Republicans Become the Stupid Party Again
By machiavel Posted in Republicans — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Whatever one thinks of The Architect, one has to admit that it is a real pleasure to watch Karl Rove work. From initial rollout to waging a relentless offensive to isolating opponents and to eventual triumph, he understands the operational art of politics more than anyone alive.
Which is why it's so dismaying to see what has unfolded since November's victory. Ever since that triumph, the President and Rove have exerted precious little of their political brilliance in governing the party, and here is what has ensued:
- An ethical crisis in the House leadership;
- Said "leadership" freelancing ineffectually on social policy (or, the Schiavo donnybrook);
- A conservative base, distracted by Schiavo and immigration, that doesn't value the importance of Social Security reform, and doesn't seem to want to provide the ammunition to get private accounts passed;
- A virtually unchallenged likely Democratic nominee who will enjoy absolute unity among her base, and who is making all the right moves to the center that Kerry wouldn't.
Over the past three months, conservatives seem to have forgotten all the lessons about winning political battles that they learned ever since the brain-dead nadir reached in the Clinton years. If something isn't done – and soon – we will become Howard Dean.
It doesn't have to be like this. Here's another way. Read on.
#1: Dump Tom DeLay
Conservatives have always been better about policing their own. When one does wrong or becomes an embarrassment to the cause, he or she is generally shown the door with dispatch. And through this cleansing process, we emerge rejuvenated. While the annals of Democratic politics are darkened by the discredited likes of Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Robert Byrd, and Kos, one high-profile mistake is usually enough to make you persona non grata in Republican circles. Just ask Trent Lott.
Now is a time for choosing in the case of Tom DeLay. Smart Democrats know full well that in an era of natural Republican majorities in the House and Senate, issues won't be enough to return them to the majority. Only a compelling narrative, the ability to create a sense of outrage, and an effective personality-based campaign will be enough to turn those natural Republican majorities into natural Democratic majorities – and in this sense, Tom DeLay is manna from heaven for otherwise hopeless Congressional Democrats. He's the Republican Rosty, the easily caricatured abuser of public trust, and he needs to go. Another Republican can be The Hammer.
But how to do it? And where does Presidential leadership come in? When the President made the decision to come down against Trent Lott, it created a feeding frenzy and made Lott's demise even more imminent. While this case is more difficult, in that DeLay has not made a single error of colossal proportions like Lott did, even a token nod from the White House in the direction of Republicans hoping to oust DeLay would be enormously helpful. More importantly, conservative leaders need to start speaking out, and Rick Santorum's comments today are a step in the right direction.
#2: Schiavo, and the Failure of Governing from the Hill
One of the most compelling arguments made against Trent Lott is that in his weakened position, his leadership was apt to be compromised by any interest group willing to throw him a life raft. Conservatives did not exactly relish the prospect of their Senate leader being affirmative action's new best friend, and rightly so.
Tom DeLay's leadership has already been so compromised. One need look no further than the badly-botched, toothless Schiavo bill, hatched to win Tom DeLay the goodwill of conservatives for the difficulties that lie ahead. One can debate the merits of the Schiavo bill for ages – that is not my purpose here. The fact is this: Helping Tom DeLay cling to power was a poor excuse for crafting a toothless bill that provided no substantive relief, splitting social conservatives from small-government Republicans, making a mockery of conservative notions of strict construction, and doing little to save Terri.
After the election, it was in vogue to say that Congressional Republicans had been liberated from the President, and could now pursue their own course. A self-serving Tom DeLay freelancing on social policy is the product of that strategy. Better no bill than the damaging and futile distraction that ensued.
#3: Bucking Up on Social Security
There is plenty of blame to go around for the listless state of the Social Security debate, from the White House all the way down to grassroots conservatives. Polls show that support for private accounts skyrockets from 37% to 60% when you point out they are purely voluntary. But the White House refuses to make this a primary argument for the accounts, instead choosing to highlight Democrat-Lite overtures to seniors on the separate question of existing benefits. The Administration has thus fair failed to position the accounts as the bonanza for workers that they would be, providing a needed balance to painful benefit cuts or payroll cap increases.
Pushing through unpopular positions by talking about them the right way (hence making them popular) is this President's forte. Why he hasn't yet done so on private accounts is mystifying.
Conservatives too are to blame, for not appreciating the enormous stakes. In the past two months, our head has been in the clouds, our imagination captured by Schiavo and doings along the Mexican border. But the Social Security debate is as big a fight as any we are likely to fight. It's bigger than tax cuts. It's bigger than a Supreme Court nomination.
Here are the stakes. If we win, we steal the Democrats' central New Deal legacy from under their feet, and institutionalize the primacy of markets and private sector innovation as the most relevant force in public policy. Through tax cuts, we deprive the government of revenue. Through private accounts, we deprive the government of control over the tax revenues we can't cut.
If we prevail, it's the most exciting conservative policy innovation since Kemp-Roth. To put it mildly, we need to be working our asses off for this, and we aren't.
Instead, we're dithering, and threatening retribution against Republicans who are trying to make these accounts fly. Now, it's important to take a stand against tax increases in any form. But this is all a moot point if we don't get the accounts, and the Social Security Ponzi scheme remains intact. Conservatives should be uniting against any Social Security bill that doesn't include carve-out private accounts, creating an enormous political cost for abandoning the accounts that doesn't currently exist.
#4: Destroying Hillary
If we conservatives don't realize what we're up against, then it's time to wake up. The Democrats are learning the lessons of 2004, and desperate for victory, will be more than willing to let their nominee make gestures in a pro-life, pro-military direction. And conservatives? Ideological kamikaze missions seem to be back in vogue.
Are we ready for what's coming? The signs so far (at a ridiculously early stage, for sure) shows that we have some learning to do. It seems that conservatives are in the mood to create a stricter litmus test in 2008 than they did in 2000, whereas the Democrats are quickly abandoning them, as Hillary rises and Howard Dean fades into the background.
Republicans seem to go into this trance whenever someone named Clinton emerges on the political scene. Snap out of it. We just have to win.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Surplus Lives — Comments (26) »
Republicans Become the Stupid Party Again 41 Comments (0 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
1) It's not exactly certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Dem nominee in 2008, so obsessing about her at this point is apt to be counterproductive. Consider that she could be "destroyed" politically now: that gives the Dems three years to come up with a replacement.
2) IMO, the President made a serious mistake in deciding to lead with Social Security Reform in his second term. Social Security is a Dem stronghold and is still the third rail of American politics (even if the voltage appears to have been turned down a bit). He would have made more progress, and accomplished something equally or even more useful for the country, had he chosen to go with a major tax overhaul instead. And tax reform is, after all, a GOP stronghold, something he could have united the party around and presented a unified stance to the nation.
3) I think it's a bit extreme to charcaterize Trent Lott's improvident words on Strom Thurmond as a "collossal blunder". Yes, he provoked a media storm, and yes it was probably time for him to go, but all in all it was a case of mountains being made out molehills.
There are a lot of things I'm not exactly certain about, but it's looking more likely all the time -- much more likely than it did a few months ago.
Anybody have the Tom Toles (WaPo) cartoon from a long while ago depicting W winning in '04 and then Hillary winning in '08? I've looked everywhere but can't find it. It was so hideous and profane that I've blocked the date I saw it out of my memory...I call it the 'dark prophesy' cartoon but I can't locate it.
that one problem the White House has is that congress no longer needs the president to win? Sure, he's the prez, but he's never going to run again and they will have to run on whatever record he creates over the next four years. To the extent any such record can be used against them politically, why would congress follow the president?
I also wonder whether Rove's expanded sphere of influence that I think came with his promotion after the election might not distract him somewhat from the political fight. Just speculation, but if it pulled him away from what he's best at, that can't be a good thing for the WH.
Rove, Bush, DeLay, Frist took their eyes off what is important. That is leadership & recognising what they can & what they can't accomplish. Shavio & the relentless drumbeat against DeLay were part of that. Sure, they threw a bone to their loyal conservative christians but they alienated important groups. Other Republicans that represent mixed and middle constituencies.
Also, I think after the 04 election, certain groups within the Rove/Bush coalition got a little big for thier britches. Maybe thought they were more important and integral than they really were to the big picture. So when they demended their pound of flesh, it didn't sit well with the rest of the country.
Whatever it is, it has made governing more difficult for the pure right. I think they should take a page from the Democrats DLC and go moderate. I think that because that is doable. Pandering to hard right/hard christian ideals may help them in those camps, but are backfiring with the rest of the buying public. ie - that public ain't buying, & that affects leadership & governance.
This is an interesting tidbit:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050408/bs_afp/useconomyt
axes
Apparently a bunch of wealthy Americans (Responsible Wealth) are complaining that they aren't taxed enough!(?)
"I want it to stop, so I'm calculating my 2004 tax cut and donating it to organizations fighting for responsible, fair and adequate taxes. I don't believe that people like me with incomes over 200,000 dollars need 69 billion dollars in tax cuts."According to a study cited by Responsible Wealth, taxpayers who made more than one million dollars received an average federal income tax break of 123,592 dollars in 2004.
This compares to 383 dollars, the average tax break in 2004 for the two-thirds of taxpayers who make less than 50,000 dollars annually.
It seems that since it is us low-to-mid-wage Americans that are disproportionately shouldering the burden of the war on terror (take a look at the bios of the KIA's in Iraq and Afghanistan sometime...precious few blue-bloods in that group), that we should encourage the efforts of this group in pushing tax reform.
This would also take a HUGE rhetorical weapon out of the hands of the Dems, since they have been preaching class war against the Bush tax cuts since day one.
No one stops any single taxpayer from overpaying their federal taxes. If these people feel they are being undertaxed, let them pay more. If the experience of Massachusetts - where taxpayers can volunteer to pay their taxes at a higher rate - is any indication, these are not the sentiments of a large number of people.
The problem is that most people (nearly a majority) pay little or no income tax already, and are therefore divorced from one side of the ledger when considering spending policy. The top 10% of wage earners pay on the order of 2/3 of all income taxes (on about 1/2 of all income), the top 25% pay 5/6 (on about 2/3 of all income). I cannot find historical data which indicates a more "progressive" system in the post-Harding US. This "reform" would exacerbate that dispairty.
Also, it would not "take a HUGE rhetorical weapon out of the hands of the Dems" - it would concede that they were right. This is problematic for us and also bears the baggage of not being correct.
to oppose taking an action simply because to do it you would have to admit that the other side was right.
Not, however, that I think that this is what a move to reduce the tax cuts at the upper echelons of personal income would be doing. We've all seen how the elites in this country get out of shouldering their share of the burden, taxes just being one more way that they get everyone else to pay for their lifestyles.
When you say that many Americans don't pay any taxes at all, you are including the very poor and the very well sheltered. The 'well sheltered' are the economic elite.
When you say that the top 10% pay 2/3 of the tax burden, I would ask what % of the total income these top 10% are bringing home. This is an important piece of information to evaluate whether or not this is an equitable arrangement.
I am losing patience with our leadership who preach fiscal conservatism, but can't seem to reign in spending. And I don't know about you, but if I start spending more than I bring in, I either have to spend less or bring in more. That is simple fiscal conservatism.
and the prideful can't-admit-the-other-side-was-right nonsense. The priority should be to discover and apply policies that are good for the whole of American society, without hurting the weakest in that society. One reason I am independent is that I abhor the attitude that politics is simply a game, and that winning is the most important thing. Both sides do it. Politics is not just a game; it affects people's lives. We are not loving our neighbors when we consider them hardly more than pawns in a game.
the top 400 pays only about 18% ( SF Chronicle 4/10/05 , and many of the top 1% also pay less because they have their money in non-taxed t-bills & municiple bonds.
My complaint here is that the way you use your stats, they are intentionally or not, misleading. - ie the top 5/6 pays 2/3 of all income taxes...OK, so what is surprising here? Do you expect the poor who pay almost nothing to rack up big #'s? They are poor!
What I was trying to say: The top 25% of all wage-earners, who earn about 2/3 of all income, pay about 87% of all income taxes. The top 10% of all wage-earners, who earn a little under 50% of all income, pay about 65% of all taxes. If those were unclear above, I apologize (it seems that you've flipped at least two of these).
My argument is that "the rich", of whom I am not a memeber, already pay plenty. If we need to raise more revenues, the way to do it is to broaden the tax base, not to heap further requirements upon those who are already shouldering the overwhelming majority of the burden.
I don't expect those who earn $30k a year to be able to pay much, but as people who have as much a stake in the country as the next person, they should pay something, shouldn't they? (Right now they pay, statistically speaking, zero.) Besides, there are many more of them - so asking a great number to contribute a modest sum still results in substantial numbers.
That's my only point. I did not mean to be misleading - sorry if I was.
Your point regarding the "super rich", who are able and happy to hire financial experts and accountants to hide their income from taxation (legally, mind you) is well made - but points to the counterproductive nature of progressive taxation. If you're rich enough, you can pay alomst nothing, while the folks in the middle get the shaft from both ends.
It's also worth noting that many in the "super rich" category, who pay almost nothing now, are among the loudest supporters of increased taxes - what do they care, they've made their fortunes and can always hire more people to hide more of their money.
Cheers.
Or maybe I was really unclear. Always a possibility.
I do not oppose taking this action only because it admits the other side is right. I oppose taking this action because it is bad policy, bad economics, bad politics AND admits the other side is right.
We've all seen how the elites in this country get out of shouldering their share of the burden, taxes just being one more way that they get everyone else to pay for their lifestyles.
Rather than repeat myself, it's easier just to refer you to my response to "say what", below. Read the part about the "super rich" hiring lawyers and accountants to sheild their income and you may get my point.
I would ask what % of the total income these top 10% are bringing home.
I would ask that you read the post again. The information is there. If it's still not clear, I refer you again to my response to "say what", below. (or, Ibid.)
I am losing patience with our leadership who preach fiscal conservatism, but can't seem to reign in spending. And I don't know about you, but if I start spending more than I bring in, I either have to spend less or bring in more. That is simple fiscal conservatism.
Amen, brother! The spending habits of our "leadership" has me on the brink of tearing-up my RNC card for the second and final time in my adult life. Where we may disagree is in the solution - I believe $2.2T is plenty of money to run the federal government in 2006. The problem is entirely, entirely, on the spending side of the ledger.
Cheers.
Missed the income data.
I guess I am finding it a little hard to feel sorry for the Merlot crowd paying an extra sixth of the taxes--although I guess my assumption when I wrote the above post was that the numbers were skewed a bit more in their favor.
Let's face it. The top 25% of income earners do not live the lifestyle of the red states. I'm sure that if you did an analysis, the distribution map of the counties where these guys lived would look a lot like the maps of Kerry supporters.
I'm not saying they're all Democrats, mind you. (they'd have to be pretty unconcerned about their wealth if they were--not a very common human trait). But nevertheless, they aren't you and me. It is a debatable question whether you or I have the same amount at stake (economically) as them in this country.
I don't expect those who earn $30k a year to be able to pay much, but as people who have as much a stake in the country as the next person, they should pay something, shouldn't they? (Right now they pay, statistically speaking, zero.)
How's that?
You cannot allow half or more of the population to be divorced from the revenue side of government spending policy - socialism results. It's only a matter of time before the "have nots" decide to vote themselves rich at the expense of "the rich", and then we can live like they do in Western Europe - with zero-growth welfare states that are collapsing under their own weight.
If that's what you want, 90% of the globe is yours for the moving. Vaya con Dios.
Or, if you're asking how it is that people making $30k a year or less are paying, statistically speaking, zero income taxes, all I can suggest is that you look-up the relevant data (summary, with some spin, here). I'm assuming you've already done that, but then again your question may not be a question at all.
Seriously.. I made a little less than $30k last year, and I definitely payed taxes.
As to the post... as a Democrat, I cringe every time someone mentions a Hillary run in 2008. Why?
a) I don't like her. I don't feel like she represents the core principles of my party, nor will she uphold them.
and what's worse...
b) She's unelectable. So many people HATE her, I really don't think she has a chance of winning. Then again, if she's running agains the likes of Condi or Frist... ;)
then the math is slightly different. If you're married and paid net income taxes on less than $30k in income, then you probably need a new tax preparer.
Quick and imprecise 1040-EZ calculation:
Income (AGI, Line 4): 30,000
Exemption/Deduction (Line 5, Married/Joint): $15,900
Taxable Income (Line 6): 14,100
Tax (Line 10 - from tables): 1,516
So, if you filled-out a 1040EZ, then you paid about $1500 in income taxes (or, an effective 5% tax rate). If you had any sort of expenses that could be exploited by Form 1040 (student loan interest, education, IRA, etc.) then you could rather quickly get this number to zero.
If you have a child, you're already there (not that this is much of a consolation!).
However, if you're stuck with the 1040-EZ form, then sorry you're paying for the simplicity. All I can say is that you're not likely going to be there very long - have faith.
Funny thing regarding St. Hillary: Deomcrats think she's unelectable, republicans (smart ones, at least) are terrified of her. She's sort of a political Rorschach test, it seems.
Cheers.
the only taxes out there. Every time you fill up at the pump, or purchase tobacco, alcohol or certain imports you're contributing to Uncle Sam's coffers, an there are exemptions or deductions for those taxes. Also, don't forget FICA.
The notion that some people pay $0 in taxes in not true.
that I meant INCOME taxes - which provide the bulk of the revenues for the federal government.
If that was not clear, then my bad.
Dumping Delay gains you nothing and tells the Democrats and the mainstream media that the Democrats are right and you are wrong. Then they just keep rolling over you. Instead of cutting your own legs out from under you, you need your lietenants stepping forward in strong defense of Delay, while quietly, in the background, laying out for him how you want him to use that support - to what political and strategic ends. In other words, you give Delay very strong support and at the same time, totally privately, you let him know what it costs. Gain gain, not lose lose.
that dumping Mr. Gingrich (for whom I confess to having more liking than for Mr. DeLay) caused the GOP any difficulty come the election of 2000. Failing to do so sooner may well have contributed to the losses of 1998.
The General, by custom, sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
DeLay is a second lieutenant.
Majority leader seems a bit ahead of 2nd Lt.
I'm sick and tired of economic conservatives who shout from on high about what is really important. Like millions of others, I'm an economic conservative, but I'm a social conservative first. We helped to elect the people who are in there now, and now it's time for them to do their jobs, including things like defend the lives of their citizens and seal the boarders. I support the President's social security plan, but millions of us are more concerned with other issues. Look at the exit polling and you'll find that social security didn't matter relative to social issues and national security. With regard to the bill itself, yes, it should have done more. Absolutely. But the fact remains that the bill did not, de facto, become law. Federal judges chose to ignore the Congressional requirement of a de novo review that would have bought Terri some time. But to say that the people who worked so hard and turned out in droves last year should compromise on what matters most to us is rediculously arrogant, and is exactly the type of thing that will make social conservatives stay home and make things like social security reform impossible.
and seal the boarders.
Repel the boarders, and the 'minutemen' seem to pursuing that in fine swashbuckling style, no?
Dealy is one of the Republican "generals" in the house of representatives, and he is the most visible one. The Dims' attack is on him because he has the votes, most of the time, and he's very willing to use them - in the house, which makes him more of a threat - to the Dims. Whereas, Frist's margin of operation is thinner in the Senate, he behaves more collegially (he's also less effective - for us) and therefore, Frist is less of threat - to the Dims. If Frist was more of a threat - stronger in trying to advance the Republican agenda and had a better margin of possible success - then you can be sure he is another "general" the Dims would be looking for some political dirt to smear him with.
I just got something today from someone that I consider a pretty credible source that Tom DeLay's problems are only beginning. The gist of it was that there are some legal actions regarding people who can be closely associated with DeLay regarding Indian tribes and large, large amounts of money -- greater than six figures. If that's true, Tom DeLay's problems are not over by a longshot.
I don't know whether the claims are true -- I can't verify them -- but I personally trust the source. If they turn out to be true, Delay had better be able to prove he's squeaky clean.
I live in CA. Need I tell you what it's like to live in a Red State with a parentheses-sized Blue populace on the Coast that outnumbers the rest of the state combined.
The Republicans spent not a nickel on the last campaign in this state. Consequently, we have 6 more years of Boxer.
Feinstein and Pelosi have their jobs up for grabs in 06.
When I get begs from the Party, National, State, Local, I send them a hand-written letter saying the same thing - "Who is our next candidate? We need to know so we can start some serious campaign strategizing, and we can't start too early." I tell them: "no candidate, no money. Tell me who is running before I send in another donation."
What do I get back in reply? Tons of pix of the Pres, membership cards in something Republican, I don't know, just junk.
But no answer as to who is our next candidate here in California to meet brick wall of the dem/libs.
In my state, only Mel Gibson has enough name-recognition to pull off a win, and I don't think he's running - although he was briefly mentioned.
So, that's my contribution to the Stupids - no money - no work - no nada until we can a candidate here.
It won't happen, though, and you know why....because CA's 55 electoral votes are not needed to win the Presidency - so the National Reps spend nothing here, nor do they take a minute to cultivate any new candidates.
It's hard enough motivating candidates, but how do you motivate the entire party structure of 'big-wigs'?
I live in CA. Need I tell you what it's like to live in a Red State with a parentheses-sized Blue populace on the Coast that outnumbers the rest of the state combined.
The Republicans spent not a nickel on the last campaign in this state. Consequently, we have 6 more years of Boxer.
Feinstein and Pelosi have their jobs up for grabs in 06. The Party calls and begs me for money, and I tell them the same thing.."Who is our next candidate? Name just one." No answer.
When I get begs from the Party - National, State, Local, I send them a hand-written letter saying the same thing - "Who is our next candidate? We need to know so we can start some serious campaign strategizing, and we can't start too early." I tell them: "No candidate, no money. Tell me who is running before I send in another donation."
What do I get back in reply? Tons of pix of the Pres, membership cards in something Republican, I don't know, just junk.
But no answer as to who is our next candidate in California to meet the brick wall of the dem/libs.
In my state, only Mel Gibson has enough name-recognition to pull off a win, and I don't think he's running - although he was briefly mentioned.
So, that's my contribution to the Stupids - no money - no work - no nada until we can get a candidate here.
It won't happen, though, and you know why....because CA's 55 electoral votes are not needed to win the Presidency - so the National Reps spend nothing here, nor do they take a minute to cultivate any new candidates.
It's hard enough motivating candidates, but how do you motivate the entire party structure of 'big-wigs', who should be motivating me?
I agree with the entire post except the DeLay dumping part. Why get rid of one of the most effective tools we have, and DeLay has been effective. I am so sickened by the GOP as of late, the party that is it's own worst enemy. Something has got to change.
The Republican party clearly isn't benefiting from Delay's festering scandal. The Dems are well aware of this and aren't prepared to give an inch on changes to the Ethics rules. Perhaps they should get what they want, the original rules but also an investigation into new allegations about Rep. Alcee L. Hastings' (D-FL) defrauding of taxpayers...
Nyaa, we're gonna start with Nancy Pelosi.
Yikes. I'd rather pay taxes!
Undoubtedly Democrats are learning lessons from their string of failures, but I would couch it differently: They are evolving. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Democrats tried to trade on perpetual outrage over race relations, abortion and homosexual rights. Centrists and Conservatives were actually pretty admirable, allowing much reform, even a little beyond what was sensible.
But at some point, when you are trying to work with a group, you get tired of them pointing their finger at you, unsatisfied with any concession. This perpetual outrage is tiring, especially for centrists. Their typical bag of tricks weren't working as effectively anymore. Democrats were already losing ground before 9/11, but after that, they were demolished. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing for Republicans. On one hand, they swept elections and gained enormous capital. On the other hand, they were so aggressive, uncompromising and beholden to the religious right, that they burned through their influence. People are growing tired of it. The religious right will always be on board. But you can't hold power with just the religious right. You have to have a good chunk of the centrists, and they are becoming desensitized to the typical Republican rallying cries. In fact, it's even worse than that: They are becoming angry over them. You can only absolve yourself of question by citing 9/11 and morality so many times before people stop buying it.
Undoubtedly Democrats are learning lessons from their string of failures...
Care to offer any evidence? And talking points don't count.
But at some point, when you are trying to work with a group, you get tired of them pointing their finger at you, unsatisfied with any concession.
I agree, but who's pointing the finger: Republicans or Democrats?
And if you reply, remember to be polite.
Too bad for you, partisan hacks. You welfare staters can bet your private accounts that Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 election if she chooses to run, because sh won't put up with the B.S. of the wrong(you). Keep your guns, for you will need them come election day. I look forward to then, when your lack of intelligence is proudly displayed on your wall!
At The Pile™. Hope you enjoyed your stay.
$30,000 is quite respectable. In Northern MN, I just bought a house for $85G that would go for about a half a million or more in LA and a quarter million in most suburbs. It's all relative to where you live.
Whew. I feel like I just got force-fed a half a bottle of castor oil. Or maybe Castrol. ;-)
But thank you for this post, because hopefully it will help recenter some people and concentrate their minds, to use a term that Peggy Noonan did, really, really badly. That article did precisely the opposite - it had the effect of getting us defocused, disconsolate, disunified, disparaged, discouraged, and in disarray. In the WSJ article she wrote about the Schiavo case, I really just don't know what she was thinking. I talked about this a little on March 17 and I'm honestly sorry to have to bring that post back up again.
In chess, there are some concepts that are useful to us here: advantage, space and time (tempo). There are other anaolgies that can be drawn from this situation, but I'll use chess for now. Anyone who has ever played the game knows what these terms mean (here is a useful guide for others, and in my opinion, we have recently lost in all three. Some of that was unavoidable, but some of it wasn't. Regardless: the Democrats have not sacrificed much in order to extract these losses from us, and that is not a good situation. Tom DeLay is under withering fire, and so is Cornyn. Large swaths of the liberal MSM commentariat are insinuating that Conservatives are encouraging the wackos to take up arms and start killing judges. Terri Schiavo is dead and nothing we did made a difference. Jesse Jackson even showed up to join our side in the final days, and I can't think of anything worse for the Republican Party than to be joined by Jesse Jackson in a national political circus, all of the other implications aside, it was politically the most absurd situation I have ever seen, even if you believe he was sincere.
There's more.
As you point out, we're not being successful with the Social Security message. We let all of that get drowned out, reframed, and defocussed. Nan Aron is running ads supporting the filibuster. How long did it take to produce that Flash movie and that website? Looks like about a two week job to me working alone, even working slowly. Wonderful. They sensed the opportunity and took maximum advantage of the timing, IMHO. I don't like terms like "Destroy" when it comes to the Republican Party, right now especially. I think that feeds into a lot of awful narratives that are being thrown around and amplified already in the media and through other channels. We don't need to Destroy Hillary -- we need to win, we need to recapture the ground that we've lost, and we have to be as shrewd about it as she has been. It's clear to me like as hasn't been in a long time that she is grooming herself to the run. The evidence of that is plain to me. I would have dismissed that idea just six months ago, but now it's more than a possibility -- it's a likelihood.
I hope we can get some more constructive comments going in this thread, on other blogs, in emails, and at the highest levels of the GOP and the leadership in the executive branch about how we can get back on track, what substantive steps we need to take, and especially, what I can do to help. Thanks for this post.