Friday, November 21, 2008

Today's GOP: Headless and Stupid

Josh Marshall has a post today about how the GOP looked briefly in 2006 as if they had learned what a mistake it was to continue supporting Bush after their disastrous losses in the mid-term elections, but how they ended up doubling-down on Bush and the war anyway...which only furthered their losses in this election.  And he asks why they did this.

It's my belief that the problem is Republican authoritarianism.  They really only know how to follow orders from above and simply can't think for themselves.  It's all about establishing who the big dog is, and all the little dogs will follow right along.  And in this case, who else could have been the big dog than Bush?  He was the president.  They had already proclaimed repeatedly that anyone who doesn't support him completely is a traitor to our nation.  Hell, the Dixie Chicks got utterly destroyed by most of their fanbase simply for saying that they were embarrassed to come from the same state as Bush.  It just made sense that he'd stay in the driver's seat.

And more importantly, who would replace him?  Even in this election, McCain clearly wasn't the leader of the party.  Sure, they nominated him, but merely by default.  It wasn't that he stepped forward, but rather that all the others stepped back (or got pushed back) and McCain was just the guy who stood still.  And when an unknown lightweight like Palin showed up, she completely overshadowed him in every way.

And he was the strongest they had, yet most of the base was already praying that he'd die so she could take over.  Yet Palin isn't a leader.  She's just a defective chat-bot who can only recite strings of nonsensical talking points, and even then sounds pretty damn stupid about it.  She doesn't know strategy and the only plans she has involve herself.  She isn't going to lead the party into the future, and definitely couldn't have in 2006.  Even if Republicans are dumb enough to follow her, she'll still need someone to tell her where she's going.

Too Corrupt to Succeed

And so Bush stayed the big dog by default.  The few truly bright Republicans like Gingrich, Lott, and DeLay were too corrupt to stay in office, and all they were left with was the hand-picked lapdogs who knew how to growl on cue, but could do little more.  They were picked for their obedience and ability to recite talking points, and now it's all they have.  And so what else would Bush do with them than to have them continue to support him and pray that irreversible tides would inexplicably reverse?

And even McCain was a part of that.  They were totally using him as a propaganda machine, knowing that he'd do anything to get Bush's blessings.  And now with Bush in the toilet, they've got nobody.  They know that they can't follow Bush, but they don't have anyone else.  Gingrich is still praying he can pull them back behind him, but isn't in any sort of position to see that happen.  Besides, he really wasn't so great at the strategizing thing either.  He was decent at tactics, but didn't have any reasonable goal in mind once his tactics won the day.

And the biggest problem is that, at the end of the day, they don't have many ideas and the few they have are incredibly unpopular.  So they can do all the strategizing and maneuvering they want, but the best they can do is obstruct Democrats.  Because if they actually achieve a policy goal, they'll be hated by everyone and be further behind than when they started.  And so the few people who can lead them don't want to do so, and most of them have no clue where to start.  

And unless they finally decide to give up on their rigid conservativism, it's going to remain that way into the future.  They can obstruct Democrats, but they'll never be able to get ahead.


Donald Douglas said...

Well, well ... I see this little tidbit from your comment at my post:

"Words have meanings."

From anyone else, I might take that seriously, especially from someone other than a non-whacked Texas-dragged nihilist like yourself.

I do seem to remember we had a little debate about words before, especially these words:

"It's obvious Obama doesn't believe these things..."

Remember that, how you were outed as a hopeless postmodern denialist who will avoid any meaning that actually makes you commit to an assertion (or invent new ones along the way for the same end)?

You're a fraud, Biobrain, and your defense of Bill Ayers (noted in an earlier AmPow post exposing your stupidity) puts you right in there with all the progressives I noted at my blog yesterday. If you would have read Lind's entire piece (or perhaps acknowledged so much), and at least mentioned the other uses of progressive, you might have had a bit of a clue to the overall thesis.

Dodge that...

Armadillo Hussein Joe said...

Hey, Doc!

So, I first became a fan of your blog last fall when you got in a lengthy dust-up with some incoherent Rand-ified troll spouting nonsensical strings of gibberish only vauguely resembling words who would then declare victory when you didn't respond immediately, as though a comments thread were like a chat room.

Well, I see you haven't responded since he posted since this afternoon, so I guess he won.

I'm convinced. I would have agreed with you, but since it has been pointed out that you are not only a nihilist, but the pernicious Texas-dragged kind. Being non-whacked hardly mitigates such a condition.

So, can we agree that the GOP does have constructive, far-sighted leadership available to it? That Mr. Douglas is just the kind of leadership they need to find their way out of the wilderness, and the fact that he is training whole new generations of leaders from his educational perch in Orange County can only bode well for the future health of the American Experiment?

Doctor Biobrain said...

Thanks, Armadillo. I'm not sure how, but it seems Donald has put some sort of voodoo hex on my blog, and I don't get any sort of alert telling me that he posted anything. That's totally weird, as I get one from everyone else just fine. Perhaps he's hacked the place so he can comment without me knowing to make a response. Perhaps if I wasn't so Texas-dragged, that wouldn't happen. Or maybe my blog is just sick of his ass. I wouldn't really blame it.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, dodge what? Once again, you forgot to actually make a point. Am I supposed to dodge your "Texas-dragged nihilist" nonsense? I see nothing to debate here, besides some senseless smears and odd declarations of victory.

And seriously, you think a "progressive" is anyone who didn't care that Obama knows a reformed hippy terrorist? Shit, no wonder Obama won by such a large margin. We're all progressives now.

You really are too funny, Donald. You could have explained why you believe that repealing Bush's taxcuts somehow constitutes socialism, or you could have made an on-topic comment about what I wrote in this post, but instead, you're still trying to win a debate you lost before you even started. Geez dude, how many times do you need to lose a debate before you give up? Oh, that's right. You think that if your opponent doesn't respond that you've somehow won by forfeit, so you're hoping to keep irritating me until I quit. You're a weird, weird man, Donald.

Dress Left said...


Why bother debating the parrots?