Via Politico:
"The 'Rushification' of the GOP is the natural and inevitable result of the fact that those who are supposed to provide leadership -- Republican elected officials and party officers -- are doing little to bring the party back. Nature abhors a vacuum, and there is no vacuum in nature as empty as the leadership of the Republican Party today."And that's exactly what's happened. It's not that Republicans have all gone to Rush. It's just that since nobody else is as influential as him, he's the biggest guy they've got (both figuratively and literally). He didn't gain in popularity. It's just that all the others shrank away.
The Ghost Presidency
But their problem is deeper than that. This isn't a short-term vacuum created by our current financial woes. Or even one that goes only as far as the Bush self-destruction. This goes all the way down to their core: They haven't had a real leader since Ronald Reagan, and even he really didn't have such a strong hold on things.
The best they had was Bush and he was a total joke. But they were told to worship him and they did. Not just because they were told to, but because they wanted to. They wanted a leader they could believe in. So the party belonged to him. Congress was nothing more than his rubberstamp and the conservative movement relegated all power to him. And each and every one of them sold their soul to this man, who they were told was the Next Ronald Reagan. And that's exactly what they needed.
And now he's gone. But really, he was gone all of last year too. As well as 2007. In fact, it was hard to tell at the time, but I'd guess he had been coasting since the re-election. Campaigning was what he liked best and after he didn't need to worry about another campaign, the wheels fell off the wagon. We can also point to Katrina, and Social Security Reform, and other issues which undermined him. But really, once his last election was over with, he just wasn't there.
Fulltime Vacancy
And it all goes back to the basic problem: They're authoritarians. They believe in a top-down model of doing business, but once the head gets cut off, the body flails around helplessly. And even worse, Republicans require a puppet president because they're always up to no good. That was Nixon's downfall, that he actually knew what the hell was going on in his administration and had no plausible deniability.
And so their leaders must be people who command respect and look authoritative, but don't care if they're kept in the dark as to what's going on under them. And that's a damn near impossible thing to get. And hell, Bush NEVER pulled it off. He always acted jackass retarded from beginning to end and it took a miraculous level of self-delusion for anyone to imagine he was the bold leader they pretended he was. And people just saw what they wanted to see. The establishment knew his name and who his handlers were. The media liked the fratboy charm. The "intellectuals" knew he was an Ivy League man with an MBA. And the base heard that fakey Texas accent, religious talk, and liked his ranch. And a great marketing campaign filled in the details.
But he wasn't the beginning of a new wave of idiot presidents. He was the only one they had who was dumb enough to be a Republican president, without being too meritless to be president. And he was only the puppet anyway and had he lost the 2000 election, would never have been their leader. And that's what we're seeing now. This isn't a temporary setback. They pinned all their hopes on Bush because he was all they had. And there is no successor. They should have filled Bush's VP slot with someone to hand the torch to, but they got a puppetmaster instead.
And now they've got no one. They didn't train any successors, not by mistake, but because their system can only have one Big Boss. Free-thinkers always do poorly in authoritarian regimes, as authoritarianism only rewards yes-men. And that's what Congress is full of: Dopey yes-men who only know how to follow orders. And all the smart ones rigged the system and got booted out. And now they've got no one. They've been the party of Bush for ten years now and they still have no one to replace him. While it's possible they find one, I wouldn't bet on it.
Posts
8 comments:
"They're authoritarians..."
Yeah. Right.
Anyway, you've got some linky time, here.
Epick Link Fail ... try again:
"They're authoritarians..."
Yeah. Right.
Anyway, you've got some linky time, here.
Ha ha!
Daniel Gross knows squat, Hussein. The guy has no formal training in eoncomics, but you still rely on him as "authoritative."
Hey, sure, blow off the Galt thing, but it's not just a right-wing "fantasy." One more case in point at today's LAT:
"I run a small business that employs 10 people who receive health insurance and paid vacation. I am already paying an inordinate amount of taxes between federal, state, property and city business taxes. Now the feds and the state are going to ask for more? With the current economic situation, that might mean having to let someone go. This whole thing was started by people making bad financial decisions, and now those same people are asking for a bailout."
I'd laugh at you, but it's revolting, if anything. You and your nihilist allies ... it'd be like laughing at Pol Pot, as you're in the same league, ideologically and morally ...
Uh, Donald? I didn't rely on Gross as "authoritative." I relied on him because his numbers are correct. And btw, you just committed an ad hominem fallacy with your remark. As you should know, it doesn't matter who makes the argument, but what they say. Either show how Gross is wrong or stop embarrassing yourself like this. You can insult his knowledge all you want, but you still need to disprove his point. And you didn't even try, but instead relied on an attack on the person than on his argument. But I've found that to be fairly standard for you.
And again, I fail to see how pointing out yet another lying Galt geek somehow helps your case. You're talking about someone who claims to make over $250k in profits, yet we're to imagine they're struggling to survive? Are you even paying attention to this stuff? And remember, this is only important if they're making MUCH more than $250k. By my rough estimation, they'd need to make almost $900k in profits to justify laying off one employee who was paid $30k. And if they were making $900k in profits, they obviously CAN afford the employee. Seriously Donald, their argument is flat-out wrong. Provably wrong, in the empirical sense. Yet you quote it as evidence to support your case?
And seriously, Pol Pot? Pol Pot, Donald? You're comparing a small tax increase to the massacre of one million people?? Donald, get help. Seriously, you disgrace yourself with each utterance. I know you don't really believe this stuff. The only question is why you think it's sane to say this garbage in public.
Ha, get help! I should say the same to you, for you're in sick denial that as the Democrats kill the economy, and the mass hordes of roaming leftist zombies rape and pillage across the land, totalitarian measures will be required to restore order, and of course conservatives not toeing the party line will be sent to the camps.
And Obama IS killing the economy:
Obama has:
Quote----->
• Raised taxes on small businesses, the engines of entrepreneurship and job growth
• Raised the capital gains tax
• Lied about "tax cuts for 95% of Americans", offering instead $13 a week, achieved not through tax cuts, but by changing the federal withholding tables!
• Destroyed charitable giving by axing the tax breaks for 26% of all giving (or $81 billion in 2006)
• Proposed a carbon cap-and-trading scheme designed to punish oil companies and further tax consumers
Why would Obama inflict these destructive policies while the economy is collapsing? Simple. Each step strengthens the role of government in people's lives.
• Squelching the stock market kills its attractiveness as a parking lot for private capital. Combined with an increase in the capital gains tax, investors will swarm to bonds -- tax-free vehicles like municipal bonds, which benefit the growth of state and local government. And unions, of course.
• Carbon cap-and-tax will raise taxes on all Americans as the cost of goods and services will increase to address a non-existent threat.
• True tax cuts would grow the economy, which is why, of course, Obama shuns them. The last major recession was Jimmy Carter's malaise. It consisted of of double-digit inflation and unemployment. It was finally licked by across-the-board tax cuts for everyone (even the despised rich), which touched off a twenty-plus year run of prosperity.
• Charities reduce the role of government assistance for those in need. That, in Obama's world, can not be tolerated. That is why charities must be choked off and allowed to die. Especially faith-based institutions.
The only plausible explanation is that Obama's destruction of the economy is intentional.
<-----Unquote.
The link's at my page, so get blogging comrade!
Another plausible explanation: You've gone completely bonkers. Seriously Donald, you're scaring me. I used to think you were a rational guy who had trouble handling my superior arguments. But now, I don't know what to think. What you just wrote was absolutely nutshit crazy. Seriously. I'm not saying that to be rude. If you believe this stuff, I'm worried about your mental health.
Now, if you want to have a debate about the wisdom of these policies, I might be up for that. It largely looks like you've been misled on a bunch of factual points. But your conclusion is absolutely insane. Seriously. Insane. There are perfectly valid explanations for all of this, and the idea that Obama is intentionally destroying the economy is worthy only of my nihilist parody posts. In fact, I now HAVE mocked you for this at the nihilist blog. But I'll be perfectly happy to pretend you didn't write this.
Disagree with his policies if you want, but stay away from the crazy. It just doesn't suit you. I always enjoy our debates, but this really isn't normal.
If you've been smearing people by comparing them to Hitler and Stalin, isn't it kind of a step backward to go to Pol Pot? I can see using him in order to mix it up because the other two were getting a little stale. But, Pol Pot, who I'm not defending, wasn't quite in the same league (through no lack of trying), was he? Numberswise, anyway?
And not that Douglas is going to listen to atheistic nihilists, but, yes he does seem to be slipping perceptively further into the swamp of insanity by the day. You might want to get a tune-up, Donald.
BTW, "The guy has no formal training in eoncomics." I used to love Marvel, but Eon was just too far out.
Donald, Donald Donald... You truly are the most deluded right wing fool I've ever come across.
Although you are not in the top 2% of wage earners, I know this from your New Years post before you banned me, you fight tooth and nail for the wealthiests tax cuts and ridiculously low capital gains tax they enjoy far more than you or I do Brother.
You parrot the idiotic Joe the Faux Plumber with your nonsense about entrepreneurs not creating jobs because they're taxes will go up. You know shithead, paying alot of taxes means you're making alot of money. It's a good problem to have. It means you are enjoying the benefits of America and our system. I suugest you sit back a few days and look at your situation Donald. Then look at the movie stars that live in Bel Aire and Beverly Hills and decide that they are more deserving than you so they should pay a smaller portion to support the Country that helped make their success possible.
You're supposed to be an educated man Donald. Think of something other than the usual right wing crap you blow off. I am a graduate of a community college. My son attends one. Your lame defense of right wing bullshit demeans you and us.
Post a Comment