Letters to the Editor
-
Even beyond Bush ...
.. the GOP might ultimately pay for their ties to the Christian Right (a relationship which ironically enough began under Reagan). To this point it has been an advantageous one -- they win the South every four years and have their pro-life justices nominated to the Court. Yet I think its success is due in part to the Democrats' lack of onions (no surprise there) in failing to drive a wedge between this part of the GOP electorate and the grand old party itself. Like them or not, the Republicans were brilliant in doing this to the Dems vis'a'vis groups like the NAACP, NOW and the ACLU, so much so that the word "Liberal" became a four-letter word by the nineties. If the Democrats were smart they could do the same to Christian Right and end up leaving many of them disaffected once Repulicans begin distancing themselves for P.R. purposes. (Let's be honest, probably only half of the Washington Republicans truly care about abortion but sign on to the platform because of fear of their consitutiencies.)
To Blumenthal's over-arching point that Bush and the neo-cons have done permanent damage to the GOP, I think he's only right by a half. Eventually, troops will be pulled from Iraq, the neo-cons will return to their think tanks, Bush will be in permanent Texas exile, and the GOP will get clear of his presidency's imperialistic policies. Blogger T. Suarez is right in suggesting McCain might well win in November, but that outcome will be due much less to an endorsement of Bush policies than the lemming-like rush to O'bama before he was properly vetted (or if Hillary somehows pulls it out, the anti-Clinton sentiment among Republicans and Barak-ites). Either way, Bush and the neo-cons will leave its scar, but it in time it will heal.
-
over analyzed?
With a two party system, I can't help but realize that the seesaw game is just that. For all the analysis, it still is one of two parties that makes the presidency.
Earlier in the 20th century, the democratic party reflected their constituency more closely than today while the republicans waffle between ideology and fiscal conservatism. And with a nation composed of far more views than can be reflected in two parties, it's no wonder that both parties, and the republicans more so, will shine with whatever dominant view(s) currently infusing that party.
Since Clinton, the democratic constituency have been consistently under-represented within the party's political machine. This, unfortunately, will only cause discord and eventual dismay. The republican position consistently operates from an ideological reactionism imposed by the defining of evil that needs defeating.
But in the end, the only thing that marches forward is the military-industrial-media machine. It builds and becomes more polished and affirmed within Washington. And it is the primary producer of discord within the democratic hierarchy. Basically, the elected democrats simply can not deal with the contradiction of clintonesque politics and working class, environmental, and social-minded voters within the party. I see too often democrats voting democratic for no other reason that as a last resort--perpetuating the myth that a two party system is a two team sporting event.
Republicans, on the other hand, simply look for the right dialogue that fits with their vanilla reasoning in an effort to combat evil--whether it be fiscal stupidity or evil itself bringing down the substance that makes us American, whatever that misconception is.
Blumenthal makes me feel their is real change on the horizon, real action being taken, and ultimately, real consequences from some unknown "real" understanding of the republican party makeup. But all I see is another seesaw event supporting a dysfunctional political system that the Founding Fathers never saw on the horizon or realized was the product of self serving and inept power seekers.
And so I convulse at the two heads supporting the one body of policy while Americans continue to delude themselves of their own impending disaster--hoping one of two teams can actually change the rules they play by that make them the two teams of choice.
Ultimately though, the republicans will be back in force, just give them time to polish the machine. But this next time around, don't expect things to go so poorly. They see the light that shines on fighting evil, and they aren't going to make the same mistakes twice in their next superbowl.
rm
-
Today's republicans
Republicans are no longer "Eisenhower" Republicans, whom I consider to be the best president of my adult life. Today's republicans are better described as "Puritans" for their emphasis on bronze age fairy tales as well as their intellectual shallowness. "Values" republicans are the equivalent of the taliban, and will destroy the US if we can't drive them back into their dark ages rathole.
-
reality based - @rafewalker
so, this is the echo chamber i've heard about
people invent facts (trillions?), twist history (Bush-Gore was 7-2), share bits and pieces of ancient grievances (the part of Lincoln _always_ on the side of the rich?) and conspiracy theories (let's not even go there, girlfriends); and then scream themselves hoarse shouting them back and forth at each other, on Salon, at The Nation, Harper's, the Bill Moyers show, hoping that volume alone will make true the things they wish were true. I think I can, I think I can, Yes We Can!
if I had to live in that version of the reality-based community- if I had a modicum of intelligence and awareness, but if I had sold out the integrity of my intelligence and awareness so long ago that I couldn't even remember when I had last been clearheaded, then- yeah, I'd be driven to drink too.
whoa, slow down, cowboy - i think if one wants to talk about reality, one should not do exactly what one is accusing others of. Bush v Gore was not 7-2 - 7 justices felt there was an arguable 14th amendment violation, but only 5 agreed to stop the recounts. this is because, while the 14th amendment violation (theoretically present, but practically impossible to to adjudicate - the only state which does not violate the 14th amendment under Bush v Gore is Georgia, since they use the exact same voting machines everywhere) was justicible by the court, they greatly exceeded their jurisdiction by overturning the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law, (something Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas would have always abhorred doing any other time), specifically whether the every vote counts statutory command trumped the safe harbor Dec 12 deadline for seating electors.
I always thought it ironic that during the 2004 election, Bush would say that Dred Scott was an example of a case that was "activist," and that he would appoint judges in the opposite mold. No case has ever reminded me more of Dred Scott's sua sponte invalidation of the Missouri Compromise than Kennedy's decision to use the Federal Court to correct the highest court of a state as to what that state's law actually was.
(for non-legal people out there, Dred Scott was a case where the Supreme Court decided a black man did not have the right to utilize the federal courts because he was not a federal citizen. While this ruling is the emotionally tragic part of the case, the legal shocker is that the court then decided to resolve a question that was not before it and no longer relevant to the decision (a huge jurisprudential no-no), and declared the Missouri Compromise (an arrangement between slave state congressmen and free state congressmen regarding the admission of new states in the union, and the status of slavery in them) an invalid law. Bush v Gore was brought up to determine whether the recounts requested by Gore were permissible. While seven members expressed sympathy that recounting undervotes in only a few counties represented an "equal protection" violation - because there was no uniform method for determining exactly when a vote should be counted (hanging chads and whatnot) - only the 5 conservatives signed off on overruling the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law, something, as noted in Ginsberg's dissent, that has only ever happened a handful of times in the history of the nation. The Florida Supreme Court determined that the overriding principle in the Florida election code was to count every vote. This principle, according to the Florida Supreme Court, trumped another conflicting provision, which required the results to be certified by a certain date, to reap the benefits of federal law recognition of state slates of electors in the electoral college. The Supreme Court decided that Florida law should be the opposite, the "certification of results" provisions trumped the "count every vote" provision. Not only egregious "judicial activism" by a federal court, the case drips with irony, as it is traditionally the liberals who will usurp state law with federal law, Scalia and Thomas have never seen an equal protection violation of the Constitution before or since (exaggeration for effect), and Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Rehnquist were big into "federalism" - the concept of the federal government having limited, discrete powers, and not interfering with traditional state power (like a state's highest court interpreting its own law).
[please allow a bit of imprecision, i didn't have the time to completely read over Bush v Gore or Dred Scott before posting.]