Posted on 01/25/2008 7:58:07 AM PST by jdm
Peggy Noonan aims her considerable cannon at George Bush this morning in the Wall Street Journal in the middle of her analysis of the primaries. She fingers him as the main culprit in the destruction of the Republican Party, discounting other and perhaps better causes and engaging in just a little hyperbole:
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I love Peggy Noonan's commentary, but this is a little over the top. The party has lost exactly one national cycle in the last four. I don't consider them dead after a single setback, and anyone who does appears more interested in garnering attention than in providing trenchant analysis.
It doesn't mean we don't have trouble, but Noonan's wrong to lay the whole thing on Bush. While it's true that he hasn't provided much in the way of fiscal discipline, he didn't run for office as a Steve Forbes conservative, either. He spoke of compassionate conservatism, a code for big-government approaches for center-right policies, and he delivered. Bush talked about working on bipartisan solutions to national issues, and he pretty much did that before the Iraq war turned sour. Republicans elected Bush knowing what they were going to get, and Noonan can't seriously claim shock over the result.
The seeds of Republican discontent took root in Congress, not the executive. It was the succession of Republican Congresses that refused to cut spending, and instead blew wads of cash on non-defense discretionary spending. Bush led in some of these efforts, but he didn't multiply pork exponentially; that came from House and Senate Republicans. He didn't climb into bed with K Street, either -- that project started before Bush ever arrived at the White House with Tom DeLay and others.
It may be fashionable for Republicans to cast all blame on the President, but that falsely absolves those who created the problems that plague us at the moment. It may also sound rhetorically spectacular to declare the party "destroyed" by having its constituent coalitions debate about its direction, but it's both inaccurate and hyperbolic. It's not unusual for parties to have these debates -- and maybe if we'd had it in 2000, we would have elevated leaders more supportive of traditional Republican fiscal discipline rather than just blindly supported the people who threw that legacy in the wastebin.
I think most of these columnists and pundits need to look in the mirror. Noonan, Barnes, Krauthammer and the ilk.
I don’t see them doing anything productive for the Republican party.
No they are not doing anything productive beside talking crap. Seriously what make those people opinion or analysis better or more accurate than the analysis of many on FR?
I voted for Bush, as did my friends (both of them), to keep Gore out. Had I known "compassionate conservatism" was socialism, I would have stayed home. Bush's stand on amnesty and his quick jump into bed with Kennedy was enough to turn me against him.
That is such a brilliant statement.
Although I can sit back and think of a lot of good things the Pubbies have done, they've hit the raw nerve in every one of their constituencies, and the congress, with their insane spending on bridges to nowhere, etc, caused a bunch of it.
There's one other thing to remember, though. Winston Churchill was kicked out of office in 1945, right after World War II. The US has gone seven years without another successful terror attack by the Islamists. People don't believe they're a threat anymore, and aren't worried about security. People can bitch about him all they want, but I thank God he was our president on 9/11.
I’m sure I don’t know. I’m weary of all of them.
” Aside from two good SC Judges,”
And let’s not forget that he originally nominated his secretary! I mean, come on!!
“Bush43 looked forward “to seeing us in the rose garden” for his signing into law the McCain/Kennedy/Bush Shamnesty act of 2007”
After telling us that anyone who opposed it “didn’t want what was best for America.” I believe I was new here at that point, fuming mad, and openly wishing we had a President Cheney instead.
Exactly. Any political party is a combination of factions which have varying degrees of influence at different times. To blame it all on one person is childish.
There are indeed factions, and if you don't believe that, then you will be totally clueless and in absolute wonderment after the election. If we lose, and we may, the finger pointing will begin in earnest, and it will not be pretty.
When it is over, you will indeed know. Perhaps for the first time, you will see the factions clearly.
Since you have said nothing of substance yet, I cannot tell what faction you hail from, but I'll take a guess that you may be a social conservative but I don't know or care. They seem to be the most oblivious of the other factions and have essentially pissed them all off. If we lose the election, the socials had better find a new home, because the party will go to every length and use every means to eliminate what it is going to see as a problem. The country clubber rebubs (not so conservative) have been trying to rid the party of social conservatives for many years. If we lose, or if Huckabee causes any more problems, the other two factions of the Conservative right will join the country clubbers in a fight that will not end until the party looks like they want it to be.
This fight has been suppressed, mostly by Reagan when he managed to get them all together, but in recent years, and the lack of a leader who can get everyones respect, the animosity has once again broken through. This time it will go the distance, I guarantee.
If you are not a social conservative, then you must be a Rush baby. Rush strings together a mixture of fiscal, security hawk and social conservatism and he does this to appeal to all three factions. If he did not, one third or two thirds of his audience would be PO'd after every show.
There are not all that many conservatives who are 100% in sync with all three legs of the conservative philosophy. Most of them have pedigrees that look like 60/10/30 or any variant that you can think of, and these ratios change over time and conditions.
Also, don't get the idea that conservatives are in charge of the Republican Party. They are not. They make up a decent sized portion of the party, but they don't control. Nobody controls, or should. The policies come from consensus within the ranks. That is how policy is made. If it were not for that concensus, it would be a dictate, not policy. The policy will fail if it does not have a majority support, or THAT IS THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
In recent years, the socials tried to overwhelm the party and take control as they think they are the only conservatives. This attempt culminated in the losses of 2006 and it's still going on. This is why the results of a loss in 2008 will certainly result in total warfare within the Republican family, and when this occurs, you will see the factions for sure. In fact, Rush spoke about this today. He understands it, because he communicates with all the factions. He knows what will happen and you will as well. so will Peggy Noonan and the blame Bush during brunch bunch. She hails from the fiscal faction.
As for myself, I'm a mutt. I'm 50/40/10 with social concerns on the small burner but I'll back a bill if I think it's good for the country. I'm not a hundred percenter. I don't think anyone should be. It limits them to so few issues that they are nearly useless as a party member, and always disappointed.
100%'ers cannot effectively function in a broad based political party, and are nothing but trouble over time. They should just become activists for their causes and register independent, because that is what they are.
Conservatism is not a cause or issue. It is a philosophy, and there are others who do not have the same order of priorities within that philosophy although they share the same beliefs. The rational view to take is that all of these people with their different ratios are all conservatives. They simply do not think alike at the same time on the same issue. But you cannot call them anything but a conservative, and if you do, there will be a cost. A cost to the Conservative movement, and a secondary cost to the republican party that welcomed them to the fold.
There is a tertiary cost to the United States of America.
Can you believe what this board has become? I feel like I am in a DU forum sometimes.
#####
I think she was a traditional Brooklyn Catholic democrat before she got involved in the Reagan White House. After that she had a persona as practically the author of Reagan-ness. Now that he is just a memory, and we have had seven years of life under another Republican president, she is dining out with all the A-list people by trashing Bush. She is just a social climber in my humble estimation.......................................
AMAN after my own heart...you said it all, hit the nail right on the head. I would only add that she seems to love the sound of her own voice.
I despise Bush Bashers!!! I think Huckabee might have had a chance, had he not trashed President Bush
Depends on who writes the history books??? History books have already been published and put in classrooms that say Clinton was only victim of right wing conspiracy (I paraphrase)
btw I LOVE President Bush, wish we could have a 3rd term!!!
156 posted on 01/25/2008 9:20:06 PM PST by jveritas (God bless our brave troops and President Bush
......................................................
PRAISE THE LORD, MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!!!
I DESPISE ALL BUSH BASHERS, HE IS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER, AND NO I AM NOT JOKING.
Don’t forget our RINOs in office, McCain, Spector just to name a few. The list is long, and don’t forget Rove.
John Bolton for President!
The way everything is heading, my one question and yes you have to think globally on this one: who is going to preserve WESTERN CIVILIZATION?????? Enough with this angry drama, already./Just Asking - seoul62.......
AMAN after my own heart...you said it all, hit the nail right on the head. I would only add that she seems to love the sound of her own voice.
#####
Oh, how I agree about that voice!! And btw, I am not a man.
And let’s not forget that he originally nominated his secretary! I mean, come on!!............................
Well he did not nominate his secretary, he gave us Alito and Roberts. The Great Ronald Reagan showed no remorse over his 2 pro abortion candidates to the high court? He wanted Sandra at his funeral. His personal notes now reveal he had no regrets over Sandra.Not meaning to Reagan bash, just pointing out that his record fails compared to President Bush in many ways. President Bush also never pulled troops out with tail between legs.
As for possibly appointing secretary?? She told him she would over turn Roe, I was in the room :) I imagine she told him she would do all things in Respect to Christ and the unborn children.
He probably thought he could not get the others through.
Oh, how I agree about that voice!! And btw, I am not a man.
Sorry Maica!!!! I was outraged over the Bush Bashing and missed that. Yes you are ALL WOMAN I see that clearly :) and I like what I hear!
He was for the so called assult weapons ban. But Congress saved that one for him.
He has not done the right thing and tried to end the income tax but he and his cronies in washington actually support it.
We have consistently lost our freedoms and it does not matter who is in office. There is not a dimes worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. And the Republicans have ignored their conservative base, except when election time rolls around.
I will never vote for a Bush again. And unless the Republican party gets back to its conservative roots. I am going 3rd party libertarian all the way. At least they want to get rid of the income tax, and they are sincere about it.
Mr. Bush did a pretty good job of helping along the cause of destroying the party. Although others certainly helped, he should bear the brunt of the blame.
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.