Posted on 04/03/2005 4:15:09 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Anyone would think it was the Republicans who'd lost the 2004 elections, and the 2002 elections, and the 2000 elections. From every corner, concerned "friends" of the party rise to offer "friendly" advice. Norman Lear, who produced all those critically acclaimed issue-confronting heroine-gets-an-abortion '70s sitcoms that seem a lot more dated than ''The Beverly Hillbillies'' these days, has now produced a People For the American Way ad in which a man who identifies himself as a "common sense Republican" objects to any attempt to end the Democratic filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees. As things turn out, the "common sense Republican" has so much common sense he's an official with a union that endorsed John Kerry.
Then there's the 59 striped-pants colossi of the Nixon-Ford-Reagan State Department who've sent a letter to the Senate calling on them to reject John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador. According to the Associated Press report, the signatories include:
"Princeton Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations; and Spurgeon Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration."
Princeton Lyman? Monteagle Stearns? Spurgeon Keeny Jr.? If Norman Lear's shows had wacky characters like that, they'd still be in syndication. It's a good rule of thumb that anything 59 economists, bureaucrats or diplomats are prepared to sign an open letter objecting to is by definition a good thing. But that goes double when the 59 panjandrums lined up against you are Princeton Monteagle Jr., President Nixon's ambassador to the Spurgeon Islands; Spurgeon Monkfish III, President Ford's ambassador to the Lyman Islands; Dartmouth Monticello IV, President Johnson's personal emissary to His Serene Highness the Monteagle of Keeny; Columbia Long-Playing-Album, the first diplomat to be named by President Carter to the State Department's Name Control Agency; and Vasser Peachy-Keeny, the first woman to be named Vasser Peachy-Keeny. One sees their point, of course: Let a fellow called "John" Bolton become ambassador and next thing you know Earl and Bud will want the gig.
Even Sen. John Danforth, who should know better, got in on the act, taking half a page in the New York Times to give the Full Monteagle to the "religious right." Blog maestro Andrew Sullivan decided that America was witnessing a "conservative crack-up" over Terri Schiavo and the embrace of her cause by extreme right wing fundamentalist theocrat zealots like, er, Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader. Sullivan was last predicting a "conservative crack-up" during the impeachment era, on the grounds (if I recall correctly) that Republican moralizing would dramatically cut into Strom Thurmond's share of the gay vote. In the '90s, the Weekly Standard ran innumerable special editions devoted to the subject: Conservative Crack-Up; Conservative Crack-Up 2; Conservative Crack-Up -- The Musical; Abbott And Costello Meet The Conservative Crack-Up; Conservative Crack-Up On Elm Street; Four Weddings And A Conservative Crack-Up; Rod Stewart Sings Timeless Favorites From The Great Conservative Crack-Up, etc.
The point to bear in mind when Hollywood producers, State Department diplomats, respected senators, gay mavericks, the New York Times and the rest of the media offer conservatives advice is a simple one: As that great self-esteem volume has it, He's Really Not That Into You. The preferred media Republican is an amiable loser: the ne plus ultra of GOP candidates was the late Fred Tuttle, the lame, wizened idiot dairy farmer put up for a joke against Sen. Patrick Leahy in Vermont. But, if they can't get that lucky, the media will gladly take a Bob Dole type, a decent old no-hoper who goes down to predictable defeat and gets rave reviews for being such a good loser. Republicans could well run into trouble in 2006 and 2008, but for being insufficiently conservative on things like immigration rather than for anything the media claim they're cracking up over.
The notion, for example, that poor Terri Schiavo will cost Republicans votes in a year and a half's time is ludicrous. The best distillation of the pro-Schiavo case was made by James Lileks, the bard of Minnesota, responding to the provocateur Christopher Hitchens' dismissal of her as a "non-human entity." "It is not wise," wrote Lileks, "to call people dead before they are actually, well, dead. You can be 'as good as dead' or 'brain dead' or 'close to death,' but if the heart beats and the chest rises, I think we should balk at saying this constitutes dead, period."
Just so. Once you get used to designating living, breathing bodies as "non-human entities," it's easy to bandy them ever more carelessly -- as they do in the eminently progressive Netherlands, where their relaxed attitude to pot and prostitution led to a relaxed attitude to euthanasia which looks like relaxing the Dutch people right out of business. It's all done quietly over there -- no fuss, no publicity; you go in to hospital with a heavy cold and you're carried out by the handles. (By "handles," I mean a coffin, not a ceremonial phalanx of Monteagles and Princetons.) But that's not the American way. This is a legalistic society, where grade schools can't have kids knocking a ball around without getting a gazillion dollars worth of liability insurance. I was in Price Chopper the other day and they had a little basket of Easter samples on display accompanied by a page of full print outlining the various sub-clauses of the company's "tasting policy." That's America. In Holland, you can taste a cookie without signing a legal waiver, and, if you get food poisoning from it, the doctor will discreetly euthanize you to avoid putting your family through the trauma of waiting six hours for the stomach pump to become available. That's not how the American cookie crumbles. Euthanasia here will be a 10-year court culminating in slow-motion public execution played out on the 24-hour cable channels.
The Republicans did the right thing here, and they won't be punished for it by the electors. As with abortion, this will be an issue where the public moves slowly but steadily toward the conservative position: Terri Schiavo's court-ordered death will not be without meaning. As to "crack-ups," that's only a neurotic way of saying that these days most of the intellectual debate is within the right. If, like the Democrats, all you've got are lockstep litmus tests on race and abortion and all the rest, what's to crack up over? You just lose elections every two years, but carry on insisting, as Ted Kennedy does, that you're still the majority party. Ted's quite a large majority just by himself these days, but it's still not enough.
They you're giving up. (I'm taking that to mean you won't vote for ANY Pubs)
No, if fact I say that about Dems
There is life after the GOP. You just have to believe me.
Oh, I believe you
Consider it a act of faith.
It's an act of great faith.
The first step is to stop drinking the koolaide.
Now, what the heck does that mean?
I have no intention of giving up but I will not vote for people I have very serious doubts.
Neither will I but you are saying ALL Pubs which includes people like Delay & Santorum.
The credibility of GOP politicians is very much in doubt.
I look at the GOP as a means, not an end. There are a lot of weak, corrupt people who are Republicans.
It is your right to do so, but it amazes me how many seem to consider it also their right to deny me mine.
How is attempting to get you to change your view, denying you a right?
There are third parties just as the GOP was once a third party.
Third parties hurt conservatives. Think Ross Perot or Washington State.
More GOP Senators will not make a difference
More conservative senators will and even replacing radical leftist Dems with moderate Pubs will.
What good will that do when the judges the GOP picks turn out as bad as the Dims.
That's a point but the solution isn't third party. The solution is to pressure leglislatures to take on judges as they tried to with Terri's case.
Ping
I don't. I see a tough fight and us winning battles that we would have lost 20 years ago.
Think Ross Perot . . .What conservatives are you talking about.
The ones who would have preferred a Scalia or Thomas, to a Ginsburg or Breyer -- not even considering the appeals courts.
The problem as I see it is the politicians CLAIM to be conservative then do nothing . . .
No politician is going to do what you want all the time. Even Reagan compromised. You have a grudge against Santorum. Fine. I'm not going to hold one thing he did with which I disagree against him. Doing so is a recipe for failure. Most of the politicians that claim to be conservative generally are -- and certainly more so than the ones that claim to be liberal.
You have noticed she is dead, haven't you?
Yeah, I did. We have a cultural war on our hands. Refusing to vote for any Pub is a sure way of losing it. Would you leave FR because of some of the pro-death people here?
Unless their lack of action result in Dems taking office.
I never thought that you would not.
Try to be an adult when and if you answer.....
I never thought that you would not.
Try to be an adult when and if you answer.....
You must be thrilled with your opinions on this matter!
Bull. A slow train to Auschwitz is not morally superior to the express. A politician who says he is in favor of abortion is bad. A politician who says he is pro life but does the same as the pro choice politician is also bad, maybe more so because he deceives in addition to his other errors. If you vote for a pro choice but deceiving politician who wins you think you have made a moral decision, but if I vote for a pro life and honest politician that loses you wish to blame me for taking away a vote from the deceiver. The failure in your argument is the presumption I take anything away from anyone. The vote is mine, it will go to whom I deem fit. Give me someone I can vote for and the vote will follow, but you continue to rely on empty words. I keep telling you the same thing over and over, it just is not good enough. If the GOP acts the vote will follow. I am at a lost to get this through. May I recommend you think about it some more. I will say it one more time, if the GOP makes real progress in implementing the conservative agenda my vote will follow. Every time you come back to me unsatisfied you tell me you do not really believe they will ever do that, on some level you don't think they ever will. Every time you come back to me unsatisfied you add credibility to my theory.
Only if you've given up. If you an ounce of hope of stopping the train you want it to be slow.
I keep telling you the same thing over and over,
Exacly. You've given up. You've quit. You've surrendered. It's hopeless. Oh woe is me, oh woe is me.
You are not acting well.
You cast aspersions on others, but never answer a meaningful question.
Try answering a question for once.
I'm not pressuring you, I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from. You say you're not going to vote for ANY Pubs then say you hope the GOP changes between now and 2006. How to do you propose to pressure them if they've already lost your vote?
You want to pressure a particular candidate or seek to have a strategy to advance a cause, fine. Let me know and I might sign on.
The goal is not to save the Pubs but to inculcate a culture of life, and political activism is only a part of it -- and not the most important part.
But to hold a grudge or seek to punish is unwise.
Further, electing moderates is not necessarily unproductive. These people have their finger in the air. Kennedy, Gephardt & Daschle all started as pro-lifers. The culture in general led by big media gave them the cover to show their insincerity.
If the culture changes you'll start seeing the moderates going the other way.
Which means that those of us who want to advance the pro-life cause have to change the culture and get rid of the die-hard pro-deathers, not the moderates.
No I will not vote for Pubs. The reason I gave is because I no longer trust them. If they do things that restore that trust the vote will follow. I have also given examples of what I mean on this thread. It is your party not mine, come up with what you think is best. I am not a big fan of wet fingers so please spare me that. Like I said do what you think is best.
I've never trusted a politician. It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of holding them accountable.
Then do so. I will as well. You will just have to deal with the manner I chose to do so. Remember it is my vote to cast for whom I please. It is presumptive to suggest it BELONGS to the GOP and some sort of "taking away" from them should it go to a third party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.