The GOP Brand And Bush/Palin Hatred

Just a couple of points in follow up to this brief discussion of the future of the GOP brand with Katherine Mangu-Ward and Glenn Reynolds:

Meanwhile, noting the Palin hatred, the Bush hatred and, I suspect, looming Obama hatred, I have a thought on why politics is more polarized than it used to be: It's because people have more at risk. As Jerry Pournelle wrote a while back, "We have always known that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It's worse now, because capture of government is so much more important than it once was. There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time -- not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine -- and it will probably never be true again."

I wonder if those of us who follow media and politics closely don't over read some of the hate meme? For all the supposed hatred of Bush, and Reagan before him, both men did manage to get elected twice to the highest office in the land. I don't believe the average voter follows all this closely enough to come to hate anyone that much. They are more likely to just like, or not like the government they're getting. And right now, there's plenty of reason for concern about DC, including Obama's big changes that will impact people's lives in ways I doubt they understand, or expect.

Also, I agree with Glenn on what the GOP brand should be. True, it may take some time, as it did to set up 1994, as the current faces of the GOP are mostly identified with DC. But there isn't as many of them today as there were thanks to recent losses. To some extent, that should help the GOP in 2010.

New faces and new blood allow a party to at least pretend there's some real change going on. But then, I'd add the Tea Party movement into the mix. Just as citizens are stirred up, hopefully there will be some serious new players on the GOP political side who get the message and will be able to pick up the banner of 1994 - or at least be influenced by that movement to hold it up and be held to it for a time. The banner was dropped, as too many Republicans were in DC for too long. That simply isn't the case, now. To the extent the GOP can brand the Dems as the party of DC every bit as they carve out a new identity for themselves, I suspect they will be positioned pretty well going into 2010.

I'd like to see the party run as a party of small government, individual liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Comments

[tim maguire]

I think you have a point with the hate meme. At least a part of it is that motivated individuals have a bigger megaphone today than they once did, causing us to overestimate their numbers. I suppose the best indicator of angry polarization would be the number of true independents, those who don't reliably vote for one party over the other.

As a New Yorker I have to note that George Pataki served three terms as governor and New York City has elected a Republican mayor the last four times voters went to the polls. RINOs for sure, but they still had Rs next to their names.

[Ran]

"I'd like to see the party run as a party of small government, individual liberty and fiscal responsibility."

OK, Dan, how do I show that in boldface italics, er, blinking neon red-white-and-blue boldface italics? (I was trying "/amen" and it didn't work.)

Me, I'm off for Shabbos. Gotta run. See ya Sunday.

And thanks for the post, man...

[SacTownMan]

Can you say Term Limits?

[d-day]

I always wonder about politicians and pundits who bemoan the lack of civility in politics. Civil arguments may be appropriate for debates on which potholes need filling, but how can we restrain ourselves from incivility when control of this all-encompassing government is at stake?

[syn]

"New York City has elected a Republican mayor the last four times voters went to the polls. RINOs for sure, but they still had Rs next to their names."

Except Rudy was elected because NYC was a sewer full of crime, poverty and misery, NYC was begging for someone to save them from the self-wreck and ruin.

Bloomberg was a Democrat his whole life until he decided to run for mayor and since too many candidates were running on the Democrat ticket the Mayor-Nanny decided to jump on Rudy's 9/11 coattail.

Glenn Reynold is the guy who perpetuated the bird-flu hysteria as well as, the idiotic "billion mercury bulbs in America" campaign; porn has a way of screwing up a Libertarian's thought process, as well as, their ability to have sex (the only thing a libertarian can ejaculate is their sweat)

[mark l.]

wasn't there a divide in the gop in 80, between reagan and bush, and, within the gop as well?
"voodoo economics". it was not just an indictment of reagan, but the people who believed in reagan and his ideas.

the dems are absolutely playing with fire and history.

the past two incumbents who lost reelection, both lost on the economy. The economy, as any dem would tell you, is 'the worst since the great depression'.

part of the move to reagan, was the desperation and willingness to try and actually 'change' to something 'new'.

the libs are pushing the palin as gop meme, and in the process, solidifying her support within the gop(not the party, but actual people who vote). This is creating the perfect tsunami for palin to get into the wh in 2012.
The libs should accept that the possiblity of losing the wh is very real, and they might want to think about who they help bring to the top in the gop.

god forbid she wins AND is successful. sullivan would be driven to the belief that he is a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

[mark l.]

one other modest point...

to the victors go the spoils. newt wasn't prominent until the landslide victories of 94. he just won back his own seat, but got an incredible amount of credit and clout, that he did not have until he was tied to those victories of others.

palin can really be made, on purpose/by accident, into the face of the success of 2010. The house elections are already tilted heavily in the gop's favor, and the house would fall if sarah never existed...

but because she does exist, and the libs have tied her to the gop, IF she campaigns and the gop regains the house, her prominence will grow substantially. 47% of the country was willing to vote for mccain, knowing that she was a heartbeat away from the WH. barring a huge scandal, that also requires some significant legitimacy(dems should read "the little boy who cried wolf"), she is odds on, the only person who could emerge as a prominent leader, outside of boehner.

is she a top choice of mine?
she remains the least of two evils.

[Slide]

From my perspective (the rare liberal willing to take the abuse to comment here) a lot of the polarization has to do with the Bush Administration. Hey, there was always tough tough politics and even dirty tricks on both sides but with Rove, something a little bit more nasty came to town. With Rove there came a need to destroy, not only politically, but personally anyone that got in their way. Paul O'Neil and Richard Clark know what I am talking about. Many would suggest that Joe Wilson and his wife were targeted by Bush/Cheney for not toeing the line. Once you are not on the team 100% anymore you became fair game - even your wife is "fair game" as Rove told Chris Matthews. The whole US Attorney's scandal is about using the power of the US Government systematically to go after your political opponents. And you know.. that was something on a whole different level than we had before. Pretty despicable. I think history is going to be very unkind to the Bush/Cheney crime family. They have done more to harm this nation than we'll ever realize.

[Troll Hunter]

"The whole US Attorney's scandal is about using the power of the US Government systematically to go after your political opponents."

Liar.

US attorneys serve specifically at the pleasure of the President. Clinton - quite appropriately - fired nearly, what, 70 or so when he came into office. They are patronage appointments and every attorney is aware of the shelf-life. You know that - and still you lie through your f^cking teeth like the liberal you are. Now kindly effoff and get your diapers changed.

Remember, folks, when "slide" is the game, you're the one getting greased.

[mark l.]

Paul O'Neil and Richard Clark know what I am talking about.

aside from oniell openly voicing criticism while serving as cabinet member...

my favorite richard clarke moment?
during the 9/11 hearings, he started off on a string of how we should have been prepared. he then goes about how he sought to heighten security around airliners for the 96 olympics, to contradict condi rice's-'no one could have imagined'.

he started trailing off, when it dawned on him that he was the counter terrorism 'czar' that had previously considered the style of attack, and never followed thru...

the papers that berger stole?
clarke's recommendations which clinton turned down, and he never resubmitted to the new admin, becuase he was chasing down cyber terrorists.

[Lala]

The "rare liberal" plays his little game.

[Slide]

and what game is that Lala?

[SacTownMan]

"The "rare liberal" plays his little game."

Hey Lala don't you mean typical liberal!

And quit being so mean to Slime and Wally!

Even trolls have feelings you bullies!

I would like to appologise for the other regulars here, You two have been perfect gentlemen in your rants, I mean posts, and I'm sure that when you run out of the Koolaid you can look forward to rejoining the human race!

I do think that you left out the evil Halliburton and the whole Tower 7 thing in your last post though!

[North Dallas Thirty]

The whole US Attorney's scandal is about using the power of the US Government systematically to go after your political opponents.

You mean like Barack Obama does.

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/11/20/joe.html?sid=101

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/obama-accuses-fired-inspector-general-americorps-confused-disoriented/

"Once you are not on the team 100% anymore you became fair game - even your wife is "fair game" as Rove told Chris Matthews."

Just like Barack Obama and the Obama Party said about Sarah Palin's family.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view/2008_09_02_Barney_Frank:_Sarah_Palin_s_family_life_is_fair_game/

You would think that if Slide actually opposed these things, he would be berating Obama. But, as is usual, Slide supports and endorses everything Obama does.

[Slide]

hey sack man you keep mentioning the Truther movement as if that were part of the Democratic platform. What are you talking about? I don't know one person that believes that nonsense. Why do you bring it up? It would be like me saying that you believe Aliens came down in a spaceship, abducted you, and shoved long metal probes into you anus. It would make no sense at all but would be damn fun to say. I guess that is why you mention Tower 7 all the time. BTW, how's your butt?

[jaime]

"Just like Barack Obama and the Obama Party said about Sarah Palin's family"

And then you go on to link to a quote from Barney Frank??? This is what "Barack Obama" said? You do know that if you say BARACK OBAMA said this, the link you send people to HAS to have something he actually said. Otherwise you prove yourself to be a lying jackass.

[mark l.]

"hey sack man you keep mentioning the Truther movement as if that were part of the Democratic platform."

evangelicals represent 1/3 of the support bush got in 04.
interestingly, OVER 33% of democratic voters from the same year, were truthers.

the truthers?
no more a part of the democrat party than evangelicals belong to the gop.

[Slide]

mark informed us that "OVER 33% of democratic voters from the same year, were truthers."

Source please. Provide a link backing up that claim.

[Gene44]

I think what brothered me the most during the presidential elections was the fact that the mainstream media (TV commentators and press) tried their best to destroy Sarah Palin because she was not one of THEM the so called elite. This in turn started the frenzy of the bloggers with all the hatred and guile they could muster.

Politicians are suppose to be the so called leaders defending our rights, liberties and our actual futures with laws and bills that they sponsor, endorse and pass for the President to sign into law. Instead we have a 3 ring circus going on in Washington DC just on the Democrats side of the isle and a leaderless circus going on within the Reupblican side. They are suppose to Debate and make decisions on facts and figures, but, in todays world their is no debate and a continious lying over the facts and figures.

In 1974 America was shocked over the Oil Embargo against America by the OPEC and talks of alternative methods of energy and oil reduction were started. The price of oil went to a historic high of $150 dollars a barrel and gas prices skyrocketed. Now we have a new angle called Global Warming supported overwhelmly by the Democrats that will tax everything made, produced or grown with every citizen paying a high price for everything they use, eat or drink. We have been called the greatest polluters on earth and yet the countries of China and India beat us by miles and the Democrats are very careful not to say this out loud. Even the EU countries cannot meet their stated objectives as each of the countries negotiated to keep their industries running instead of shutting them down. So now the have the Cap & Trade coming down which will shut down some of our factories as they will relocate to another country to stay in business. Higher unemployment losses.

Now the Democrats are trying to create the National Health Plan which they have been working on since Truman was in office. What this bill does is reduce the treatments available for senior citizens and limit the treatments for the other folks. Who wins - only the government by having greater control over the people. Ask the people of the UK, Canada, Germany, France for their opinions as they complain about the higher taxes to support the programs and about the long, long waits to see a doctor or receive treatment. Hip replacement, knee replacement in the UK is a ONE million waiting list at present. I heard the Obama comment of you may need to take pain killers for a longer period of time, but what if the government employee decides you are not productive to enough to receive treatment - ie paying enough in taxes. Then forget ever having a knee or hip replaced - learn to live with the pain.

Now we have the illegal people in the states bill coming up to grant them citizenship. I think first the government should get serious about enforcing the actual law. The people entered the country illegally which is against the laws of the U.S. so they should be deported and apply for entry like anyone else. Any company found employing illegals should be fined very heavily - start at a million and the owners of the company found guilty of supporting them and sent to jail for a minimum of one year. I repeat Owners of companies that hire them sent to jail because they are in fact breaking American laws.

These are things that Republicans should be stating over and over to the public as the public is being fed BS from the Democrats in Washington by refusing to even Debate what they are offering the public as laws that affects their very existence.

Get off the hate and get back to protection and betterment of the average American citizen.

[Lisa]

I'd like to see the party run as a party of small government, individual liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Won't ever happen, and has never really happened. I'll never understand why anybody who really thinks spending is out of control thinks the GOP is their answer. Ronald Reagan, the wet dream of so-called conservatives, tripled the deficit due to tax cuts and increases in military spending. George Bush inherited a surplus from his Democratic predecessor and turned it not only into a deficit, but a record deficit.

As a man at a town hall asked John McCain, do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit? You cannot *cut* taxes and maintain all the GOP prioroites, especially defense spending, the golden idol of neoconism. Time to move on from the fantasy that conservatism=small government and low spending. It's a farce and always has been.

[Lisa]

I think what brothered me the most during the presidential elections was the fact that the mainstream media (TV commentators and press) tried their best to destroy Sarah Palin because she was not one of THEM the so called elite.

LOL, you mean educated, sophisticated, and able to speak with conviction about what she believes and how she would govern?

I won't add to the Sarah Stupid din except to say this to the fringers like the increasingly desperate Kristol and Goldberg and now Ross Douthat: be careful what you wish for next time. For all your projection on her as the representative Real American (rural, racist, nativist, and uneducable) who would finally take down the hoity-toity Harvard elites standing in the way of your fascist wet dreams, Sarah Palin was exactly what she appeared on the surface to be: an arrogant, minimally educated backwater without the brains or the stomach for the fight. The right's frustration with her apparent disinterest in bettering herself as a candidate for the next go-round was borne of the idea that they assumed she thought she needed to, that she thought she needed anything more than winks and you betchas and platitudes in order to get elected to the highest offices in the land. Well, she was going to show those eggheads! She was a REAL AMERICAN, would be elected on a REAL AMERICAN platform, and what Real American isn't more interested in reality TV and Jerry Springer than they are boring policy papers anyway? The right would like us to believe that Sarah was a victim of her social class, not her own shortcomings, but that's bullshit. No one came from a lower social class than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, and yet the two of them did what people who want to better their circumstances have to do-they worked hard, got good educations and paved their own way for their future successes. They didn't expect people were going to reward them simply for being a good ol' boy in Clinton's case or the struggling black son of a single parent in Obama's. Yet somehow the lunatic fringe thinks we all should be paying homage to Palin because she didn't work hard to make herself better, because she chose to remain ignorant of policy matters (never mind the fact that if you shut up Forrest Gump for a year in an ivory tower with graduate textbooks and policy papers, at the end of the year he would still be Forrest Gump) and get by on looks and political instincts. Who needs smarts and curiosity when you've got a beauty queen title behind you?

The fact of the matter is, Sarah Stupid's implosion was predictable from day one. The right wing intelligentsia (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) is frustrated with her because she won't work to improve her viability as a candidate, but isn't that why they all fell in love with her in the first place? Because of her genuine aversion to all things scholarly? Her "my way or the highway" attitude? Her history of doing things only when they suited her, and then backing out when it got too hard?

Sarah Palin was a trial balloon for the core argument of the lunatic fringers, which is that it doesn't take any special brains or talent in order to govern, that a good story and personal charisma are all one needs (well, at least as long as there's a brainy puppet master behind you). Based on the preliminary results, we probably won't be seeing any more "real Americans" (her words) on a national ballot anytime soon.

[mark l.]

"Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/president_bush/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

seriously, I'll take evangelicals over truthers, anyday.

[mark l.]

the poll provided is from 2007, but I've seen similar numbers from 2004.

forgive me for providing a more recnt one.

[Noel Verzosa]

How can the GOP be the party of small government when every Republican president beginning with Herbert Hoover grew the goverment?

[Larry]

Small government? I disagree, but you can make the argument.
Individual liberty? Sure, and also mom and apple pie. But doesn't that involve not spying on citizens?
Fiscal responsibility? Sorry, the GOP wrote the book on irresponsibility. Elephants heaped crap on Clinton's balanced budget and didn't stop. Cheney said that deficits don't matter. You have no credibility on that issue, and now Democrats will spend the good part of the next decade cleaning up your mess.
One more problem for the GOP -- what do you do with the nutcake bible-thumpers? The anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-God, pro-guts crowd scares the bejesus out of independents and minorities, which you need the win any election north of Kentucky.

[mark l.]

"How can the GOP be the party of small government when every Republican president..."

govt will inevitably grow larger as the gdp grows.

the trick is the balance between growth in govt and gdp...

the dem philosophy, which makes no sense, is based on the perception the two as antagonistic towards each other, while the gop sees them as codependent.

defintely look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_Law

i'm not saying this is cause and effect, but the correlation is uncanny.

yes, reagan grew the size of govt, but he also grew our overall economy faster.

here's a link which offers the numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

the intersting point about reagan is that he did grow govt in his first term, faster than gdp, in order to escape our economic crisis, yet her grew it slower over four years, than obama is going to do in one year.

small govt?
everything is relative. yes, the govt needs to grow, but at a rate for which private business, responsible for 70% of our work force, grows faster. IF obama wanted to double the size of govt, I would not object, if he was going to do so via increasing the gdp.

looking around the world, everyone but the US is seeking to reduce the cost of employment, or the taxes of those who drive the employment numbers up. we seem to be the only country who believes spending our way out of debt will work. resultingly, our dollar is declining, our stock markets are fading, in the face of the world economy which is faring far better.

looking at the unemployment rate...
it will slow as it approaches its peak of about 14%, but it isn't going to recover until the cost of business and the drain on gdp to feed the govt is reduced. I actually feel that the only way we get back to small govt is by letting obama proceed on his unsustainable mission.

i know the laffer curve has drawn a ton of derision, but the numbers support his theory. when bush cut taxes in 2003, the federal revenue increased over 35% in a three year period.

obama is following the "Krugman theory of govt"...basically that govt should make 25-27% off of gdp. in light of hauser's law, demonstrating that the number is around 19%, irrespective of changes in taxes, I really can't see how obama will get it done.

the very dangerous implication is that he is pursuuing a plan of attack that will never materialize. the really sad part of the story is that obama doesn't understand what he is doing.

[mark l.]

i can actually forgive reagan for his first term spending.
look at the results.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE/

unemployment goes from 7.5% to almost 11%, mostly under reagan, but came back down as fast it went up, all within a four year period.

it is impossbile to argue with results, but the dems are going to do it their way, nobody elses.

does obama want to be the next reagan?
no. that is the essense of democrat philosophy. to follow any course of action inconsitent with ones beliefs, is heresy, even it is correct.

unemployment is going to hold fast for several years and the money that would fund private business will be syphoned off so there is no fertilzer for the growth we need, outside of who the govt picks and chooses.

thinks look good, if one is playing this long...
scorched earth makes very fertile soil.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"And then you go on to link to a quote from Barney Frank??? This is what "Barack Obama" said? You do know that if you say BARACK OBAMA said this, the link you send people to HAS to have something he actually said.

If Barack Obama wants to disagree with Barney Frank, he's welcome to do so. Unfortunately, he's shown that he agrees with and supports Barney Frank. That makes it quite obvious that Barack Obama thinks that Sarah Palin's family is fair game.

[Wil]

Larry

1)Does American citizens include foreign terrorists and american sympathizers living in the US ? I'm sorry to break your hubris but domestic spying was already employed against American citizens suspected of conspiring against their country since the the time of George Washington . Maybe try to read your American history next time . I could name a few Americans that spied against their country . You know Ames , right? , how about the Rosenbergs , Remember John Walker , John Hanssen ?

2) Hate to break it to you , but Clinton got a Republican Congress that was responsible for the balanced budget . And btw , didn't the Democrats in Congress were responsible for the housing mortgage mess we are in right now . Want to lie , I got proof ,http://www.verumserum.com/?p=4926. Of course , It also goes to show that the American economy went downhill when the Democrats controlled both of the Senate and Congress . Two can play the blame game . I could do one better . Let me see , FDR's New Deal policies , Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty , Carter's CRA loans , Clinton's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Obama's economic policies . I will also add Reid as Senate President and Pelosi as Speaker of the House .

3) The problem with you Democrats is this , as long as you have the heterophobic gays and lesbians , military hating constituents , the one sided press , the hypocritical Hollywood numbskulls,the ivory tower snobs,the tax loving officials,the open border idiots, support of Black Panthers ,CAIR and RAZA , the enviromental and AGW loons , corrupt unions and the race baiters . I forgot ACORN and the dead voters as well . You will find out that those independents and those minorities will soon wise up and leave you guys in droves and the Party you support will be out of power for a long time before you know it . Obama didn't get the overwhelming majority , he won with almost the same percentage as his predecessor . Hubris,my boy,hubris.