Posted on 03/08/2009 8:02:43 AM PDT by FreeManN
The Republicans' Bizarre New Strategy Dan Gerstein, 03.04.09, 12:00 AM EST Instead of trying to out-Bush Bush, they should outsmart Obama.
Ever since last fall's deck-shuffling election, the strategist in me has been very curious to see what the Republicans would do both to repair the damage the Bush presidency had done to their brand and to reposition their party to compete in a radically different political environment. In particular, I wondered how would they win back the trust of the sensible center that thoroughly repudiated their governing approach in November.
Well, just six weeks after the official start of the Obama era, the results of the GOP's deep soul search seem to be in, and Republican leaders have more than lived up to their promise to think outside the box. Indeed, I doubt anyone outside Rush Limbaugh's reach would have ever guessed that the right's strategy for countering Obama--and ultimately escaping the minority wilderness--would be to out-Bush Bush.
...The cumulative upshot of a month's worth of coordinated Republican attacks on Obama's stimulus plan, Bobby Jindal's widely-ridiculed response to the president's address to Congress and the lock-stepped echoes heard at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference. The economic climate may have dramatically changed, as have voter attitudes about government's role, but the GOP formula has stayed almost exactly the same...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
It’s beyond time for the GOP to make it official and split up. Conservatism will never triumph again as long as we have these laughably cowardly liberals, moderates and “above the fray” types holding us back. (Yes, that does mean you, Bill O’Reilly!)
That was a reply to someone else not you
Unlike much partisan rhetoric, the public at large frames issues in a forward looking manner. Instead, in 2010 and 2012, the public will judge Obama and the Democrats on the results they have produced.
If those results are disappointing, challengers will do well — and especially so if they can advocate credible alternatives. Republicans will therefore refer to Ronald Reagan as their model for reviving the economy and strengthening US security.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: “I welcome President-elect Obama’s commitment to reform the federal budget process and rein in wasteful government spending.”
That is all I need to know about the rino Cornyn. The election of bo by a coalition of dumb demos and rino like Cornyn is the worst thing that has ever happened to this Nation.
yeah, i agree.
the media destroyed nixon;
laughed at ford;
disparaged reagan, but he was more savvy than they,
attacked bush 41. jennings: why is he playing golf and not doing the people’s work? but clinton could golf all he wanted;
showed bob dope 1996 to be the liberal fool he is;
attacked w 43 with impunity because he had no media presence;
showed mcloser to be the fool he is....
when’s the stupid party going to wake up?
Bush was not fiscally conservative. Socially, yeah. Fiscally, no. During the eight years prior to 0bama's election, the "conservatives" in Congress spent more money faster than any other entity in the history of the world. 0bama's already broken their record, of course.
Bush always supported the most liberal Republican. Ahnald, Specter, etc. He either supported or endorsed very liberal fiscal policies. IMHO, while 0bama's kicked everything up to warp speed, the tipping point was the October spending bill, supported and pushed by Bush. While there are a few fiscally conservative Republicans, for the most part, they have no problem with government largess, as long as it's directed at the money class. That's why there's a revolving door from Goldman-Sachs to the government and back.
Had we NOT done the October bail out, we would have had a very painful correction, but most of the money would have deflated out of the system by now. Heck, although 80% of the public didn't think we needed a bailout, IF they were going to do a bail out, they should have paid off every credit card in the country, then demanded that CC companies follow simple rules: No variable interest, no jacking rates up, no making payments due on Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays if they intend to charge a late fee (they won't take payments on those days) and no selling off the debt.
It would be a bad response, but the problem now is not production capability. The problem is that 95% of the consumers can't afford to consume anything. Shooting money cannons at the monied doesn't do anything but increase the imbalance. Add to that the fact that 90% of all money doesn't exist except as numbers in accounts, and you have the sad, simple fact that all of everyone's savings are vapor, and have been for years. The IMF creates money from nothing. Why would anyone think it has any value?
The only thing that would really work is for government to get out of the way and let the failures fail. THEN, make simple policies and tie money to some standard.
When God set up the seven year forgiveness of debt and the year of Jubilee, He understood that without this, some would accrue all the money and some would accrue all the debt. Without some kind of balancing system, the financial system is doomed to totally collapse.
***...so Obama could do even more of the same and blame it on Bush.***
And thus conservatism. Not that Bush was a great conservative, but everything he did is associated with it.
There is no way Obama can blame HIS/Pelosie/Ried SPENDING Bills of Trillion of Dollars (there was no Stimulus Bill among any of these bills) on Bush. Obama can only get away with that IF we keep pissing on ourselves and DO NOT blame Obama, Rahm (never waste a good crisis to screw the American People)/Pelosie (Pelousie-Mousie)/Reid each and every day. But no, here on FreeRepublic we blame Bush. I guess it is true. Conservatives and Republicans are STUPID.
McCain, Graham, Martinez, Specter, Lugar, Snowe, Hagel, Lott, and Larry ("wide stance") Craig were for amnesty all the way. Kyl, Chambliss, Isakson, Voinovich, Brownback, and probably others I can't keep track of, finally voted NO after getting an earful from the folks back home. Some of them didn't take a position until they stuck a finger up in the wind.
Nice try junior. Thanks for playing, and better luck next time. Oh. And next time? Bring some facts.
Let's not forget that it was Bush together with a 'RAT controlled Congress in 2008 when that TARP bailout occurred, and, by and large, 'Rats in Congress were more enthusiastic about it than the Pubbies. In addition, it should be pointed out that the Bush Administration point man in the bailout was a DEMOCRAT - Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary.
I think you are right. Plus, Obama would not have the TARP's numbers added to the deficit on his "I inherited this deficit" talking points, nor Paulson's shell game spending the TARP money.
Some of Bush's actions make me wonder if he really wanted the Dems to win in 2008.
He used the party and exhausted its resources and then threw it out. But that's what happens when you have no principles other than "my way is the best way-- because it's my way. "
In my more tin-foil hat moments, I wonder about the back room deals that were made in 2000. Palm Beach County waits until all the other counties are finished, then they keep finding boxes of ballots until Gore is within 500 votes. All of a sudden, the votes freeze at 500. WTH have the Rats not been able to manufacture enough votes to get over the hump in a close election? So, Gore's out to be wandering in the wilderness, Bush is President, Clinton and Bush I develop a close friendship, Hillary DOESN'T run in 2004, and Bush keeps a VP that has no chance of becoming president.
I've often wondered if the original deal wasn't that the Clintons would get out of Bush's way for eight years, and then Bush would get out of the Clintons' way.
Its not possible to prove these things but when I study the pattern of your posts, I see something rather disturbing.
You rather clearly take known conservatives like Cornyn and Jindal and lump them in with RINOS. This is mixed in with hyperbolic rhetoric about opposing RINOS.
It has often seemed to me on FR that it would be strategic to incite civil war within conservative ranks by suggesting that known conservatives are RINOS and appealing to a rather paranoid sense of what it is to be conservative.
Whether this is being done intentionally or not, I do think this is a rather shrewd possibility from astro-turf experts that dominate the Obama campaign.
I am curious for your public comments on whether the other senator from Texas is more or less of a RINO than Cornyn.
Bush was subjected to the Two Minutes Hate. He was obtusely clueless as to what was happening to him. That was his failing--stupidity.
No, that's called head in the sand, sucking up for air.
You got that right. Here is a reader comment below the article:
So your basic arguement is that John McCain, the most famous moderate/centrist in the republican party is way to far to the right politically to compete with Obama?
Who do you think the republicans should choose as their leader? Nancy Pelosi? Ralph Nader? Should the republican party endorse communism?
In 2008 the republican candidate voted against tax cuts, voted for amnesty, supports only the mildest pro life issues, ones which hold a vast majority support of the people. How much further to the left could the republicans have gone, without campaigning to the left of the Obama's campaign positions.
That was Bush revealing his bigshot rich east-coast ass-hole face. Not one of his better moments, but one of his defining moments-- because, like his nomination of babykilling leftwing feminazi slut Miers, it showed who and what he really is.
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.