The Nuts In The Party Will Wreck It
Ever since I covered for the kids while they were on their honeymoon, I have been keeping an eye on Hot Air, which is fast becoming one of the most popular center-right blogs on the Internet. And one of the reasons it is such a good blog, aside from Michelle's vlogs at the Vent, is because of pundits like Allahpundit, who works tirelessly behind the scenes keeping things running smoothly. Today is no different as he observes more dissension within the ranks of the liberals in the New York Times today.
These new forces don’t care so much about litmus-test policies, but they are adamant about confronting the president. The influence of the netroots, as the growing Web-based Democrats have come to be called, is likely to stifle any inclination toward compromise or creativity, making it difficult for Democrats to transition from an opposition party to a governing one. Thoughtful and dynamic leadership, after all, requires a willingness to negotiate and a tolerance for dissent — which is the main reason that Republicans now find themselves glumly packing boxes rather than gleefully packing the courts.
"Gleefully packing the courts?" What have the people at the Times been smoking recently? Glee was hardly the MO of the day when it came to proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or did the Time simply forget that Democrat obstruction to the president's judicial nominees cost Tom Daschle his job, and his party some seats in the Senate. Enter the Gang of 14 from last year, and you have a boondoggle that never should have occurred. So the happiness the Times claims that conservatives had was hardly that. It came in small doses, like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. It came on the wake of Janice Rogers Brown, William Pickering, and Priscilla Owens elevation to their respective courts in that deal, but cost us seven more thanks to the fiddling of John McCain while the Constitution burned.
And if the Times calls tis "packing the courts" then what has every president before President Bush done? Yes, they have packed the courts with whomever they believe to be qualified. There are no ideological litmus tests for these people. Actually, there can be no litmus tests, period. They are questioned on their knowledge and experience in the legal field. The Constitution specifically states that there can be no litmus tests on anything other than their qualifications.
Depending on how you interpret the elections’ results, they may also boost the prospects for some younger candidate who can credibly claim distance from the establishment of both parties — a candidate much like Barack Obama. Washington pundits still persist in portraying our recent elections as a series of waves, alternately sweeping in the proponents of a blue team or a red team; by this theory, first came the Republican surge 12 years ago, and now comes the Democratic countersurge. But in fact, these two waves are more accurately viewed as part of the same continuous seismic disturbance: the growing frustration of voters with the Washington crowd of both parties, who seem stuck in the same ideological debate they were having in 1975, while the rest of the country struggles mightily with the emerging economic and international threats of 2006. After the midterms, that tidal resentment has now washed away both of our old governing philosophies: the expansive and often misguided liberalism that dominated American politics up through the 1970s, as well as the impractical, mean-spirited brand of conservatism that rose up in reaction to it.
Has the Times missed the liberalism dripping from the House and Senate ranks of the Democrats? Nancy Pelosi tried unsuccessfully to anoint her golden boy--John Murtha--the new majority leader. That didn't fly. For every Democrat threatening to investigate this, and dig into that, moderates within the party are telling them to pipe down. The kids picked up on the Alcee Hastings fight that is about to hit the Democrats in the House, and they are correct in assessing that if this goes down badly, Pelosi will be one strike away from being removed as Speaker.
But one has to laugh at the Times for how they portray both sides. Liberals are "misguided" and conservatives are "impractical" and "mean-spirited." I never have understood how we can be labeled as being mean when all we strive to do is to keep taxes low, the nation protected, and we emphasize individual achievement. "Misguided" to me denotes that there is inexperience in decisions, or poorly made decisions on the part of liberals when in actuality they are simply executing a plan that they've been working on for awhile.
The ideological divide between the two parties has blurred in recent years, with the Republicans taking over with the fiscal irresponsibility we'd expect to see from those of more liberal persuasions. And it was a departure from those principles that cost the Republicans their majority. On the flip side, Democrats ran a number of moderate candidates that appealed to the American electorate because they were more conservative that the liberal nuts in the Congress already. And for those who point to wins by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy--in a vain effort to discredit our theory--remember that neither San Francisco or Boston are conservative hubs. In addition, have you ever heard of name recognition? If Ted Kennedy weren't reelected I'd have to wonder what was happening back in Boston.
The moderates are in charge in Congress this time around, and the nuts in the Democrats "netroots" movement are likely to destroy this party if they get their hands on any controlling elements of the party. These people are seething not just at the president, but at Republicans, in general. They despise us. There is no other way to put it. Look at the reactions to Republicans on sites like Daily Kos and Atrios, and you'll see how much pent-up anger and angst they have towards us. This goes beyond having a difference of opinion; this goes to a level of derangment that is wholly unhealthy.
Honestly, ask yourselves this: Is a difference of opinion worthy of unrepetent attacks against a candidate? They did it to Joe Lieberman. The attacks were uncalled for, completely misrepresenting Sen. Lieberman, and they focused on one, single issue--the war. The "nutroots" (as the kids call them) launched a scathing campaign to remove Lieberman from the race in the primaries, and had their plan blow up in their face when he went Independent, and crushed Ned Lamont. What would truly drive the nutroots insane would be to know that their own base dislikes their general political attitudes and tactics.
Deep down in this nation, we are more center-right than center-left. When the unhinged emerge and spew, it turns the electorate off. No one likes to hear the shrill wicked withc of the East come out and berate the president, or a fool like Dick Durbin assail our troops as some group of Nazi-like thugs. Conservatism was proven to exist in droves across this nation back in 1980 and 1984. In those two presidential elections, the nation flatly rejected the liberalism of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale; neither man appealed to enough voters to win, but were also delivered the two largest electoral defeats this nation has ever seen.
Now the nutroots believe that they have a achance to change things. They believe that the nation is divided enough that they could slip in one of their favorite nuts into the Congress, and perhaps even the White House. But if Bill clinton had camapigned on a center-left platform, he never would have won the presidency. He "triangulated": himself, and ran as a centrist. Some liberalism mixed with a bit of conservatism, and a hefty dose of straight-down-the-middle thinking--that is what won him the presidency twice. But the average American can't swallow the extreme liberalism the nutroots profess. Americans despised the scurrilous attacks launched against a few of the candidates this past election, and they abhor asses like Kos who berate, insult, and trash those in the military because he doesn't like being in Iraq. There is a problem with the nutroots, and they've yet to figure it out. They're single issue people. They only declare their anger in the direction of this issue or that, and usually offer no alternative.
They shout the president should be impeached, yet offer no charges for the impeachment.
They scream we need to get out of Iraq, and don't offer a solution to what will happen to that country when we leave.
They whine about global warming, yet offer no solid evidence to its existence.
They hype up the UN, but refuse to acknowledge ALL of its problems.
Their hysteria is commonplace; reminiscent of children exaggerating an incident to their parent. They use wildly speculative arguments, questionable "facts," and an abundance of emotion. But that is not a solution to their woes, and it's not the solution for the Democrats either. We can only sit back and watch after the election as to which direction they will head. If they take the more moderate path, then they stand a chance of keeping congress, and they have a shot at the White House. If they follow the path of the nutroots, they will lose Congress in less time than the Republicans did, and they'll be viewing the Oval Office from a tour group.
Sabrina McKinney
Ever since I covered for the kids while they were on their honeymoon, I have been keeping an eye on Hot Air, which is fast becoming one of the most popular center-right blogs on the Internet. And one of the reasons it is such a good blog, aside from Michelle's vlogs at the Vent, is because of pundits like Allahpundit, who works tirelessly behind the scenes keeping things running smoothly. Today is no different as he observes more dissension within the ranks of the liberals in the New York Times today.
These new forces don’t care so much about litmus-test policies, but they are adamant about confronting the president. The influence of the netroots, as the growing Web-based Democrats have come to be called, is likely to stifle any inclination toward compromise or creativity, making it difficult for Democrats to transition from an opposition party to a governing one. Thoughtful and dynamic leadership, after all, requires a willingness to negotiate and a tolerance for dissent — which is the main reason that Republicans now find themselves glumly packing boxes rather than gleefully packing the courts.
"Gleefully packing the courts?" What have the people at the Times been smoking recently? Glee was hardly the MO of the day when it came to proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, or did the Time simply forget that Democrat obstruction to the president's judicial nominees cost Tom Daschle his job, and his party some seats in the Senate. Enter the Gang of 14 from last year, and you have a boondoggle that never should have occurred. So the happiness the Times claims that conservatives had was hardly that. It came in small doses, like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. It came on the wake of Janice Rogers Brown, William Pickering, and Priscilla Owens elevation to their respective courts in that deal, but cost us seven more thanks to the fiddling of John McCain while the Constitution burned.
And if the Times calls tis "packing the courts" then what has every president before President Bush done? Yes, they have packed the courts with whomever they believe to be qualified. There are no ideological litmus tests for these people. Actually, there can be no litmus tests, period. They are questioned on their knowledge and experience in the legal field. The Constitution specifically states that there can be no litmus tests on anything other than their qualifications.
Depending on how you interpret the elections’ results, they may also boost the prospects for some younger candidate who can credibly claim distance from the establishment of both parties — a candidate much like Barack Obama. Washington pundits still persist in portraying our recent elections as a series of waves, alternately sweeping in the proponents of a blue team or a red team; by this theory, first came the Republican surge 12 years ago, and now comes the Democratic countersurge. But in fact, these two waves are more accurately viewed as part of the same continuous seismic disturbance: the growing frustration of voters with the Washington crowd of both parties, who seem stuck in the same ideological debate they were having in 1975, while the rest of the country struggles mightily with the emerging economic and international threats of 2006. After the midterms, that tidal resentment has now washed away both of our old governing philosophies: the expansive and often misguided liberalism that dominated American politics up through the 1970s, as well as the impractical, mean-spirited brand of conservatism that rose up in reaction to it.
Has the Times missed the liberalism dripping from the House and Senate ranks of the Democrats? Nancy Pelosi tried unsuccessfully to anoint her golden boy--John Murtha--the new majority leader. That didn't fly. For every Democrat threatening to investigate this, and dig into that, moderates within the party are telling them to pipe down. The kids picked up on the Alcee Hastings fight that is about to hit the Democrats in the House, and they are correct in assessing that if this goes down badly, Pelosi will be one strike away from being removed as Speaker.
But one has to laugh at the Times for how they portray both sides. Liberals are "misguided" and conservatives are "impractical" and "mean-spirited." I never have understood how we can be labeled as being mean when all we strive to do is to keep taxes low, the nation protected, and we emphasize individual achievement. "Misguided" to me denotes that there is inexperience in decisions, or poorly made decisions on the part of liberals when in actuality they are simply executing a plan that they've been working on for awhile.
The ideological divide between the two parties has blurred in recent years, with the Republicans taking over with the fiscal irresponsibility we'd expect to see from those of more liberal persuasions. And it was a departure from those principles that cost the Republicans their majority. On the flip side, Democrats ran a number of moderate candidates that appealed to the American electorate because they were more conservative that the liberal nuts in the Congress already. And for those who point to wins by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy--in a vain effort to discredit our theory--remember that neither San Francisco or Boston are conservative hubs. In addition, have you ever heard of name recognition? If Ted Kennedy weren't reelected I'd have to wonder what was happening back in Boston.
The moderates are in charge in Congress this time around, and the nuts in the Democrats "netroots" movement are likely to destroy this party if they get their hands on any controlling elements of the party. These people are seething not just at the president, but at Republicans, in general. They despise us. There is no other way to put it. Look at the reactions to Republicans on sites like Daily Kos and Atrios, and you'll see how much pent-up anger and angst they have towards us. This goes beyond having a difference of opinion; this goes to a level of derangment that is wholly unhealthy.
Honestly, ask yourselves this: Is a difference of opinion worthy of unrepetent attacks against a candidate? They did it to Joe Lieberman. The attacks were uncalled for, completely misrepresenting Sen. Lieberman, and they focused on one, single issue--the war. The "nutroots" (as the kids call them) launched a scathing campaign to remove Lieberman from the race in the primaries, and had their plan blow up in their face when he went Independent, and crushed Ned Lamont. What would truly drive the nutroots insane would be to know that their own base dislikes their general political attitudes and tactics.
Deep down in this nation, we are more center-right than center-left. When the unhinged emerge and spew, it turns the electorate off. No one likes to hear the shrill wicked withc of the East come out and berate the president, or a fool like Dick Durbin assail our troops as some group of Nazi-like thugs. Conservatism was proven to exist in droves across this nation back in 1980 and 1984. In those two presidential elections, the nation flatly rejected the liberalism of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale; neither man appealed to enough voters to win, but were also delivered the two largest electoral defeats this nation has ever seen.
Now the nutroots believe that they have a achance to change things. They believe that the nation is divided enough that they could slip in one of their favorite nuts into the Congress, and perhaps even the White House. But if Bill clinton had camapigned on a center-left platform, he never would have won the presidency. He "triangulated": himself, and ran as a centrist. Some liberalism mixed with a bit of conservatism, and a hefty dose of straight-down-the-middle thinking--that is what won him the presidency twice. But the average American can't swallow the extreme liberalism the nutroots profess. Americans despised the scurrilous attacks launched against a few of the candidates this past election, and they abhor asses like Kos who berate, insult, and trash those in the military because he doesn't like being in Iraq. There is a problem with the nutroots, and they've yet to figure it out. They're single issue people. They only declare their anger in the direction of this issue or that, and usually offer no alternative.
They shout the president should be impeached, yet offer no charges for the impeachment.
They scream we need to get out of Iraq, and don't offer a solution to what will happen to that country when we leave.
They whine about global warming, yet offer no solid evidence to its existence.
They hype up the UN, but refuse to acknowledge ALL of its problems.
Their hysteria is commonplace; reminiscent of children exaggerating an incident to their parent. They use wildly speculative arguments, questionable "facts," and an abundance of emotion. But that is not a solution to their woes, and it's not the solution for the Democrats either. We can only sit back and watch after the election as to which direction they will head. If they take the more moderate path, then they stand a chance of keeping congress, and they have a shot at the White House. If they follow the path of the nutroots, they will lose Congress in less time than the Republicans did, and they'll be viewing the Oval Office from a tour group.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:30 PM
1 Comments:
I've read many reasons why we, the republicans, lost and I guess there's some merit in each one. To me, we did not understand the new democrats. All the signs were there especially Joe Lieberman being beaten by Lamont. The new democrats call themselves "progressive." That means socialists. The Blacks in the House changed its caucus Black name to progressive. The DLC is very powerful and controls the democrat party. We failed to analyze the degree of "hate" Bush. I said that the total of the individual reasons did not add up to the degree of hate. I opined that someone or group was behind it. I suspect Political Correctness and Sensitivity and what they include. I saw this election between Karl Marx and America ideals. The Marxists won. And we should note the election of a Muslim to the House. I liked Allen. He wasn't the one to expose Webb. That was a mistake. Someone else should have. The dems destroyed Allen because they saw a potential presidential candidate. He's finished so should be John McCain. McCain did more to give the democrats a win than any other person. The msm media loves him. I don't. Pelosi demanded that Rumsfeld be replaced. Her first post election victory is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. The democrats now conrtrol both houses. Now's the time to rebuild looking towards 2008. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home