mean those who simply don't want mediation.

Some really really really unbiased and even-handed journalism here.
.
You want to talk about Bachman, fine, what about Obama? Remember his response on CG tax rates? Or what about Obama's desire to increase the price of energy? Is that popular?
.
Gimme a break.

obstructionism helped return Democrats to power.
.
What does this mean?

While I am not prepared to say that the GOP is dead yet, it is hard to see how they will be able to emerge from their current death spiral. Given how they are circling the wagons on the very ideas and policies that a majority of the electorate have rejected.

The Democratic critiques of the GOP — that it's the Party of No, or No Ideas — are not helpful either. It's silly to fault an opposition party for opposition; obstructionism helped return Democrats to power. Republicans actually have plenty of ideas

The Democrats' obstructionism? Huh? Under Bush we had the Patriot Act, Warantless wiretapping, the Iraq War, the appointment of right wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, lack of congressional oversight, etc etc. Your intrepid reporter obviously observed some things that the rest of us missed over the previous 8 years.

Joe Scarborough's article is worth reading too - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896604,00.html
.
Not anything that profound, but I like -
.
"Burke's thinking can be summed up easily: Respect reality. Understand the age you're living in, and understand its facts. As William F. Buckley said more than two years before his death, "Conservatism implies a certain submission to reality." But the approach championed by Burke and Buckley is a far cry from the mind-set embraced by today's Republican Party.

If the GOP is to move toward victory, it must again find the middle of American political life and stop being seen the way liberals were viewed for a generation: as tone-deaf ideologues mixed with self-consumed radicals. Don't get me wrong. I do not believe that conservative leaders should seek out a mushy middle ground. Rather, they should boldly call for a new era of responsibility in the U.S.

Instead of building empires abroad, Republicans should aim to balance their books at home. We should not only fight to conserve tax dollars but also work as aggressively to defend the environment. As Reagan once said, conservatives are supposed to conserve."

A little history lesson on "extinct" political parties. Do any of them sound familiar?
.
Here is a listing of some significant political parties who are no longer with us, in roughly chronological order:

Federalist Party
The Federalist Party is considered the first American political party. It advocated a strong national government, and prominent Federalists included John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. (Sounds more like our current day Democrat party to me).

The Federalists did not build a sustaining party apparatus, and the party's defeat in the election of 1800 led to its decline. It essentially ceased to be a national party after 1816.

(Jeffersonian) Republican Party
The Jeffersonian Republican Party, which, of course, supported Thomas Jefferson for president in 1800, was formed in opposition to the Federalists. The Jeffersonians tended to be more egalitarian than the Federalists.

Following Jefferson's two terms in office, James Madison won the presidency on the Republican ticket in 1808 and 1812, followed by James Monroe in 1816 and 1820.

The Jeffersonian Republican Party then faded away. The party was not a forerunner of the present day Republican Party. At times it was even called a name which seems contradictory today, the Democratic-Republican Party.

National Republican Party
The National Republican Party supported John Quincy Adams in his bid unsuccessful bid for reelection in 1828 (there had been no party designations in the election of 1824). The party also supported Henry Clay in 1832.

The general theme of the National Republican Party was opposition to Andrew Jackson and his policies. The National Republicans generally joined the Whig Party in 1834.

The National Republican Party was not a forerunner of the Republican Party, which formed in the mid-1850s.

Anti-Masonic Party
The Anti-Masonic Party formed in upstate New York in the late 1820s, following the mysterious death of a member of the masonic order, William Morgan. It was believed that Morgan was killed before he could reveal secrets about the masons and their suspected influence in American politics.

The party, while seemingly based on conspiracy theory, gained adherents. And the Anti-Masonic Party actually held the first national political convention in America. Its convention in 1831 nominated William Wirt as its presidential candidate in 1832. Wirt was an odd choice, having once been a mason. And while his candidacy was not successful, he did carry one state, Vermont, in the electoral college.

Part of the appeal of the Anti-Masonic Party was its fiery opposition to Andrew Jackson, who happened to be a mason.

The Anti-Masonic Party faded into obscurity by 1836 and its members drifted into the Whig Party, which also opposed the policies of Andrew Jackson.

Whig Party
The Whig Party was formed to oppose Andrew Jackson's policies and came together in 1834. The party took its name from a British political party which had opposed the King, as the American Whigs said they were opposing "King Andrew."

The Whigs candidate in 1836, William Henry Harrison, lost to the Democrat Martin Van Buren. But Harrison, with his log cabin and hard cider campaign of 1840, won the presidency (though he would only serve for a month).

The Whigs remained a major party throughout the 1840s, winning the White House again with Zachary Taylor in 1848. But the party splintered, mainly over the issue of slavery. Some Whigs joined the Know-Nothing Party, and others, most notably Abraham Lincoln, joined the new Republican party in the 1850s.

Liberty Party
The Liberty Party was organized in 1839 by anti-slavery activists who wanted to take the Abolitionist Movement and make it a political movement. As most leading Abolitionists were adamant about being outside politics, this was a novel concept.

The party ran a presidential ticket in 1840 and 1844, with James G. Birney, a former slaveholder from Kentucky as their candidate. The Liberty Party drew meager numbers, garnering only two percent of the popular vote in 1844.

It has been speculated that the Liberty Party was responsible for splitting the anti-slavery vote in New York state in 1844, thereby denying the state's electoral vote to Henry Clay, the Whig candidate and assuring the election of the slave-owning James Knox Polk. But that assumes Clay would have drawn all the votes cast for the Liberty Party.

Free-Soil Party
The Free-Soil Party came into being in 1848, and was organized to oppose the spread of slavery. The party's candidate for president in 1848 was former president Martin Van Buren.

Zachary Taylor of the Whig Party won the 1848 presidential election, but the Free-Soil Party did elect two senators and 14 members of the House of Representatives.

The motto of the Free-Soil Party was "Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men." After Van Buren's defeat in 1848 the party faded and members were eventually absorbed into the Republican Party when it formed in the 1850s.

Greenback Party
The Greenback Party was organized at a national convention held in Cleveland, Ohio in 1875. The formation of the party was prompted by difficult economic decisions, and the party advocated the issuing of paper money not backed by gold. Farmers and workers were the party's natural constituency.

The Greenbacks ran presidential candidates in 1876, 1880, and 1884, all of whom were unsuccessful.

When economic conditions improved, the Greenback Party faded into history.

The GOP will rise when they actually practice the conservative principles they preach about. It boggles my mind how some Republicans can internalize blatant violations of the personal privacy and freedom principle they are supposed to hold dear, all the while raining sanctimonious fire on those who dare question waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping, and other terrible constructions.
-
Then there's a good part of the population that think Palin can do no wrong. I like her, but there is no time for idol worship, ever. It will come back to bite people in their behinds. That's one good thing the GOP has got going - Obama hysteria will eventually fade.

"It's just a flesh wound!"

"moderates like Charlie Crist in Florida and Jodi Rell in Connecticut as well as pragmatic conservatives like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Jon Huntsman in Utah have remained popular despite their brand."
.
Crist and Daniels have some national profile, and I've read a little about Huntsman, does anyone know anything about Rell other than what was in the story?
.
At this point, ignoring the whispers, I would guess that Crist is the best positioned to move the republicans forward. And that's still a long shot considering that party's base.

I'm not sure the GOP wants to move forward. They do seem intent on doubling down on the extreme conservative ideology that has pushed so many moderates within their party and independents away. If they lose again in the next election cycle, that might be enough to finally jolt them awake. I don't know what else would.

And thanks for the history review Rusty. I guess the moral is don't try to build a national party around one individual or a very narrow ideology.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023506.php
.
Yeah, Barney Frank is what America wants. Jeez. We had a toungue-tied party leader who didn't fight back, and we're in the soup now. But remember, "the facts of life are conservative."

One thing that isn't going to work for the Republicans is trying to determine motives based on outcome: every time Rusty, et al. try to pin "advocate big government" on the Dems, they breeze right by reality.

I doubt any Democrat/ Liberal on this page would say "I believe in Big Government, period." What most Democrats advocate is government providing efficient, effective programs and strong policies designed to help the populace and keep our country moving forward, especially when these programs and policies CANNOT effectively and fairly be provided by the private sector.
.
Conversely, many Republicans fall back on "I advocate small government," regardless of the facts on the ground.
.
So with Rusty's limited knowledge of the Federalists, he picks out "strong national government" and decides "wow, sounds like Democrats." Anyone else out there think that Alexander Hamilton had much in common with the modern Democratic Party? Based on my read, he would have been a George Bush Republican . . .

Jay Newton-Small: "Here's this week's cover story by Michael Grunwald on the state of the Grand Ole Party."

-

Cover "story"? ROTFLMAO! Try: Leftist editorial/fairy tale/wishful thinking. Has Time magazine ever had a cover editorial not written by a leftist loon like Michael Grunwald or Joe Klein or ...?

I think that there potential for a "third party" effort is substantial -- if the economy doesn't improve Obama won't be terribly popular but will still be the Democratic nominee, and if the GOP continues its insistence on marginalizing itself, someone like Mike Bloomberg could probably win the presidency in 2012.

"What most Democrats advocate is government providing efficient, effective programs and strong policies designed to help the populace and keep our country moving forward, especially when these programs and policies CANNOT effectively and fairly be provided by the private sector."
.
Does anyone, I mean anyone, think that government can efficiently run anything? Have any of you people ever gotten a driver's license in a big city? Ever wonder why there's a saying, "Only in the District"?

Right – they're all the same. It's equivalent for Democrats to oppose warrantless wiretapping because it erodes our rights, while Republicans oppose health care reform because Nancy Pelosi is a b!tch who represents The Gays.
.
Yeah. They're all the same.

And speaking of Michelle Bachman, she sure made Barney "My BF is a prostitute" Frank look foolish . . . .
.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023506.php

FO, please explain how warrantless wiretapping of international calls violates the Fourth Amendment.

Yeah, spob, I think the lower-than-5% administrative costs for Social Security are pretty efficient. Same with police and fire departments. And hey, for the most part, the military. Compare the Marines with Blackwater, or Ze, or whatever the f*** they're calling themselves this week . . .

Yeah, vastwastelander, tell that to someone who has had his or her social security number used by an illegal alien and is trying to get his or her tax refund.

Hmmm. Tony Perkins, that noted liberal, is not happy either:
.
In another step away from its conservative roots, Republican members of the House unveiled The National Council for a New America in hopes of recasting the Party's ailing identity. The effort only underscores the Republicans' present identity crisis, as the GOP leadership kicked off the campaign devoid of the values that once caused voters to identify with the party.
.
The group's priorities, which were unveiled at a pizza parlor press conference, include the economy, health care, education, energy, and national security. Notice anything conspicuously absent? Former Gov. Jeb Bush explained the values void by saying it was time for the GOP to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan-era ideas and look forward to new "relevant" ideas. [...] .
.
Turning away from those fundamental truths would be a death knell for the GOP as little would be left to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats.

spob,
Have you ever had a productive non-aggravatying encounter with and Insurance company or a Bank? Do you know what a telephone maze is? Have you ever talked to a tech service rep from India?
.
The question isn't whether government can efficiently run anything. The question is whether ANY bloated oversized organization can. There's nothing magical about the private sector and if it's in a company's interest to screw their customers, they do it in a heartbeat. Whic is why we need government in the first place.
.
Failure to understand that IS the root cause of the demise of the Republican brand that is our current topic of discussion.