There are two wings of the Republican Party: the ideologically-driven wing which is committed to the fight against liberalism against all else, and the wing which is committed to governing and which realizes that compromise is essential to successful governance.
The ideological wing of the party has launched an intra-party fight in the expectation that it will serve to energize Republicans for the upcoming elections.
I believe they are wrong.
Rush Limbaugh has been advancing the argument that a fight between Republicans is a good thing.
He uses the example of the 1976 Republican convention as his example.
He argues that the fight surrounding Ronald Reagan’s nomination challenge to Gerald Ford energized the base so that Reagan was able to win in 1980.
Rush’s reasoning is an example of the logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after the fact therefore because of the fact) and as such is thoroughly specious.
Reagan’s challenge to Ford almost certainly was the reason that Ford lost, but that’s as far as it goes.
The reason that Ronald Reagan won in 1980 was because Jimmy Carter was such a thoroughgoing doofus, not because Reagan challenged Ford in 1976.
Had a capable Democrat been elected instead of the hapless Carter, Reagan might not have been elected.
I, for one, do not want to see this scenario repeated.
The election of someone like Hillary Clinton in 2008 will not necessarily guarantee conservative victories in subsequent elections.
We’re still paying for the Carter administration — the Iranian ayatollahs, the Panama Canal lost, a prohibition on oil drilling in Anwar and other national indignities.
Rush is dead wrong about the desirability of an intra-party fight and so are the idealogues who threaten to wreck the GOP.
I find it a bit ironic quidnunc that you are citing the Telegraph to support your position on the Miers nomination.
As a committed idealogue (and Rush fan), I believe that it is the "moderates" and other RINOs who threaten to wreck the GOP.
Had to add your own bias to the headline, right?
Stellar Dendrite: ping-a-ling.
Totally tone deaf.
I believe that Harriet Miers will be confirmed but at considerable political cost. Once on the Supreme Court, if she does anything other than huddle close to Scalia/Thomas, if she goes squishy like O'Connor, she will do great harm both to Bush and the Republican Party.
I don't think Ford lost because Regan challenged him in the primaries. I think he lost because of Nixon, and because he pardoned Nixon, and because the MSM of course made him out a dolt from day one. Of course, the MSM was quite cruel to Carter too, but he was indeed a miserable failure.
Bush loyalists are performing mental gymnastics to rationalize, justify, and defend this feckless pick. Bush started this fight by choosing a stealthy mediocrity much to the disappointment of damn near everyone (including persistent defender and Mier supporter Hugh Hewitt, who wanted Luttg). W pulled an HW and the prognosis is poor. W divided the conservatives not the other way around.
As long as the nominee has good common sense and is a Conservative, I dont care if Bush picked Mickey Mouse.
I think all this crap about Harriet Miers is just that. A lot of crap.
Oh, and the argument that this fight ensures a Hillary election is specious in itself. The Republican nominee will not be the current President or his VP. Seperate issues..
What is an ultra-conservative?
ping
"came out of the box so cynically"
And all the time they thought they had everyone in the "box." Way to go Mr. Card, you played the game of blind man's bluff and lost.
They are itching to lose a fight.
"Ultra-conservative?". I'll settle for someone who isn't a radical Dukakis Democrat. It's relative though, of course. Anyone to the right of Dukakis could be seen as "ultra-conservative" from a Marxist Brit perspective.
The Kennedy's and Breyer's would likely put special emphasis on this foreign perspective.
To sum up, suck up a possible O'Connor or worse, at best merely a "yes" vote which is an embarassment for a movement that has staked their credibility NOT on activism but adherance to the Constitution. An argument the public bought and purchased in 2004.
Even though in the elections the Republican Party and President himself advanced the argument we only needed 2-3 more seats to effect real change. Elections over, oops, sorry, compromise on the Constitution again.
When conservatives don't roll over, call them names. Demean them. Attack them. Strongarm not the RINO's or red state Dems, oh no, but the conservative Republicans!
WHAT IS HER JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY! Would someone please show me documented evidence of one? What are her thoughts on the Constitution other than the generic words that she'll "strictly interpret" The Constitution?
No one here can do that. The W.H. cannot do that. So, the attacks continue in hopes we'll be worn down.
Forget it. My opposition remains until documents providing a sound Constitutional/Judicial philosophy emerge.
This analysis is OFF-BASE for a simple reason:
The cause of the intra-party fighting is a direct result of Andy Card's actions and NOT Rush's or anyone elses.
The first day, Rush declared he was "neutral" on the nomination and for the right reason: He simply didn't have enough information to know what to think. He, me, and millions of conservatives were flummoxed by a pick that we were hoping would be a stellar, proven conservative that we could rally around. As we learned more, we are left with a pick that gives NO real guarantee of conservativeness and many questions of capability and experience.
We are supposed to line up and jump for joy over that?
Many of us are deeply disappointed we didn't get a real, proven conservative that we could defend. The Bush WH split the party needlessly with a sub-par nominee.
If Andy Card wants to find out who made this intra-party fight happen, he should look in the mirror.