Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: May 17, 2008 03:50AM
Here's a good one for you DICKS. What it comes down to is that you are a bunch
of puppet boys following those neo-commie spoiled intellect only mommas boys
around, they have no real experience in the things they want done, it's just
what they dreamed up on paper and believed like a coupla high school punks
(reminds me of shadez of all people), you freaks are like boys on the
playground, very sadistic in your way of thinking,it's funny how you guys talk
so much self righteous tough shit and then go sit down and watch some History or
If they would have taken Ron Paul in instead of following Bush (that one guy
that's helped ruin us) they would have risen up into a new world of strength,
not a new world of fantasy, keep following lies and deny all truth and you will
crumble yourself into a pit that there is no escape from. Isn't it funny, the
whole Bush catastrophe has not even peaked yet, all of the crap that he stirred
will surface even more as time moves on and produce nothing but more hate for
the Republican Party overall, so, when they start talking their... we made some
mistakes now we're back on course bullshit.... they will get "THE
This is something from a Conservative Lady.
By PEGGY NOONAN
May 16, 2008
Big picture, May 2008:
The Democrats aren't the ones falling apart, the Republicans are. The Democrats
can see daylight ahead. For all their fractious fighting, they're finally
resolving their central drama. Hillary Clinton will leave, and Barack Obama will
deliver a stirring acceptance speech. Then hand-to-hand in the general, where
they see their guy triumphing. You see it when you talk to them: They're busy
The Republicans? Busy dying. The brightest of them see no immediate light.
They're frozen, not like a deer in the headlights but a deer in the darkness,
his ears stiff at the sound. Crunch. Twig. Hunting party.
The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned
by Loss in Mississippi." It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat
gave the Republican in the special House election. My first thought was: You
have to be stupid to be stunned by that. Second thought: Most party leaders in
Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned
when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they
think pertains now. In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard
Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss.
They are also – Hill leaders, lobbyists, party speakers – successful,
well-connected, busy and rich. They never guessed, back in '86, how government
would pay off! They didn't know they'd stay! They came to make a difference and
wound up with their butts in the butter. But affluence detaches, and in time
skews thinking. It gives you the illusion you're safe, and that everyone else
is. A party can lose its gut this way.
Many are ambivalent, deep inside, about the decisions made the past seven years
in the White House. But they've publicly supported it so long they think they .
. . support it. They get confused. Late at night they toss and turn in the
antique mahogany sleigh bed in the carpeted house in McLean and try to remember
what it is they really do think, and what those thoughts imply.
And those are the bright ones. The rest are in Perpetual 1980: We have the
country, the troops will rally in the fall.
"This was a real wakeup call for us," someone named Robert M. Duncan,
who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, told the New York Times.
This was after Mississippi. "We can't let the Democrats take our
issues." And those issues would be? "We can't let them pretend to be
conservatives," he continued. Why not? Republicans pretend to be
conservative every day.
The Bush White House, faced with the series of losses from 2005 through '08, has
long claimed the problem is Republicans on the Hill and running for office. They
have scandals, bad personalities, don't stand for anything. That's why
Republicans are losing: because they're losers.
All true enough!
But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that
there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the
deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy,
foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House
The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a
mountain." Analysis of its predicament reflect an "investment in the
Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past
that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and
they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a
disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only
asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party,
said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White
House, and force Democrats to define themselves. "They should have some
ownership for what's going on. They control the budget. They pay no price. . . .
Obama has all happy talk, but it's from 30,000 feet. Energy, immigration, what
is he gonna do?"
* * *
Could the party pivot from the president? I spoke this week to Clarke Reed of
Mississippi, one of the great architects of resurgent Republicanism in the
South. When he started out, in the 1950s, there were no Republicans in his
state. The solid south was solidly Democratic, and Sen. James O. Eastland was
thumping the breast pocket of his suit, vowing that civil rights legislation
would never leave it. "We're going to build a two-party system in the
south," Mr. Reed said. He helped create "the illusion of Southern
power" as a friend put it, with the creation of the Southern Republican
Chairman's Association. "If you build it they will come." They
There are always "lots of excuses," Mr. Reed said of the
special-election loss. Poor candidate, local factors. "Having said all
that," he continued, "let's just face it: It's not a good time."
He meant to be a Republican. "They brought Cheney in, and that was a
mistake." He cited "a disenchantment with the generic Republican
label, which we always thought was the Good Housekeeping seal."
What's behind it? "American people just won't take a long war. Just –
name me a war, even in a pro-military state like this. It's overall
disappointment. It's national. No leadership, adrift. Things haven't
worked." The future lies in rebuilding locally, not being
"distracted" by Washington.
Is the Republican solid South over?
"Yeah. Oh yeah." He said, "I eat lunch every day at Buck's Cafe.
Obama's picture is all over the wall."
How to come back? "The basic old conservative principles haven't changed.
We got distracted by Washington, we got distracted from having good county
Should the party attempt to break with Mr. Bush? Mr. Reed said he supports the
president. And then he said, simply, "We're past that."
We're past that time.
Mr. Reed said he was "short-term pessimistic, long-term optimistic."
He has seen a lot of history. "After Goldwater in '64 we said, 'Let's get
practical.' So we got ol' Dick. We got through Watergate. Been through a lot.
We've had success a long time."
Throughout the interview this was a Reed refrain: "We got through
that." We got through Watergate and Vietnam and changes large and
He was holding high the flag, but his refrain implicitly compared the current
moment to disaster.
What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't
happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken,
on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the
carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government
– has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now
look craven. They're stuck.
Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the
party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons,
they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would
have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined
"brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they
speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about
policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only
This is and will be the great challenge for John McCain: The Democratic
argument, now being market tested by Obama Inc., that a McCain victory will
yield nothing more or less than George Bush's third term.
That is going to be powerful, and it is going to get out the vote. And not for