June 15, 2007

Whither The Republicans?

Republicans face a daunting task of determining their identity in the next sixteen months before the 2008 elections. With the immigration bill infuriating the base, the war in Iraq frustrating the nation, and the lack of enthusiasm shown thus far in a wide-open field of presidential contenders, that process looks to be painful as well as daunting. E.J. Dionne wonders in his column today whether the Republicans can recapture the optimism of the Reagan years, even with a new candidate entering the race as the Reagan banner-carrier.

Dionne, as always, writes a thought-provoking column, but I think he's misdiagnosed the problem. Republicans don't have an identity crisis as much as a competency crisis. At Heading Right, I explain why the "national security imprint" is not a Bush-era change, and how Republicans can get their groove back.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (40)

Posted by Charlie | June 15, 2007 8:53 AM

E. J. Dionne thought-provoking? I would say he's about the dimmest bulb making a living scribbling his opinions (except for the fact that then there's Richard Cohen, Eugene Robinson and the rest of the Washington Post Writers Group).

Posted by brooklyn | June 15, 2007 9:03 AM

i think part of the problem remains the lack of objectivity, the cynicism which rules the new punditry in Conservative circles.

part of the reason for being Conservative is the understanding human beings are far from perfect, thus needing limited government.

there are so many reasons to be thankful for the Bush Administration and the GOP in Congress, and life was better prior to 2006 with the Democrat Majority.

simplistic understanding of the big picture is essential, and yet many are lost in their own ego trips, pushing their anger with misguided vitriol.

another aspect of Conservativism, is personal responsibility, and i don't see a number of the back seat critics doing very well in comparison.

are they growing the base, or are they undermining the conservative agenda with emotive diatribe, weakening the various elected representation serving our interests?

(instead of offering sound constructive policy insight)

we will see if cooler heads prevail in 2008, but some seem bent on pure suicide, screaming hyperbole, while they enable the likes of Hillary Clinton to the White House.

Posted by Lew | June 15, 2007 9:11 AM

The problem for the Republicans is the same as its always been and its the same problem that Democrats face. In essence, its the central problem of holding both of the traditional major parties together in an increasingly ideologically driven era. The split between the so-called "moderates" and the so-called "extremists", or as I've often told my fellow Republicans, the "idea people" and the "process people".

"Idea" people get into party politics because we believe in some set of long term utopian ideals that drive our personal sense of moral legitimacy. We are trying to make the world "right" in some sense and our passion is engaged to the long term goals of the cause that we serve. We are crusaders!

"Process" people get into politics because we see it as a way to engage our problem solving skills and build a career in "Public Service" by moving the problem issues through the pipeline with as little pain as possible. We are technicians and engineers of varying degrees of competence, but our focus is on working the system as it stands. We instinctively distrust ideology and utopianism because we know that it will never be satisfied by the evolutionary incrementalism that is our great strength.

The problem that each party MUST solve is that each of these groups is necessary but not sufficient to success. Each party must be a broad enough coalition to not only get elected but also to govern, while at the same time not broadening into vague meaninglessness. As I've often told my Republican cohorts, without the moderates we have no brains and without the conservatives we have no soul.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 15, 2007 9:21 AM

The long term problem with the Republicans is that they know they will be buried under the demographic tidal wave of black and brown voters. Those black and brown voters will never vote Republicians and since they are growing as a percentage of the population relative to middle class whites(the baseof the Republicans) it is only a matter of time before the Republicans become irrelevent. The propose immigration reform just make the demographic changes come faster.

That is why very few people in the 20's are interested in Republican politics. There is just no future in it.

Posted by sherlock | June 15, 2007 9:29 AM

I don't buy into the concept that both parties face the same challenges. I think the fact that our courtrooms, classrooms and newsrooms are chock full of leftists is a reality we conservatives have to face. The liberals really don't have to deal with that - when you have the refs in your pocket, you really don't have to even bother with faking that you are playing by the rules.

The answer? I really wish I knew, but we need to grasp the reality of the situation.

And I want to add - the commenting process on this site is the worst of any I visit! When you hit post, things just STOP. There is no indication whatever that you have gotten the site's attention... it just sits there for minutes on end and does nothing.

To paraphrase someone famous: "Mr. Morrisey - tear down this posting system wall!"

Posted by syn | June 15, 2007 9:37 AM

I'm looking for the party which represents Individualism advocating power return to the Republic for which we stand. Everything else to me is Collectivism advocating Centrist government control.

Further, I don't believe there is such a thing as the 'moderate' voter, merely fence-sitters.

Last, all the domestic social issues should go back to the states so that the people can legislate their own policies rather than forced central government rule. This way ther federal government can focus on their primary duty, the protection and defense of the nation.

The New Deal created a miserable Great Society .

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 15, 2007 10:11 AM

I agree with Lew. He is not equating the two parties, but rather identifies the common struggle to strike the balance between ideology and process, extreme and moderate, is common to both and critical to both in the entirely numbers-driven electoral process. The issues are multifarious (esp. regarding the separate axes of social, economic, and foreign policy issues), and the margins of victory at the national level are generally narrow.

syn, I think it's ludicrous that you refuse to acknowledge moderates as anything more than fence-sitters. With as many issues as there are in play for contemporary national elections, it takes a pretty narrow mind to refuse to see the compromises inherent in most voters' minds. You are obviously pissed off about Ron Paul's obscurity.

However, it is interesting that there is ongoing uncertainty about just what the moderate electorate is - how big, shrinking, growing, etc. With all of the polling going on, a lot of mystery remains about what the so-called silent majority really looks like.

I will chime in about the posting system - it sucks. But I imagine Mr. Morrissey has heard it before.

Posted by howard lohmuller | June 15, 2007 10:11 AM

E.J. Dionne has been off of my reading list for some time. I find his writing uninspired and weakly argued much of the time. In fact he is a paid political hack with lack-luster creative ability.

Posted by RBMN | June 15, 2007 10:20 AM

Re: superdestroyer at June 15, 2007 9:21 AM

I think if you look hard the Republican/Democrat split, it's much more a traditional-family vs. nontraditional-family split. Is the black community leftist, generation after generation, because they're black, or because their families are broken? I think it's the later.

Posted by Mike | June 15, 2007 10:29 AM

If the current immigration bill passes it will be the end of the Republican party.

Posted by Lew | June 15, 2007 10:31 AM

The long term problem with the Republican Party is that we've accepted the definition of the political landscape that the liberals have laid out for us, and we keep trying to outdo them at their game and on their chosen battlefield.

The Liberal world that Harry Hopkins described is composed of a balkanized polyglot of racial and ethnic and gender and victimology based groups whose interests are obsequiously pandered to, in a constant effort to stay in power. And insofar as Republicans accept this definition of political reality, we will forever be constrained in our ability to succeed by our ability to out-pander our adversaries.

In order to survive as a major party, we need to change the definition of the arena in which the combat is conducted. We need to force our opponents into a situation where they are fighting on our ground and not theirs. We can do that by simply stating loudly and proudly that "I don't care what color you are or who your father was or what gender you are or what your sexual preference is! I don't care! I very much care about your ideas of limited government. I care very much about your ideas of personal responsibility and privacy and liberty and property."

The reason why we are so tied up in this so-called "Immigration Reform" issue, is because our political leadership is terrified of losing the Hispanic Vote if we dare enforce any laws against the free flow of illegal immigration. The fact that many Hispanic people may in fact have some of the same ideas and values that we do, completely escapes those at the top of the party and they couldn't care less. They've accepted the conventional definition of the political battlefield and they are committed to a strategy of out-pandering in a hopelessly vain effort to purchase Hispanic votes with a feckless venality that denies that we have a right to enforce our own borders.

We need to loudly proclaim that the "conventional wisdom" is hopelessly irrelevant and to start designing strategies around coalitions of ideas rather than coalitions of victim groups. Until we do that, we will be a permanently disgruntled minority who only gets in power when the other side screws up so badly that they become intolerable and then thrown out again when it becomes safe enough to go back to normal (e.g. Bill Clinton?). After all, Reagan's legacy was really that the Republican Party has a positive message and set of ideals of its own, not "we aren't them" ,and its long past time that we started building on that thought.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 15, 2007 10:43 AM


We can do that by simply stating loudly and proudly that "I don't care what color you are or who your father was or what gender you are or what your sexual preference is! I don't care! I very much care about your ideas of limited government. I care very much about your ideas of personal responsibility and privacy and liberty and property."

But that's just it, and that was the implication of your previous comment - if that was really what the GOP professed to stand for, they would lose a large and critical bloc of voters who very much care about sexual mores, and who do want intrusive government on that score. The libertarians they would pick up in the process would never make up their losses, and the Democrats would win. Also, that small government approach would stand in stark contrast to the actual track record of the GOP under the Bush administration. This is very much an electoral, demographic bind, not just a rhetorical one as you imply.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 15, 2007 11:00 AM


What Reagan did more than anything is take advantage of the white baby boomers getting old enough to have kids, homes, mortgages, and responsbiility. Those people, who interact with the government regularly and who have people and things to protect, were naturals for becoming Republicans.

However, that group, middle class whites who are married and work in the private sector, are shrinking as a percentage.

The idea that Republicans can get Hispanic or black voters with a message of lower taxes and smaller government is laughable.

What the U.S. is going to have to decide is how it will function as a one party state.

Posted by Nessus | June 15, 2007 11:03 AM

Go Laura go!!

White House spokesman Tony Snow ran into a little more than he perhaps was expecting when he appeared on The Laura Ingraham show, as she relentlessly asked the American public's No. 1 question: What is the U.S. government doing to stop the invasion from Mexico?

"Sixty-nine percent of Americans, 85 percent of the GOP, 55 percent of the Democrats want the border enforced," said Ingraham. "Does that affect you guys, or do you guys just blow it off?"

But Ingraham, who worked as a speechwriter for two years in the Reagan administration and later served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before launching "The Laura Ingraham Show" in 2001, wasn't letting him off the hook.

"Eight-five of the GOP doesn't like what the White House is doing on this," she said. "You're talking the base of this party."

"Tony, why don't people believe you?" she asked. "The majority of your party, people who voted for President Bush … They see the conservative coalition dissolving before their eyes."

Those efforts, he said, would demonstrate a commitment to securing the border.

"You keep repeating that, but nobody believes you," she said. "Nobody buys that this administration is serious about the border."

Posted by maverick muse | June 15, 2007 11:21 AM

So the moderate engineers need to cooperate with extremist ideologues, not merely functioning within the social status quo but aligning with the magnetic pull of ideal directives. At least in Texas, one can witness how cohesively the Democrats pull together while the Republicans infight over who is King of the Hill. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

An observer might conclude:
1) Democrats fall in line as do Satan's minions, snark;
2) Republicans have yet to value the legacy of The Alamo, the same legacy of the American Revolution--uphold legal immigration; uphold the individual's legal property rights that must be protected by ALL in a unified front, regardless of battle outcome, persist to eventual victory, unified individuals will sacrifice until that principal in secure, willing to suffer on behalf of their families and posterity.

The Republican Party MUST define its platform. The platform is the means of binding members together to function. Define the platform, idealogues. Engineers, prove your credentials with strategy and tactics. Then, once melded together, all recognize and accomplish their specific part.

The US President heads his party, but that does not entitle the President to dump the party platform once elected. The Republican Party needs a clearly defined official platform.

Posted by Bill Faith | June 15, 2007 11:24 AM

Short answer to why the Republican Party's future looks grim: Alienation

Posted by Lew | June 15, 2007 11:28 AM


I agree with you that simply adopting Libertarian ideas is not going to get the job done because there are a large number of those in both parties who are against intrusive government unless the government intrudes on their side of the debate. But that's always going to be the case no matter what ideas we all coalesce around.

We do however, have a perfectly satisfactory solution to that problem ready at hand - its called federalism. Basically, Republicans are very comfortable with the idea that if government is going to do something intrusive or stupid (is that a redundancy?) that it should be done at the lowest level of government possible. One that the average citizen feels able to address directly and with some effect as an individual. In other words, the level of government furthest from the people, should be the one most constrained and limited in the range of its legitimate functions. That's an idea that can appeal to a wider range of people who see government as just another all purpose problem-solving agency. Do it local and you can do whatever you can talk your neighbors into doing with you. Then you can gain the benefit or suffer the consequences of your decisions without oppressing and robbing people in other localities who don't agree with you.

The actual track record of the GOP, as you put it, is a result of their acceptance of the status quo as defined by our adversaries. But the point that I'm trying to make is far more than just rhetorical, its fundamental to thinking about the way we define reality in our own minds before we even begin to design strategies. Its about starting to ask ourselves the right questions rather than looking for the right answers to the same old questions. Its about commissioning polls to find out how many Americans really believe in private property or limited federal government or judicial restraint or the sanctity of human life or a whole host of ideas. Its about assembling coalitions of ideas rather than coalitions of victim groups.

Posted by Jay | June 15, 2007 11:41 AM

Michael Goodwin is a columnist for the New York Daily News

"Baloney is on sale in Washington, and Bush is the Butcher-in-Chief. Who is to blame for the “unacceptable” status quo other than the man who has been president for 6 1/2 years? As for the notion that what he really wants to do is enforce border laws, what’s stopping him? There are already plenty of laws against entering the country illegally.

The first president to hold an MBA is giving management a bad name. That he is, post 9/11, MIA in shutting the border is malpractice on a grand scale.

That Bush won’t enforce the most basic security measures — your identity must be certain and you need a visa to enter the United States and authorization to work — is why the immigration bill that died last week should rest in peace. Bush called it “comprehensive,” but that just means that different aspects would satisfy different special-interest groups. Instead of solving problems, it would sprinkle fairy dust and declare them solved."

Posted by Lew | June 15, 2007 12:04 PM


Assuming for a moment that your analysis of Reagan's appeal has merit, are you asserting that there is some inherent difference between a "white" family with "kids, homes, mortgages, and responsibility." and "people and things to protect", and a similarly situated "black or brown" family? Are you saying that the determinative fact in political allegiance is race or skin color?

Because if that's your argument, then that's exactly the same as saying that anyone "not white" is incapable of caring about all those things with the same urgency as someone "white". Do you really want to go down that road?

If there is anything to be learned from the last 250 years of history, its that racial and ethnic stereotypes are loaded with so much danger that they really should be handled with lead-lined gloves and stored away in very deep caves somewhere. And if you wish to base your party on that kind of notion, and seek your "permanent" majority on such insanities, then have at it and good luck to you all. I want my party to leave that sort of poison in the dust bin where it belongs.

Posted by james23 | June 15, 2007 12:06 PM

There is nothing wrong with the Republican party that a thorough purge of its arrogant and horribly incompetent leadership ranks won't cure! Bush is on his way out--thank goodness--as are many GOP Senators, come November 08.

Posted by onlineanalyst | June 15, 2007 12:18 PM

Republicans have allowed the Democrats to define them, and the media promote that template.

Republicans also miss golden opportunities to hold up to ridicule the nonsense spewed by Dem leaders and their programs for utopia. Simply demonstrating what will be given up in terms of freedom, choice, self-determination, and discretionary money after paying huge taxes would go a long way to energizing a party base.

Fred Thompson is the only leader so far who is seizing the new media outlets-- the Internet, YouTube, radio programs and talk radio, and blog outlets-- to shape a message that appeals to the American public. His appeal crosses party lines and will probably shake up the coming election.

Posted by BoWowBoy | June 15, 2007 12:29 PM

I agree more with your summation Captain .... more so than with Dionne's (do you ever wonder if that guy will ever run out of identifying problems for Republicans .......??).

However .......I think the real problem for the Republican Party .......is a numbers problem .......and ....the way things are shaping up ....it is gonna get a whole lot worse ....but fast.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | June 15, 2007 1:14 PM

RE: onlineanalyst (June 15, 2007 12:18 PM)

Thompson, like Newt, is taking a different tack and it does set him apart. However, I think many are projecting a bit onto him what they want to believe. I think we need to wait and a) see where his voting record leads us, and b) see him debate live rather than after hours when the spotlight isn't quite as intense. He's in a honeymoon period that won't last forever. He's mouthing the right words, but I want to see how that correlates with his record. brooklyn has mentioned previously that Thompson was pretty close to McCain on quite a few issues. If that's the case, he's likely a dead ender to the (middle|far) Right.

Here's another thing that concerns me. He is getting support from the Bush family. I find such an endorsement risky because a) haven't we all had enough with the Bush and Clinton political machines, and b) moderate voters could see Thompson as an extension of the status quo, something the polls tell us the public really doesn't want. Bush and Congress are testing historical lows.

Key Bush backers rally to Fred Thompson

George P. Bush, a nephew of President Bush, has contributed to the prospective presidential campaign of Fred Thompson and signed an e-mail asking friends and associates to do the same, The Politico has learned.


The involvement of a Bush family member highlights a stream of former Bush-Cheney aides and supporters who are signing on with Thompson, in some cases quietly...

(George P. Bush, son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, is the chief operating officer of a real estate development firm in Fort Worth, Texas)

Part of F. Thompson's team:

Head of Economic Policy - Lawrence B. Lindsey, President Bush's first economic policy adviser and an architect of his tax cuts

Head of Domestic Policy - David M. McIntosh, lawyer and former congressman from Indiana who was an official in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations

Chief Operating Officer - Thomas J. Collamore, former aide to the older Bush when he was VP

To me Bush associations are a negative both for political reasons and my evolved disapproval of his Presidency. I'd like to see Thompson cut the cord and test his viability with a new machine.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 15, 2007 1:49 PM


When blacks for Democrats at more than 90%, then it would appear that race/culture/ethnicity affects voting much more than other factors. All of the Democrats know this but have made it off limits to talk about since they benefit from it.

The Republicans have to face the problem of either getting a significant portion of the Hispanics/black vote or becoming irrelevent. My guess is that the Republicans will become irrelevent.

Reagan managed to win a higher percentage of the blue collar white and the previous Country Club Republicans. He also caused the republicans to win House and Senate seats.

If you think the same appeal will appeal to blacks that appeals to whites, then be prepared to be in aprty that is an insignifcant factor in politics.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 15, 2007 1:57 PM


The actual track record of the GOP, as you put it, is a result of their acceptance of the status quo as defined by our adversaries.

Republicans have allowed the Democrats to define them, and the media promote that template.

That's a very thin argument. The GOP refashioned itself practically from whole cloth under the current admin. They lost their grasp on what got them into power and rapidly became debased not by the dems or the media, but by their own electoral success through cobbling together an unsustainable coalition of social and economic conservatives (an oversimplification, but that's the jist of it).

Federalism is not just rhetoric, but to the current GOP that's all it may as well be. They will have trouble finding their way back. Again, look at Ron Paul - he is a firebrand, and a pretty adept one, in the libertarian, federalist vein. And he is all but out of the running. That's not a personal criticism from me. Frankly, I find it difficult to discern what any of the candidates are about, other than say Paul and Kucinich.

Posted by richard mcenroe | June 15, 2007 2:11 PM

Why the extra 'h' in 'wither'?

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | June 15, 2007 2:13 PM

A complete discussion of the problems the GOP has brought upon itself would consume enough bandwidth to bring the Internet to its knees.

The irony of the Republicans' position is exquisite. The opposition party is financed by a billionaire plutocrat (George Soros), has a half-century-long track record of crooked politicians in top positions (Murtha, Reid, William Jefferson, Mollohan, both Clintons). has murders (Kennedy), sexual predators (William Jefferson Clinton), racists (Robert Byrd, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus), conspiracy wackos (John Edwards, so-called "Truthers"), and Jew-baiters (Carter) among its most prominent members. The opposition party has lost a major war (Vietnam) and is working overtime to lose in Iraq. When not aiding our enemies, Democrats sat around while the Soviet Empire and al Qaeda grew unchecked. When you add in Democrat addiction to higher taxes, wasteful spending programs, and failed ventures such as the "New Deal" and the "Great Society", this should be a cakewalk for the GOP.

Yet it is the GOP that is facing electoral disaster next year.

The GOP under Bush has transformed itself into the Democrat-Lite Party. Bush spends tax money like a drunken Senator, fights a slow-motion self-handicapped war in Iraq, pushes amnesty for illegals, and bashes his friends while groveling before his critics. It's no wonder that Bush's poll numbers will soon drop down to Harry Reid's microscopic level. When voters are given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat-Lite, the Democrat usually wins.

Posted by Monkei | June 15, 2007 2:18 PM

I love this time of year. It's the time all the little fawns come out to play, the new little birds are beginning to fly and the GOP begins eating its own! Life newed!

Posted by The Yell | June 15, 2007 2:29 PM

Dionne wonders why the Party doesn't rally around extending the Bush tax cuts. Because they promised that, and failed to deliver the Republican votes to do so. Likewise so many other issues for which people rallied around for years. And they refuse to dump the fifth column. The Party of Reagan is now also the party of Specter, Lott, Hastert, McCain, Snowe, Voinvonich. And damnation to anybody who objects!

Posted by Carol Herman | June 15, 2007 2:43 PM

"Infuriating the base," Captain? I think that misses the bigger picture! There's a country-full of angry Americans right now. Angrier, even, than they were at LBJ and Nixon, combined.

That "wimp" insignia that TIME once whipped out and pasted on Bush senior? Seems the son also has a similar case of lacking testicular fortitude.

And, today, Mark Steyn is spot on, when he called Trent Lott one of those "overweight emirs of Incumbant-stan." Steyn spells it better.

But ya know what? Sane people among the palestinians are lying low. Just as we'd see a similar effect in congress. Where there are fat asses worried about getting re-confirmed, when they go out there, among the masses. Looking for votes.

By the way, isn't it something that the current headlines, today, especially if you look at the Harry Reid story; has supplanted the "sexy leg" C-BS stuck out of their eye. Or as Dan Rather said: They "tarted up the news."


Sure, Bush will miss the mark on June 24th.

And, in Israel? Olmert is very busy holding onto his chair. Some even say he's NOT gonna give Barak "defense." Since, between Olmert, Peres, and Barak, you'd be hard put to find anyone putting faith in this "team."

Lucky for the Israelis that gazoo fell apart on its own steam. While in financial news, breaking today, it seems the same holds true for the New Yuk Times. Losing more money in revenues than they're making off of the Internet. (If you didn't know they bought shovels to dig internet profits, you could learn something new every day.)

Posted by Maverick Muse | June 15, 2007 2:56 PM

Steer clear of the status quo political practice of promoting a candidate prior to cinching the platform! Demand first things first--FOUNDATION!


Politicking per candidate prior to politicking for platform perpetuates the gross status quo that repels votes.

Anyway, "front runner" voting records are emblazed already. Fred, great guy that he may well be, is only a recognized face/name due to his media career. As a single term Senator, there won't be a long voting trail. That his "record" isn't already emblazened implies lack of position, considering his huge media coverage.

Bandwagons are a fool's paradise; you end up electing another straw man politician. Voters/people are significantly interested in learning more about what the MSM either derides or ignores. When EVERYONE simultaneously knee jerks and then smothers something in an emotional mob reaction, irrational rationalization is unstable and untrustworthy. Without languishing in self hate, admitting one's faults is the first step to improving one's strengths, followed by re-enforced intelligent efforts. Ron Paul is known for his clean and clear approach. HIs website doesn't yet clarify how he would handle Iraq or terrorism in '08 if elected. One reads simply that he opposed this war as he opposes entering into war based upon UN sanctions vs. US Constitutional provisions for war. Ron Paul's conservative voting record is impeccable. Google for yourselves.

Posted by MarkJ | June 15, 2007 4:13 PM

E. J. Dionne: Living proof that being an empirically demonstrable idiot is no bar to making a handsome living as an op-ed columnist at a major metropolitan newspaper.

Posted by Carol Herman | June 15, 2007 4:24 PM

Not all the trees in the forest look the same. Even when you talk about "one forest."

Lots of the congress critters have different agendas. You begin by understanding that only the presidency requires the cooperation between states. Everything else is not just "local." But the issues OF the states, themselves.

And, different breeds get elected in all the assorted different places.

To put this to the test, when Hillary chose to run as a senator from New York; do you really think she could'a done this from just about any place? 'Cause I don't think so.

Today, there's a fight ON. It's between the angry old media. And, the idiots like Trent Lott. Trent's got his own headline, now, up at Drudge ... Where he says America's Talk Radio is the problem.

Lott's hemmorhoids should cause him more problems; than just people who tune in radio, ya know?

But Lott let out a stink that lets you know there are congress critters, (as Mark Steyn calls them: Fat emirs used to their perks in Incumba-stan.

When I see angers flare? Hmm. Its the same as when the neighbors next door go tearing into each other. I assume they're just not happy.

Now, why would Trent Lott not be happy, hmm?

It seems he very much likes McCain. Months back the two of them formed a "partnership." Profits, though, must have slid off the page? Because no matter what Lott does to puff up his end of the deal with McCain; you just know McCain's not near the winner's circle. For 2008.

So, how many "investments" can politico's make? At some point, there you are. With your deals. While the crowds went elsewhere. And, your own popularity hangs in the balance.

Now, I will give the senators credit. Most of them know a thing or two about the limelight. They know how to get in front of the cameras. And, they make sure their plastic surgeons and their barbers cover over all signs of age. These folks are not like good wines! They want to look young. And, happy. Forever.

At least at all times when they're standing in front of the curtain.

Now, more precisely put. The biggest problem to the GOP is Dubya. Sometimes, you see his positions, and you just wonder why.

You mean with things blowing up in Hamastan, for instance, Bush still thinks Israel has to "give up stuff" to make Abbas look relevant? Well, you know that's coming, don't cha?

So, there's your problem.

Most of the time we should be surprised by the events that unroll. But here? Same old. Same old. No matter what happens in the real world.

Hell, when Abbas got the headline saying he was desolving the "unity" schmoonity government. Out comes Haniyeh and says: "You need to have a government to dissolve it." Ain't what the facts are on the ground, either.

While DEBKA says the Fatah have not only been destroyed in gazoo; but ALL THE SECRETS, since the early 1970's ... were in the files that Hamas just took.

No encryptions?

Just a loss of all those "secret" contacts?

Seems Bush hasn't figured it out, yet. But he got screwed.

No. I just can't believe there is no Plan B.

Nor do I know how Bush will get treated when the GOP holds its nominating convention. Why even assume Bush would even be an invited guest?

Why assume that INSIDE CONGRESSIONAL CRITTERS offices, this stuff isn't even bantied about the water cooler?

You mean elected officials don't gossip?

Only Judge Waltoon got hot under the collar?

If good stories are in the details; what's missing isthat the old media lost its way. And, hasn't been much of a delivery system, beyond its own propaganda.

Can't fool me. I knew Rock Hudson was a homosexual. Hype really doesn't sell.

And, since not all congress critters are the same. And, some of them really do have safe seats, from their own home towns ... What's at stake is of greater influence. They can't pitch for the pro's.

Posted by poodlemom | June 15, 2007 4:33 PM

I'm with Anonymous Drivel at this point. I'm leaning toward Rudy, but I started getting very interested in Fred......UNTIL I saw the Bush supporters jumping on his bandwagon!!

I remember a while back when it was mentioned the Bush family might put a 3rd family member into the Oval Office, George P. P's mom is hispanic; I guess there are hopes he'll carry the family banner for a new generation.

After Dubya's betrayal (yes, I feel betrayed); I'll do everything I can to make certain another Bush never, ever sits in the WH.

Posted by Nick Byram | June 15, 2007 5:06 PM

Assuming for a moment that your analysis of Reagan's appeal has merit, are you asserting that there is some inherent difference between a "white" family with "kids, homes, mortgages, and responsibility." and "people and things to protect", and a similarly situated "black or brown" family? Are you saying that the determinative fact in political allegiance is race or skin color?

Lew, I think the problem is that there ARE NOT ENOUGH similarly situated black or brown families, given the Leftist welfare state's agenda.

What's worse, Bush's immigration policies are downright suicidal, importing more people into that welfare state. We want to reduce dysfunctional poverty (the Democrat voting base)? Well, then STOP IMPORTING IT (THEM)!

"If that's your argument, then that's exactly the same as saying that anyone "not white" is incapable of caring about all those things with the same urgency as someone "white". Do you really want to go down that road?

I don't, but unfortunately the Left has foisted this ugly "identity politics" on us. The OJ Simpson trial, and its aftermath, was a real eye-opener.

And frankly, it's time to fight back. When the Left plays its ugly race cards, it's time for Republicans to play them right back. They make up lies about us burning down black churches? We reply with the truth about them burning down Korean stores and nearly killing blue collar white truck drivers.

And make no mistake about it: the immigration fiasco is what is killing the GOP. The Wall Street Journal cheap labor greedheads, and the Bushyrovie fools who think they can out (His)pander the Pandering Party, are to blame.

Posted by onlineanalyst | June 15, 2007 5:53 PM

Ron Paul is the spoiler (like Ross Perot before him) who will send the vote over to another Clinton. Perish the thought!

Sometimes I think that it is the "progressives" who drop by conservative blogs who are promoting Paul to create a divisiveness. At any rate, Paul does not have the cachet to win the national election

On the other hand, the undecided fence sitters and Independents probably could be persuaded to vote for Fred Thompson over any of the top-tier Dem contenders. Fred's political philosopy, message, and delivery would resonate with the majority of the voters.

Fred Thompson is a member of the Federalist Society, I believe. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to be "bought" by anyone. Any negatives from a Bush association, which I do not believe he has sought, would be shed quite easily. Thompson appears to be his own man, comfortable in his own skin. One only has to hear his radio talks or read his speeches to learn his governing principles.

At any rate, since Fred Thompson has not officially thrown his hat into the ring, the discussion is moot. Romney and Guiliani with their executive experience are much better contenders for the presidency than what the Dems are pandering with. I could live with either if Fred were part of the mix, too.
(Actually, I like Guiliani as AG in a Republican cabinet.) All three appear to have strong senses of fiscal responsibility and dedication to our national defense.

Posted by gaffo | June 15, 2007 9:48 PM

"problem with the Republican Party is that we've accepted the definition of the political landscape that the liberals have laid out for us...........blah blah blah."


one word - IRAQNAM!

if not for the above you guys would have had a 30-yr MAJORITY!.

Dems were in the decline and ON THE ROPES. Had teh boy king had the wisdom to NOT bite off more than he could chew - being stopped at Afghanistan - he and his party would have 70-percent aprovel and the Republicans would have won 2006 in a LANDSLIDE!


and now thankfully the Dems are no longer history and YOU GUY SOON WILL BE!!

serves you right - arrogance should not be rewarded.

BTW - anyone with half a brain could have seen all the above and would have never invaded Iraqnam had they been a Republican.

but the boy king is both dumb and arrogant so he didn't have a chance.


oh ya - in conclusion - the Repug party is screwed since they were attached to the hip with the boy king and Iraqnam is THEIR WAR.

so stop crying like pusses and don't bother with damage control - TOO LATE for that.

just take your lumps and get used to 30-years of minority status - not shit you can do about it ;-).

Posted by Joe | June 15, 2007 11:01 PM

Basically the gop has become the party of the deep South. Old,white, racist men. Then you wonder why your party is in deep decline? You support the debacle in Iraq because thats what "tough guys"do. Pathetic. Now you people rip on Bush, but when democrats do it its BDS. Nice double standards there. Then you dumb asses think all democrats are "leftists"....another brain-dead analogy. The gop is the fringe in this country, Bush comes across as a clown. Your other 2 leaders, McConnell and Lott, good ole boys from Dixie, I'm sure that does wonders for the partys image. Lets see, Democrats, ethnically diverse, progressive thinkers, humanitarians. GOP.... closet racists, corporate rapers attacking the middle class, see a problem yet neo-nuts?

Posted by Monkei | June 16, 2007 7:55 AM

Immigration Issues is just a GOP tagline to help people forget the debacle they created and continue to feed in Iraq.

Posted by The Yell | June 16, 2007 3:58 PM

>>Immigration Issues is just a GOP tagline to help people forget the debacle they created and continue to feed in Iraq.

Clever of them to coopt Ted Kennedy then. And the way Iraq stays top-story? Brilliant.

>>he and his party would have 70-percent aprovel and the Republicans would have won 2006 in a LANDSLIDE!

Doubtful. They had the brilliant idea that the permanent Republican majority meant proclaiming goals and never achieving them. They still do, sadly.

>>just take your lumps and get used to 30-years of minority status - not shit you can do about it ;-).

Doubly doubtful-- the 'moderate' jackasses in the saddle won't live that long.

>>Lets see, Democrats, ethnically diverse, progressive thinkers, humanitarians.

That must the row sitting behind the Pelosi, Murtha, Obey, Durbin, Reid, Schumer, Biden, Waxman photop.

>>Now you people rip on Bush, but when democrats do it its BDS.

When Bush says something stupid like "America needs to import labor" then we say "Gee Bush said something stupid." When Bush says something dishonest like "These people don't want what's right for America" we say "Gee that was dishonest of Bush."
BDS is saying "Katrina. Iraq. Imus. SEE THE PATTERN????"

In 1911 during the Agadir crisis the French fired their pro-British foriegn minister and went to Berlin with a smile and a outstretched hand. To their horror they realized their foriegn policy troubles had nothing to do with their internal politics and everything to do with angry foriegn bastards. A couple of months into the new Clinton Administration you'd have the same cold douche. Sure, the "global community" resents Bush. They also resent US Navy tsunami relief efforts under the US flag and not the UN blue. And those are our "allies".