"Conservatives now have but one horse to ride; otherwise, you may as well saddle up with Mitt and head off into the sunset with whatever you think is a genuine form of conservatism. Romney is not going to expend one iota of political capital selling it, or fighting for it, because he doesn't believe in it. He is as elitist and out of touch with the working class that empowers Reagan conservatism as is Obama. And he's damn near as progressive in terms of government being the answer to everything, as long as he's the one who gets to make the decisions. That's not conservativism. It's bullshit."
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Riehlist Vs. The Romnerovians
"Conservatives now have but one horse to ride; otherwise, you may as well saddle up with Mitt and head off into the sunset with whatever you think is a genuine form of conservatism. Romney is not going to expend one iota of political capital selling it, or fighting for it, because he doesn't believe in it. He is as elitist and out of touch with the working class that empowers Reagan conservatism as is Obama. And he's damn near as progressive in terms of government being the answer to everything, as long as he's the one who gets to make the decisions. That's not conservativism. It's bullshit."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
A panic and meltdown.
Erickson kind of disgruntled.
Counterpoint: Yet the elites ignored the roar. After all, the roar came from the unwashed. It came from the fans of cockfights. It came from tea party folks and other such rabble. Inside the sterile cable studios and on their laptops, the pundits scored their debate and their election prospects without the roar. They have their little formulas about who has to raise doubts here and who has to score points there.
What they don't understand is what the roar means.
Counter-counterpoint: Brit Hume not happy.
Larry Kudlow not happy, either.
Ann Coulter a bit ruffled.
This is the clearest divide between the Establishment Republicans and the Stinking Peasants since the Elder of the House of Bush led his valiant defense of Versailles against Ronnie da Chimp and his mob Bedtime Bonzos.
It was my distinct pleasure to cast my first vote for Reagan, contra Bush, and then my second for Reagan, contra Carter. It will be my distinct pleasure to cast my next vote for Newt, contra Romney, and then my second for Newt, contra Obama.
The only significant political difference in the path the USA is following, vs. that of the Brits, is that in London there was no effective "Party of the Peasants" to be found among the Tories and so continue the good fight after the waning of Thatcher. Our "Establishment" is Tory through and through, and we would already be doomed but for Reagan and the movement in the GOP that he founded. Newt, not Bush, carried that torch in the 90's. Then it went out, not to be reignited until the coming of Palin and the Tea Party.
Versailles is deeply not amused.
Ok, but. For all their foibles, I have a hard time equating, say, Coulter or Krauthammer or Kudlow or Hume with the likes of Brooks or Gergen, let alone the luminaries of pinko Versailles. Let's try to delineate here some boundaries, and not slip into the "if you're not with us you're against us" temptation.
In fact, if you go back to 1980, you'll remember that Ronnie made a point of being quite pragmatic when he had to -- eg, co-opting Bush père and unifying the GOP behind him. I don't know whether Newt (or Mitt, for that matter) can do that now.
And, remember, this is not a single election we're talking about, important as it is. Whoever the nominee will be will have the ability to either expand on the margins in the Senate and the House, or to drag down everyone with him. What the GOP "Establishment" (which means, inter alia, scads of said senators and congressmen) fears is that Newt will do the latter -- like he did to some extent (and in a different way) in 1996, after the resounding 1994 victory. Of course, one can (and should) also put the blame on Dole, but Newt should be man enough to recognize he contributed to that earlier defeat.
Put another way: remember how in 2010 the GOP went a bridge too far with the likes of O'Donnell and Angle, who crashed and burned, losing two senate seats that were up for grabs. Bad as this was, at least these were relatively isolated self-inflicted wounds. But this is a different game now in 2012. If Newt becomes the standard-bearer, and then has one of those serial implosions at a bad moment (say, in early October), it's no longer a case of not winning the presidency: it's a way to surely not win back the Senate, and almost surely lose back the House. Not to say, have the SCOTUS go the full Pepe.
And then, where do we stand? Just left with the pleasure of seeing Newt strut on the stage and smack down the pinko MSM? Is this really the name of the game?
[1] "In fact, if you go back to 1980, you'll remember that Ronnie made a point of being quite pragmatic when he had to -- eg, co-opting Bush père and unifying the GOP behind him. I don't know whether Newt (or Mitt, for that matter) can do that now. "
Reagan was pragmatic after, not before, or anticipating, but AFTER his victory was assured. Prior to that he was relentless, or indefatigable if you prefer a more Versaillean way of putting it, in distinguishing himself from the Establishment and in making it clear he would not play by its terms. In short, he was much closer to what Newt is doing, at this stage, than anyone else. Romney? He's been consistent in all his actions in one respect; he is the UnReagan.
[2]"And, remember, this is not a single election we're talking about, important as it is. Whoever the nominee will be will have the ability to either expand on the margins in the Senate and the House, or to drag down everyone with him. What the GOP "Establishment" (which means, inter alia, scads of said senators and congressmen) fears is that Newt will do the latter -- like he did to some extent (and in a different way) in 1996, after the resounding 1994 victory. Of course, one can (and should) also put the blame on Dole, but Newt should be man enough to recognize he contributed to that earlier defeat. "
I don't know if Newt is "man enough" to recognize he contributed to that earlier defeat....but I am not. I do not believe for one moment that the 1996 defeat was due to Newt's [principled and highly successful] stand against the Dems and Clinton in his first term. The Contract with America was a brilliant and ambitious political program, and the direct successor to Reagan's ambition. Newt's leadership not only stopped cold Hillary's attempt to carry out a nationalized health care system but it also helped provided cover for Bill [or forced him to for political survival--whatever was going on in his mind] to make a genuine move to the right economically and so perpetuate the Reagan economic boom. It was Newt, not the House of Bush, that engineered the magnificent political victory of 1994. It was the House of Bush, not Newt, that engineered the "victory" of Dole in 1996. And once he was nominated the fire and force of the previous years washed away.
Accusing Newt of being responsible for the Establishment's weakness contra Clinton is akin to accusing Palin of being responsible for McCain's weakness against Obama; or the current Rovian bleating that the Tea Party is responsible for undercutting what would otherwise be a glorious Romney campaign against Obama.
Are you serious, Tecumseh, in your suggestion that Gingrich was responsible for the tepid and utterly vapid campaign run by the Establishment with their man Dole?
[1] "Put another way: remember how in 2010 the GOP went a bridge too far with the likes of O'Donnell and Angle, who crashed and burned, losing two senate seats that were up for grabs. Bad as this was, at least these were relatively isolated self-inflicted wounds."
O'Donnell was a weak choice in that she had almost no testing, no record, by which her mettle could have been tested and judged. She won because the Establishment type was so unbelievably weak, a man who made Spector look principled and Brown right wing, that people were opting for the "anyone but him" button. If Karl Rove and the other Versailleans had bothered to thing about this, and encouraged an oppositional run from someone more of their heart but better than the miserable Castle, then there would have been no need for the voters to choose their pet dog over the "approved" idiot of the GOP.
Angle was a different story. She actually had many fine qualities, and a track record that backed it up. In that campaign the Dems pulled out all the Chicago methods.... do not doubt that many a vote was cast by the nonregistered, by noncitizens, or the dead...and the Rovians seemed so preoccupied in trying to stop the Tea Party that it perhaps never even occurred to them that they were losing a singular opportunity to defeat a pillar of the opposition [or it did occur to them, and they valued the defeat of the Tea Party more than that of Harry Reid]
[4] "But this is a different game now in 2012. If Newt becomes the standard-bearer, and then has one of those serial implosions at a bad moment (say, in early October), it's no longer a case of not winning the presidency: it's a way to surely not win back the Senate, and almost surely lose back the House. Not to say, have the SCOTUS go the full Pepe."
It IS a different game now. Before, the Establishment could focus on its control over the GOP and shrug its shoulders if the price was a Dem Presidency. After all, not so terribly different between an LBJ and a RMN. eh? ["Before" here meaning in the 1960's or early 70's. Perhaps, as in 1996, with Clinton. ]
But now we have a "Democrat" Party that has established itself as the Socialist, and not even, in large, pretending to be Democrat Socialist, Party of the USA. With Obama we have a "leader" who openly chafes at the limitations of our Republic and its Constitution, and openly and "Audaciously" circumvents or nullifies it at all opportunity. We currently have a President who has succeeded in establishing the notion that it is proper to have National control over most, fundamental or not so fundamental, aspects of individual life [education, healthcare, your ability to protect yourself, the food you eat, the car you drive, the lightbulb you use, your ability to brush your teeth when traveling on an airplane...an ever increasing world of things under the Czars and the Czar of Czars].
And the Ivied Geniuses of the GOP Establishment want to anoint a man who has no essential disagreement with what the Dems are doing, and has a "proud" history of so not disagreeing, in both thought and action. They want to anoint the man who paved the way for Obamacare, for God's sake. They want to anoint the man who openly expressed his disdain for Reagan through the 90's and early 2000's. They want to anoint a man who's "Compassionate Conservativism" would only perpetuate all the vices of the House of Bush...and none, absolutely none, of those few redeeming virtues that emanated directly from George Bush Jr's visceral reaction to 9/11 and which lasted in ever narrowing gyre for about three years.
Tecumseh, our only hope, as a Republic, as a Nation, is to nominate someone with the fire, and belief in the importance of the moment; to undo, as rapidly and thoroughly as possible, the rot expanding under Obamakles. Gingrich is the only one running who has the history and ability to make it at least a hope. Romney is, at best, a Buchanan. We need, for Survival, at worst a Harry Truman. And no current candidate comes close to this but Newt.
Are you serious, Tecumseh, in your suggestion that Gingrich was responsible for the tepid and utterly vapid campaign run by the Establishment with their man Dole?
No, of course not. Dole's campaign was a mess, and that was his sole responsibility. Side note: his running mate was Kemp, a man I had great admiration during the Reagan years. He was, after all, the main architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, on which Reagan ran on in 1980 (against the Establishment!) and after that so successfully implemented. By 1996, though, Kemp was a spent force. Point is: you cannot put all these people in neat little bins -- "Fiery defenders of the stinking peasants", "Establishment", "RINOs", etc. Most of these politicos bob and weave between categories -- some more than other, to be sure.
Getting back to Newt: Yes, no one is questioning his leadership on the Contract with America, and the historic takeover of the House in 1994. What many are questioning, tough, is the way he led the House in the ensuing 4 years, to the point that he was ousted in a palace coup by his own congressmen (many quite conservative -- this was not a pinko coup by any means). Yes, Newt did great things in 1995, but by 1996 he was slipping, and his mistakes (and, paradoxically, some of his victories) allowed Clinton to regain his footing, and go on to defeat Dole, and survive the Monica impeachment proceedings. To say that his record as Speaker was without blemish is to bely the facts.
summing it up: So Gingrich gets away without offering a conservative record or proposals. He needs only to aim his cannons at the elites. Scold the media and declare yourself the enemy of the party establishment, and you have a good chance of winning a GOP primary.
That's precisely my beef with Newt. I love his style, of course -- who doesn't enjoy the spectacle of him counter-punching at the pinko MSM? But what I can't but suspect it's all show, and he's playing the great unwashed masses as a string. After all,
While the roots of conservative, anti-elite sentiment are at least partly grounded in substance, the reaction to it is all identity politics. In his victory speech Saturday night, Gingrich -- a millionaire former party leader and corporate lobbyist now living in McLean, Va. -- railed against "Washington elites," to thunderous applause.
I mean, if Newt is not 100% Washington establishment (of the Fannie & Freddie lobbying stripe), who is?
By definition, conservatives are supposed to look at substance and record, not let themselves be carried away by passions or identity politics, like is the want of the pinkos. Yes, Mitt is a klutz, and a flip-flopper, and overall a weak candidate. But how can anyone trust Newt? I have reservations.
Steyn not happy. With Mitt.
WSJ takes a middle-of-the road approach, kind of hedging their bets.
Newtzilla: Newt’s now like one of those nuked Japanese film creatures that not only was not destroyed but is back, bigger, badder and more cheesed off than ever.
Post a Comment