Monday, May 19, 2008

Republicans in worst shape since Watergate

This from Jim VandeHei, founder and executive editor of right-wing newspaper The Politico, in an interview with NPR. Mr. VandeHei draws his conclusion from the complex aftermath of the eight-year Bush administration and its policies. The nation is summarily disgusted with the Bush administration and seems to have translated that disgust to Republicans in general. The Republicans themselves seem disenchanted with their own presidential candidate, John McCain, who they reluctantly selected earlier this spring. Most recently, the Republican have lost seats in special elections in Illinois and Mississippi.
For evidence of the party's dismal standing, VandeHei points to the loss to Democrats of the deeply conservative, reliably Republican seat in northern Mississippi's 1st Congressional District.

"Under no circumstances should a Republican lose that seat," VandeHei says. "The Republican brand is as damaged as I can recall."
Now, the story is not yet over. Republicans continue to mobilize large blocks of voters with their positions on security, terrorism, and gay rights. However, if would appear that the party is "in the worst shape with voters that the party has seen in more than 30 years."

Just for reference, dear reader, Joe Moderate is not celebrating this news. I have no fantasies about Democrats being able to save us. I still have yet to decide which party I will vote for in November.

However, I can only hope that the nation's apparent disgust with Bush administration policies will result in a shift away from war and unilateral diplomacy abroad and elimination of rights and freedoms and home. Whether that happens under President McCain or President Obama is fine with me. The devil is in predicting which potential future administration might actually pull it off well.

hat tip: NPR


Pomoprophet said...

Ah yes. My BF and I were "discussing" this point this weekend. The Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right in many senses. I consider myself a Republican but not because of the social issues. Because of the economic ones.

I believe in Small govt that leaves people alone for the most part. The smaller the govt the better. Less taxes. Individual liberties.

Republicans have run away from those principles. And so part of me hopes this purging wakes the republicans up. They are too much like the democrats with their fiscal policy. I think if there was a true fiscal conservative, the Republicans would have a MUCH better shot of winning in November. But McCain isn't it.

I too, am still unsure of who I will vote for. Definitely not Hussein Obama. But I may vote for a libertarian or other 3rd party candidate.

Joe Moderate said...

I agree with your macro-scale political convictions, Pomo. I think of myself as right-of-center on economic stuff and left-of-center on social stuff.

The "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush administration is not fiscally conservative, however the costs of any increase in government size under Bush is far overshadowed by the expense of his wars. $720 million a day.

Pomo, my guess from reading your blog is that the wars are where you and I differ in political conviction.

I'm not opposed to the idea of an Obama administration. Well, no more than I am to the idea of a McCain administration.

On another topic, you mentioned how the national Republican party has sold out to the Religious Right power structure. I agree. But there's something very interesting arising out of the wreckage of the Religious Right: the Religious "Left."

If you listened to what Mike Huckabee said about poverty and social welfare, he sounded much like John Edwards. Huckabee seems to be an indicator of a rising evangelical-socialist political movement.


TweetyJill said...

Nit picking here but: It is slightly irritating to me that everyone has given up on the idea of President Hillary Clinton. So, I will admit that it doesn't seem very likely, but still...Until it has been determined absolutely, can we please stop taking her out of the equation? Thanks.

Speaking of Huckabee Joe, I will admit that as the die hard liberal that I am, I simply threw him out and gave him no consideration (because he was running as a Rebublican). Especially after hearing some of his theocratic ideas.

But a friend you know challenged me to look into his social policies and I was pleasantly surprised.

This revelation is probably for me on of the hardest things about politics. I find it is absolutely impossible to find a candidate who I wholely agree with. Too bad we can't have some sort of crazy colition with all the different political candidates involved.

Hackabee (or a Democrat) would be the minister of social affairs

Maybe Hillariy will be in charge of health

Obama/Hillary would be the economic affairs minister

Giuliani will be the terrorist protection person and so on...

In my home country for example, the man the ruling party appointed as Minister for Economic Planning & Regional Cooperation (whatever that means) and later to other portfolios was from a different party.

This type of action is very rare. To me, it showed a maturity (in this case)on the part of the government that most governments could probably learn a thing or two from. They looked beyond party affiliations to appoint someone who they knew would be appropriate for the job.

Joe Moderate said...

What? Huckabee in charge of social affairs? Ack! Obama/Hillary economics affairs minister? Oh no! Giuliani in charge of defense/antiterroism? Ay carumba!

Tweety, I do like the idea of a coalition government, but I must say that I disagree with almost all of your cabinet posts :-)

How about this:

economic affairs: Thomas Sowell
defense/peace dept: Jimmy Carter
social affairs: Obama
president: McCain
liaison to the Left: Hillary
Liaison to the Right: Giuliani

Hmm... That was like Joe's dream team :-)

seithman said...

I'm sorry to disrupt this political discussion. However, I have to ask a question I find much more important:

Did Pomo just write "my BF" in his comment? Did I miss something?

Back to the political stuff, I have to admit I'm much more liberal, and would by far prefer a Democratic president. Well, actually, I'd like a third-party president that was actually liberal (Dems don't impress me much more than Republicans), but hey...;)

-- Jarred.

Pomoprophet said...

Haha. Well SEITH, you have to figure out which type of BF I mean :)

You crazy people have our government all wrong! Do you want to run it into the ground or something????

economic affairs: Alan Greenspan
defense/peace dept: McCain
social affairs: Obama
Health: Gov't shouldn't be running this...
president: PomoProphet
liaison to the Left: Joe Moderate
Liaison to the Right: Sean Hannity

TweetyJill said...

OK guys, I will admit it. That cabinet I put out there wasn't particularly well thought out. I was simply making a point there. I didn't realise that we were putting out our dream teams. I will have to get back to you on that. Be warned, my dream team does include non-Americans. Hold your breath now...

Joe, I may have let you plan my cabinet (most of the appointments seem reasonable)if you didn't think McCain should be president. A thousand years in Iraq? Not so much. Beside other issues of course.

Pomo's sounds only a mite better. Sure, McCain would do well as some sort of defense person with his wartime experience. Peace, maybe not. Pomo himself as president is an idea I have to chew on a little longer. I am not too keen on some of his small government ideas. But if small government means no power to the president, then I probably won't mind as much. :-)

And I can't believe nether of guys want me as your minister of women affairs or international relations or some such thing. :-(

Seithman, I thought the same thing you did. But I was too shy (stop snickering Joe) to ask. So Pomo, which is it. The masses want to know!

seithman said...

TweetyJill: Then you're lucky to have me around. I gave up on being shy. ;)

-- Jarred.