Comments on: No, Really, Replace The Republican Leadership

By: Kvnokay

Kvnokay — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:40:00 +0000

Conrad,

That, in a nutshell, is what is the matter with the mentality of the GOP today. You really think it wise to stand aside and let your “opponent” fail? I don’t think it’s so prudent to apply a principle, intended for an enemy, towards someone who is on your side and whom only holds a view point towards policy that is different from your own. A member of the loyal opposition has an obligation to voice their dissent and hope that their views are heard. Having faith in your country should mean in part that you hope your leaders will then make the correct decision for the good of the country.
ie: I never liked George W. Bush one bit, and thought he was dead wrong, but when the Iraq War started I was HOPING that he was right and that WMDs would be found. I wasn’t cheering for him tobe wrong or a failure. As long as the GOP keeps putting the power of their own party, or lack thereof, ahead of the good of the country, they will continue to lose badly at the polls.

By: conradg

conradg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:57:10 +0000

Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:55:38 +0000

One of the things you’re missing in here is the desire of the neocons to stoke tensions with Iran because of their Israeli agenda. For the five months since Obama took office we’ve seen an attempt both by the Netanyahu govt and by their neocon spear carriers in the US to make Iran “the” issue and not the Palestinian question. This hasn’t gained much traction. By attempting to force the administration into a more forward policy over the Iranian election results they neocons know what the outcome will be. A worsening of US/Iranian relations because in the medium term at least the Ahmadinejad govt is likely to remain in power. This suits the neocon book exactly. They simply don’t a rapprochement with Iran because it hinders their Israeli agenda. US interests of course don’t come into it.

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:32:30 +0000

Patrioteering is in their blood. Even Buchanan lapses into it from time to time. Whatever intellectual heft they have is provided by the neocons, so they're stuck with the Israeli albatross and muscular Wilsonianism. The last opportunity they had was for McCain to come out against TARP. He didn't, and the House GOP caved. Which of the two Goldman, Sachs parties is better? High populorum or low popahirum? Take your pick.

By: RedPhillips

RedPhillips — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:18:25 +0000

Part of the problem is that modern conservatives have been so thoroughly catechized in three-legs-of-the-stoolism that it generally comes as a package deal. People who are good on economic and social issues are also “good” from the perspective of the movement cons on foreign policy. And vice versa. Those who are somewhat sensible and realistic on foreign policy are also moderates on economic and social issues. Think Powell, Baker, Eagleburger, etc. Non-interventionism has won the day on the “far right” (note Alan Keye’s failed attempt to get the CP nomination), but with that you get the rest of the far right baggage. (I’m not knocking the far right which I am happily a part of, just if the subject is politically remaking the current GOP you aren’t going to do that yet by radicalizing them across the board.) So we have to kick one leg out from under that stool of mainstream conservatism. It would help if there was some movement within and not just criticism from without. Joe Scarborough seems to be coming our way. We need more to follow. After a certain critical mass it will be impossible to just label them all as infidels who have wandered off the ranch.

By: Gordianus

Gordianus — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:52:46 +0000

And to add to the farce, George Bush, the proud fool, has come out of the shadows and is “taking on Obama,” according to today’s news. For the first time, the disestablishment of the GOP is beginning to seem reasonable to me.

But Cantor et al are posturing for the crowd because that’s how they got elected in the first place. Fatuous legislative posturing is a built in feature of popular democracy. What evidence do we have that even a reconstituted GOP would be led by more serious politicians than it is now? As long as our system is run on the basis of drones selling their votes to hipsters for access to their neighbor’s pockets, our government will be a sinister joke.

By: RK

RK — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:30:30 +0000

Daniel, as you yourself said the rot is deep and wide. Yes, Ron Paul is there in the Congress, but who else? The only way out is for them to go the way of the Whigs and something wiser comes out of the ashes.

Minding your own business is common sense, so I simply fail to understand this hysteria about Iran. Remember the mass media psychosis about Ukraine? I lived in the UK at that time, was traveling on business in Europe and all you saw when you turned any news channel on in any European country was the color coded revolution. As if on cue from some government bureaucrat. We now know how that “revolution” ended up, don’t we?

By: Jake - butnottheone

Jake - butnottheone — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:14:39 +0000

Now if we could just get Obama to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Gitmo, THAT would be a trifecta!!!!

One upon which any foreseeable Republican leadership would also founder.

There are no R leaders in the wings, Daniel. The entire GOP is not just discredited on foreign, economic and fiscal policy, but on almost every imaginable measure of what it takes to be a creditable human being. Endemic hypocrisy will do that to a party.

There is one measure of humanity the GOP does meet – the measure of the lowest common denominator. We are all human, we are all weak, we all fail at least some of the time.

Jake

By: Matt C

Matt C — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:08:36 +0000

it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly

You get at the heart of the matter here, which is that the Republicans have been so overwhelmingly swamped by Karl Rove political posturing they simply cannot let any hint of a conflict in another country pass without moralizing and grandstanding.

What Cantor and Pence are doing is not an attempt to affirm some deeply-held views on foreign policy, but to take a position counter to the President and have either the media or Congrees (in the form of a resolution) validate it. These men have no well thought out views on foreign policy, but they know how to counter any position held by a Democrat.

It is quite striking to see that they have learned nothing from the defeats of the past two elections.