home

Two Fools Discuss the Election

Only people who have ingested serious hallucinogens could come to the conclusion that Republicans have been swept out of office in the last two elections because they were insufficiently conservative. Tony Perkins says:

"What Tuesday was, was a fact that people wanted change, and it's a rejection of a moderate view."

So in state after state, voters who elected the more progressive Democrat over the more conservative Republican were actually dumping the Republicans because they were too moderate? Tony's evidence for this insane view is the wedge issue of gay marriage, which didn't do well in the polls. Nice try, Tony, but conservative success on a single wedge issue does not prove that voters elected Democrats over Republicans because they thought the Republicans were too moderate.

Dick Armey is equally clueless in his contention that voters rejected the Bush administration's policy of "compassionate conservatism." [more ...]

Given the absence of compassion in the Bush administration's conservatism, it's difficult to see what voters were rejecting. Armey points to No Child Left Behind and the Medicare drug benefit, two laws that were much criticized by the left and the right for different reasons, but it's ridiculous to assert that either one influenced a significant number of voters on Tuesday, or that Republicans would have been reelected in their absence.

Perkins and Armey both talk about small government and limited government, by which they mean a government that does nothing ... unless it's doing something bad, like banning gay marriage or finding new ways to redistribute wealth to the top 5 percent of the populace. Armey holds himself out as a model, along with Newt Gingrich, of the kind of new leadership the Republican party needs, while Perkins invokes Ronald Reagan. It's morning in America -- except in the Republican party, where it's 1980 or 1994.

Twenty-first century voters who ended Republican rule after watching the economy tank due in no small measure to the anti-regulatory fervor of "do nothing" Republicans, and who remember the aftermath of the government's "do nothing" response to Katrina, don't care so much whether government is large or small. They want government to be effective. They want government to work, to solve the problems that government is capable of solving. Neither Perkins nor Armey are speaking for those voters, as much as they want to pretend otherwise.

< MN Sen: Coleman's Lead Dwindling, Before The Recount | How Obama Will Benefit Lawyers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Too early for a beer (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    but give me a couple hours.  This is something I don't want to read sober.

    It's after noon Fabian (none / 0) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:05:27 PM EST
    go for it.

    Parent
    Obama's Conservative Mandate (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by robrecht on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    Hmmm ... sounds like my wife's ultrconservative brother-in-law:

    He said that 20% of conservatives voted for Obama as a protest vote against McCain not being a true conservative.  Therefore Obama has a conservative mandate and as long as Obama governs as a true conservative he will have no problem with him.

    I just had another glass of wine and decided to wait until later to burst out laughing.

    Yeah, well I voted for Obama and I want (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    everyone in America to get a pony at Christmas and their very own oil well and if he doesn't deliver he's blown the mandate that I gave him.

    /snark

    Parent

    Ultra-conservative brother-in-law... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    you have one too?  What's up with our sisters?...lol

    It is undisputable fact the Republican party has not been a fiscally conservative party for a long time...Reagan and both Bushs were certainly not fiscal conservatives.  Fiscal conservatives don't run up massive debts.

    I think this country could use a fiscally conservative leader in the worst way...I hope Obama shocks me and becomes one.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#13)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:06:59 PM EST
    by doing so allows the economy to tank and loses in 2012.

    Parent
    oh, come on now (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    TChris, these guys are border line having nervous breakdowns, cut them some slack. in fact, just cut the line, while they're bungee jumping. be sure to take videos though.

    they just want to be liked.

    Andy Sewer was on MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:26:41 PM EST
    a week or so ago and in the midst of a bunch of very extreme comments by Scarborough and his crew about smaller government Sewer piped up and said, "I think this big or small government debate misses the point.  We need an effective government." {paraphrased}

    The right talkers were thrown off of their game when he said that.  They didn't quite have a talking point formulated to knock that idea down.  It was nice to see.

    This is hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    This is like us reacting to 2000 by choosing Dennis Kucinich for 2004 (who I like but who is not a viable national canidate).    

    See they don't need a more populist conservative (Huckabee) or a more socially liberal conservative ( Guiliani or one of the Romney variations), heck they don't even need a more charismatic, and modern version of the current party (Jindal- evangelical, young, not white, intelligent, Basically the Con Obama) no, no what they need is a more right wing figure-- a Palin, a Hunter, a Tancredo-- its like they want to die as a party.

    This poor (none / 0) (#2)
    by mg7505 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    center-right country is so often center-wrong.

    Obama Won Because... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joncj5 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    1- People agree with Obama's stance on the "right to choose". He is not pro-abortion, he is pro-choice. We do not want to change the Constitution.
    2- People prefer his stance on diversity. They agree that all people should enjoy the same civil rights. Constitutional amendments that prevent a class of people the right for Civil Unions should not be banned. It adverts the progress of civil rights.
    3- People do not like that McCain agreed with Bush more than not. That is not "change".
    4- People did not like McCain's choice for VP. He is too old to have chosen someone who knows nothing about Washington, who might have had to replace him.
    5- People did not agree with Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy and that McCain wanted to keep those cuts in place.
    6- People agreed with Obama to repeal tax cuts for the rich and give the middle class tax breaks instead. People think that since McCain's wife is wealthy, he was looking out for himself; not the American people.
    7- McCain admited that he did not know much about economics. Obama stated plans to fix the economy appeared to know more about the subject.
    8- Obama has experience as an organizer. He wants to bring the people together. McCain separated the people with social conservative views invading peoples' privacy. McCains fiscal conservative views are par for his party, but he was not convincing; Obama was.
    8- Finally, Obama won because he claimed more electoral votes (and popular votes) than McCain. The reason for that is because the majority of American were convinced that he would be a better president.


    those (us) mean conservatives aren't ALL wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by nitish on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    as a self-described conservative, i think Perkins/Armey and TalkLeft's TChris have some points right and some wrong.

    - "Armey points to No Child Left Behind and the Medicare drug benefit, two laws that were much criticized by the left and the right for different reasons..."
    Armey is wrong here in that the GOP actually picked up seats in the next coupla election cycles after NCLB and Medicare Part D (although it didn't take effect until later) passed.  but TChris doesn't give enough (any?) credit that at least the appearance of (even if you don't believe it was actual) bipartisanship helped bush and the GOP.

    - "Perkins and Armey both talk about small government and limited government, by which they mean a government that does nothing ... unless it's doing something bad, like banning gay marriage...."
    this can't necessarily be blamed on the mean old GOP as some of the recent bans were ballot initiatives decided by the voters.  sure, conservatives supported them, but that's not necessarily a 'mean old GOP' thing.

    - TChris nails it closing with
    "[Voters] want government to be effective. They want government to work, to solve the problems that government is capable of solving."
    as the failed Katrina response, the 2004-2007 ineptitude in Iraq policy, and GOP corruption (Foley coverup/Abramoff...) have all damaged/crippled Bush and the GOP

    - i believe conservatives can come up with the ideas and policies necessary.  perkins and armey are throwing their ideas into the mix, people like eric cantor, mike pence will throw into the mix....
    it'll take a village to fix the GOP

    Hmm (none / 0) (#11)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    Few people on the right have considered the Bush administration conservative - going back to 2000, you might recall that many, many people on the right were not convinced of his conservative credentials.

    So while you think he's been governing from far on the right, most conservatives see him as a fairly middle of the road guy, especially on domestic policy (No child left behind, the huge prescription drug bill, etc).

    The GOP has been walking away from conservative ideas ever since Clinton outstared Gingrich on the government shutdown.  What you are hearing now is the same thing perceptive listeners heard after Nixon: the party needs to reinvigorate itself and return to conservative roots.

    Hypothetically, if Obama - simply because of the crush of events outside his control - is seen as a failure 4 years from now, will that imply that the DLC centrists need to take the Democratic party away from the progressives?

    Cal Thomas Understands (none / 0) (#14)
    by jsj20002 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:16:04 AM EST
    Week after week I just skimmed Cal Thomas' columns because what he was saying usually offended me. But November 5's column was very enlightening. See http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2419

    I think Mr. Thomas pretty well sums up the massive change underway in the Republican Party as the true Libertarians part from the Religious Right. The majority that Karl Rove built was simply unsustainable. You cannot simultaneously support limited government and a government that seeks to destroy individual liberty by imposing a highly personal moral code when the majority does not share that same moral code.

    I guess I must be a Libertarian-Democrat because I very much resent any level of government spending my tax money to punish gays, oppose freedom of choice, oppose religious freedom, deny women equality, incarcerate the addicted, teach creationism, oppose stem cell research, support prayer in school, etc.  The turning point was the Terry Schiavo affair in which the Religious Right imposed a federalized moral solution that did not recognize the individual rights of Mr. Schiavo that had been confirmed by the state courts.

    There is no future for the existing Republican Party. The moderates and libertarians will, over time, become Democrats and hope to use common sense and judgment to prevent our progressive wing from going too far (whatever that is?).  The radical right will still call themselves Republicans but they will be relegated to working at the state and local levels in the hope that they can still spend local tax revenues to impose their moral views on the rest of us through the school boards and sheriff's department.