Frosty Politics
Besides, haven’t we seen this tactic fail before? Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain/Sarah Palin tried going nuclear on Obama at different points in the presidential race and both wound up looking like that kid who falls ass over tea kettle trying to look cool so he/she doesn’t get picked last for the intramural soccre team again. Wether you like his politics or not, you have to admit that Obama is a tough guy to goad, he’s much more inclined to let you play out your antics and then speak to the populace (or least the proportion that is inclined to listen to him) and ask “What the hell that was?” like a stage actor having an aside with the audience. It’s just hard to make a guy that smart look dumb, you generally make yourself look dumb in the process.
Now, governing as President is a lot different than running for the office, but the politicking that happens in the two instances isn’t so very different, especialy when it comes to attack strategies/tactics. Besides, does the GOP really have anyone who comes close to the unbridled ferocity of Hillary and Bill Clinton on the war path (now backing Barry)? And John McCain is a competitor, but he seems to have lost too much credibility in the race to really be a factor in at least the short term. Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? Seasoned politicians to be sure, but they ain’t no Newt Gingrich and don’t look to have the requisite chutzpah to really take the world’s beloved new President down. Attempts at a partisan coup instead of sincerely playing the perfectly respectable and extremely vital opposition to Obama’s majority will only further weaken their party and deprive the country of its much needed balance.
Time will tell, but I think the GOP looks to have chosen the road too often traveled — and that will make all the difference.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Erik:Thanks for the plug!...
- Really interesting articl...
- Trumwill, I clearly state...
- I read Mysterium by Rober...
- Somewhere in my library i...
- Regarding: "This is a goo...
- I should add that there a...
- Presumed innocence is for...
- As a diehard Dick fan, I ...
- I'd recommend checking ou...
-
10 comments
These are heady times. The Republicans seem a bit like the market right now…. just when you think you’ve hit bottom, you realize you’ve got further to go. The rump that remains of the party seem determined to drive it into the ground. Trying to look at the bright side, the more thorough the destruction the more possibilities there are for its next iteration.
I’m still hoping for broad political realignment. There’s probably not a realistic possibility of that as long as this crew is in charge.
Who knows. My general sense is that the Dems’ wagon is hitched to Obama now and his record is going to be decided upon how he deals with the financial crisis. The Dems have won two major congressional victories in a row–that’s really rare–and while they could in theory pick up some Seats in the Senate in 2010, I think they are going to be very nervous about a major hit in the House (a la Reagan & GOP in ‘82).
If the Economic situation grows increasingly bleak, though I wouldn’t say it’s really fair, it’s going to be on Obama/Dems and the GOP will make gains.
The only potential it seems to me for the kind of realignment Cascadian pines for, is if the Dems blow up and crater under Obama while the Republicans have yet to formulate a real alternative. This interestingly was basically the scenario laid out in James Fallows’ brilliant 2005 (or 06?) piece in The Atlantic where he talked about a coming Depression and the rise of a Third Party President.
Fallows
Scott:
You’re crazy.
Nah, I kid. Actually I think you’re dead on with this one.
I wrote about this today:
I understand the need for rhetoric, but I find this logic hard to follow when we look at the political realities surrounding this bill. As I said to another blogger the other day, “So let’s say these ‘cons’ took your advice and this bill passed 100-0. Are you telling me you wouldn’t still be arguing that they should be run out of office when their terms expired? Let’s not kid ourselves. In 2010 or 2012, if the economy is back on track, you will say that it’s evidence that liberal policies work and we need more liberals in office. Regardless of how these politicians voted on the stimulus, if there is an (R) next to their name, you will want them out. “
Politically speaking, the smart move is to vote against the stimulus and let Democrats put their asses on the line. They are the majority and they need to act like it. That means taking the fall if your policies fail, and given the highly theoretical nature of the Stimulus Bill, failure is a distinct possibility. I remain inclined to believe that the Democratic cries for bipartisanship are more about risk mitigation than any noble unity goals for our democracy. If nothing else, watching these events unfold has made me much more sympathetic to the complaints liberals made about being pushed into Iraq by the Bush administration. The only difference is that the GOP hasn’t fallen into the trap.
I don’t think the GOP is declaring war…but there may be some truth that they are actively trying to encourage a Democratic over-reach. That was the lesson learned from Clinton and while Obama wants to avoid that mistake, Pelosi and Reid may have done the reaching for him.
I just think it’s an awfully odd time for the GOP to adopt fiscal conservative politics after 8 years of playing fast and loose.
@Mike: As an O/T aside – I saw your post about your label. I’ll admit, when you first e-mailed me to join my blogroll at PE, I thought that label was a bit unusual and paradoxical. But now I’m not so sure; maybe what conservatism needs (keeping in mind I’m not a conservative) is exactly the kind of individual relabeling that your site advocates. By that I mean that the relabeling of various types of conservatism ultimately serves conservatism well by implicitly recognizing that a fundamentally conservative political philosophy does not dictate an all-encompassing set of beliefs about policy. The more conservative “labels” that exist, the more movement conservatism is forced to boil its litmus test issues down to the issues that really do differentiate a conservative philosophy from a liberal one.
Some good points Mike.
Basically a scenario Scott and I discussed before the election I think is coming to pass. That the Republicans would simply triple down on their base in the face of mass electoral defeat. They’ve sunk themselves I think way too deep in the near term to an ever shrinking baseline of the population.
But if they hold that, get some bad news from the Dems, then they can try to run a quick turn around victory. Hell they might even win. But even if the GOP were to win, they have no plan for governance. None.
The Dems might blow it. I don’t know. I do that Obama’s bipartisanship is really in some fashion based on his reading of the New Deal Era. For all their talk and promises otherwise, Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Ford all basically hued to the New Deal line. They modified it in more Republican/conservative forms (a David Frum-like move you might say), but FDR had set a pattern that both parties held to.
This is what Obama wants. He knows at some point the GOP will control the Executive if not the Legislative as well. Plus their foreseeable decent hold on SCOTUS. He wants them basically bought into some form of his New New Deal if you want to call it that.
Unfortunately he is meeting a very different party than the party of Eisenhower and Thomas Dewey. The Rockefeller Republicans are dead. They would be the only ones who would fit this pattern: cf Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and their votes on stimulus bill.
That leaves Obama out on a limb with Reid and Pelosi pulling for a more left-wing response. Which is I think really not what Obama wants.
Mark – thanks for the encouragement on the labeling. My notion of ‘progressive conservatism’ remains an effort to prove that not all conservatism is about entrenchment and a refusal to ever move forwards. As Disraeli said, progress is inevitable. The only choice is the pace and scope of that change. This stimulus bill is a good example of that. Democrats have chosen to place their bets on largely untested theory and rushed forward at an amazing pace (even the New Deal took years to implement). I think Disraeli would say that they have adhered to a liberal notion of ‘progressivism’. The question will be if that can work.
Chris,
I hope you are right that this bill and any forthcoming additions is more New Deal than Great Society. Democrats lost a lot of voters when the govt’s role was perceived to switch from hand-up to hand-out. For the sake of the country, I don’t think a new generation of govt dependence is what we need. I am not optimistic, but I really hope I am wrong and this bill renews the middle class.