Don't let a pandemic stop the partisanship

Very few people are letting go of partisanship. Some examples: GOP senators want to increase the quarter-trillion dollar small business loan fund because it was exhausted in about 2 weeks. But they don't want to allow Pelosi any of her projects that would help other sectors, like state governments and hospitals. So no deal. Our way or the highway, I guess.

Republican-leaning folks are protesting lockdowns in various states, and getting encouragement from Trump. Are the protesters considering the implications in terms of life and health? Are they asking for a plan? Or are they stomping their feet was though this was all a hoax? Michigan had the biggest protest so far, and here's the view from a Michigander of the divisions within the state. It's the equivalent of 'Let 'em die.'

Election Looming

So let's strip away the dressing and lay it bare. Republicans are desperate to get the economy back on track because it was looking quite good and greatly helped their chances in the upcoming November elections.

But where are the Democrats in this? Some Republicans suspect that the Dems are gleeful over this disaster if it dooms Trump's chance at reelection, and maybe also hands the Senate to the Dems. That's a suspicion, but would any Dems in office actually try to worsen the epidemic or the economy for the electoral advantage? That's pretty bloodthirsty. However, it's clear from many comments I read that it's exactly what some Republicans think. Good luck trying to prove otherwise. It's a nasty accusation that they won't be able to back up, but they throw it to cause the suspicion and to blacken their opponents.

Dems aren't going to be completely honest either. Most aren't giving Trump credit for closing down a lot of the travel from China. They are giving him a hard time for his lack of leadership, but he richly deserves that. There was a lot of time wasted not getting prepared for this epidemic. There were warnings and information coming in to those paying attention that this virus was spreading quickly around the world, starting with areas with more travel.

This is largely a rant, so I'll follow my rules for rants, whatever they might be today. I haven't seen Dems trying to gain political advantage except for pointing out that the economy might be wrecked and the stock market is way down, so Trump can no longer claim successes with them. That's a bit weak on the causation, but fair on the result. Trump can't claim good things about the economy now because we are in a massively different situation, and it's not one caused by the Dems. It's partially caused by this black swan event, and partially by Trump's poor handling of this black swan event.

I've seen Republicans make all kinds of different arguments trying to avoid the obvious. This is fucking terrible for Trump's reelection prospects. One pundit I read has written for years that presidents will tend to get reelected unless there's a major crisis or a war that's not going well. If there's a crisis, well, the president might well be toast. This appears to be crisis beyond Trump's ability to manage. Maybe not, but probably. So Trump is clearly in trouble. I hope that isn't in dispute among the honest.

Not His Fault!

Some of the ludicrous stuff that Trump supporters have been saying: It's no worse than the flu! Trump was being impeached [so that makes it the Dems fault???]. The Chinese lied to us. Dems attacked Trump for blocking flights. Trump did a lot of things to prevent the spread. It's a lie that the National Security pandemic team was dismantled. It's a bunch of fearmongering. Don't panic. Don't buy up all the toilet paper, you idiots. Dems said we'd have a million people dead by now but it hasn't happened, so they're complete liars. Trump did take it seriously. Lockdowns aren't necessary. Lockdowns will ruin the economy just to save a few lives. Dems don't care about people losing their jobs and businesses. Dems love this, that we're all dependent on the government giving us money to survive. The suicide, murder and abuse rates are already shooting up. People aren't going to be able to take this lockdown for very long. Just wash your hands - no need to shut down the economy. It's only bad in dirty places that have Democratic governors and mayors; the rest of us shouldn't have to shut down. It's because of poor Dem hygiene practices. The governors are happy with Trump's leadership. The governors are in mutiny. This death rate isn't higher at all. Lots of deaths are labeled as covid but that's to get extra money... or make the GOP look bad. Go check your hospital and see if it's overwhelmed, or is it just a hoax? <--- And I didn't even get into the arguments about testing or personal protective equipment (PPE).

Yes, I have seen a conservative saying each one of these. I'm not making up any of them.

Dems are bashing Trump regularly, and not completely honestly either. They don't say that any leader, GOP or Dem, would be facing very difficult circumstances. Decisions have to be made with imperfect information, and not all of them will be right. So the impulse to attack everything Trump does is wrong, but many Dems are still doing that, just today bashing Trump for putting a hold on immigration. If lockdowns make sense, so does a hold on immigration, duh!

So there is reasonable cricism of Trump, and a lot of it, and there is stupid criticism of him.

Anti-News, Anti-Science

A big problem is that a lot of people won't believe information that doesn't come to them except from their stilted media. So if Fox News isn't telling them this pandemic is real, they aren't going to believe it even with the availability of reports from Lombardy, Spain, New York City, Seattle, and New Orleans. It gets even worse than that. They won't believe anyone who says something similar to MSM or experts. They are very effectively vaccinated against believing anything from anyone remotely associated with the suspect media and politicians. So they will never be convinced short of nearly dying or having someone in their family nearly die.

This total resistance to anything from experts or MSM media means that there will always be a cadre who can mutually reinforce each other. They will also fight the most sensible, well-supported information. They will attack good idea, good arguments, and good people simply because they are always on the offense, and think anyone with different ideas is brainwashed. I'm seeing so much of this.

I see Trump supporters who think that anyone who criticizes Trump over his handling of covid-19 is gleeful that people are dying by the thousands. Many people are feeling vindicated that Trump is so clearly out of his depth. I'm among those who thought that Trump would be a disaster if he ever had to handle a major crisis, and now that's exactly what he has to do, and he is handling it as poorly as we always suspected he would. There is no 'rising to the challenge' from him.

Covid flips the campaigns

Sadly, we're in this situation as the US presidential campaign heats up, so the stakes are very high. Prior to this pandemic, it looked like Trump had a very good chance of being reelected based on the economy if nothing else. But this huge crisis and the economic toll, his chances are diminished a lot, and his supporters know this. Trump and his supporters are desperate to reverse the economic losses, which accounts for their push to reduce stay-at-home orders and reopen states as soon as possible, whether it is safe or not, whether there are good plans in place or not. Reopen Now!! is what a lot are saying, and they aren't interested in evaluating the risks and rewards. Are Dems desperately trying to prevent this for electoral advantage? Not that I know of, but GOPers accuse them of this. This is also playing out in the issue of vote-by-mail.

Planning for how to handle a pandemic wouldn't generally be easy, but this one is harder than the last. This virus spreads more easily, kills somewhat more people, is mutating (not unusual), affects several organ systems, is a type of virus that isn't conducive to a vaccine, and perhaps not to immunity through antibodies either. This might be a long slog, like it was with HIV, except that this can affect many more people, but luckily our technology is much more advanced.

Advanced or not, we are in some uncharted territory. We haven't had a pandemic like this in a hundred years, and our expectations have risen very high in terms of the safety we expect. What would it be like, being on the team that has to plan the reopening of a state or country, knowing that there is no cure, no certain prevention, and more danger of death that we're accustomed to?

Image: theweek.com

Extras. A program for small businesses to continue to pay workers ran out of money in just two weeks. The parties in Congress took several extra days to sort out how to provide more funds, partly because Dems wanted to fund other groups and GOPers wanted to limit it. Both stances are based on constituencies. GOPers only want to support businesses, and Dems want to support hospitals, states, and businesses that are very small. Dems were holding the money for business ransom, trying to force Republicans to help broader groups. The GOP mostly won this time. Dems were only able to get aid earmarked for the very small businesses.

Some examples of conservative media and what they are saying about Dems reveling in this pandemic. Most are from Rush Limbaugh  (archive  here). Time series: Limbaugh1, Limbaugh2, Limbaugh3, Limbaugh4, Limbaugh5, Limbaugh6, Limbaugh7. This started with Limbaugh saying it was nothing but Dems hope it will be something  (CHECK), then it's well under control but Dems are going try to spin that Trump lied about it being under control, it's something that isn't in control but it's being weaponized against Trump. It's not just Limbaugh, it's also Townhall. Columbia Journalism Review looks at this.

Aid to red states - Good. Aid to blue states - waste. Same as with hurricane relief.

Opinions about which drug is most effective against covid are based on partisanship. That makes no sense because it should be based on test data, right? But there's the chloroquine and the remdesivir camp, and data be damned!

Opinions on masks could be based on partisanship. <Eye roll> More of that proud animosity to those wimpy scientists, liberals, and SJWs.

April 28, over 59K deaths, and someone is still declaring this a hoax.

Evidence-based thinking vs. assumption-based thinking

I've read many comments about how the US is doomed to have an Ebola outbreak because Obama is such a horrible president. I agree that there are plenty of reasons to think the Obama isn't a good president, but it's quite a leap to assume that we'll have people dying of Ebola because of it.

Of course, many people think we are doomed since the country reelected Obama. We were doomed by ACA, so we must be at least doubly or triply doomed. So if we are doomed, any crisis can obviously boil over and burn us all. We were threatened existentially over the summer by immigrants, which turned into immigrants with dread diseases. Then that story morphed into ISIS terrorists infiltrating through the Mexican border. Now we are doomed because ... Ebola!

Some of the concern  has some logic to it. For example, the administration loathes racial discrimination, so it won't ban travel to and from the African countries where the epidemic is occurring. There's some logic to that complaint. The administration hasn't done a great job in explaining why it allows recent visitors from the infected countries to come into the US without quarantine. It doesn't lay out the criteria for when to impose these kinds of measures, so it's reasonable to wonder if they've worked it out at all.

But some critics have leaped to the idea that the administration wants Ebola in the country. Limbaugh says the progressives believe that Ebola is our just desserts for slavery. I can't remember hearing that from the progressives I know, but Limbaugh talks about it quite extensively. Well, we know that Obama and liberals/progressives want to destroy the country, so Ebola would be nifty tool to do it.

Alex Jones thinks Ebola is a great tool for imposing "the medical tyranny state." First you bring people with Ebola into the US, then you release them to spread it around, and then you lock up and/or disappear Americans accused of having the disease. This warning, among others, is helpfully packaged on this Tea Party site, so you can clearly grasp what the real story is.

Contrast this "we-are-doomed" thinking with some scientific observations. Only two people carrying Ebola are known to have left the infected countries by commercial flights. Checking passengers for fever and the cost of tickets appear to have done a good job of deterring infected people, though not a 100% effective job.

Also, it's a fact that the US has handled Ebola patients successfully in this country, so we don't have to take a zero tolerance approach. We can balance the risks: the risk of one or more infected people arriving in the US vs. the risks of cutting off air travel.

Observation also shows that Ebola hasn't spread through casual contact. The only people infected (so far) in the US have been healthcare workers caring for a single patient. No one who had casual contact with the patient, not even the people who shared the patient's apartment, has gotten sick. Observation shows that healthcare workers at the Dallas hospital became infected, but not those at the Atlanta hospital.

Observation doesn't show any connection between Obama and who has gotten infected. So how is Obama responsible? The connection is only possible if you make assumptions, not if you depend on observation and logic. Those who are bashing Obama for presence of Ebola in the US have a bit of a logical case. He could have forbidden the travel of anyone from the effected region. But the bashing goes so far beyond that, and the predictions have been catastrophic because Obama is such a catastrophe himself. By warped logic, Obama is awful, and therefore any awful thing that happens is directly attributable to him.

And by the way, the new Ebola czar that he just named, that guy is a disaster too. Already. He must be, because Obama appointed him.

Image: youngcons.com

Extra. Zero Hedge starts by warning that your civil rights will be gone if there's an Ebola outbreak, Then he warns that Ebola is a "very, very serious disease," and that "we could truly be looking at the greatest health crisis that any of us have ever seen."

So which is it? Should we be protecting our rights and freedom of movement, or should we be cautious of our health? I wish he had decided before he wrote contradictory warnings in a single post.

Outrage du jour

So a leading major high-profile semi-recognizable star person from a reality show got rather anatomical when he was explaining why he didn't understand homosexuality or perhaps he was being a homophobe. I don't know why anyone cares because reality TV participants aren't filmed for their mild observations or platitudes, but for their crazy antics.

Then a gay pressure group pressured the cable network (A&E, but it could have been any of them), and the network caved immediately and "suspended" the "star." Publicity ensues. Charges of abrogation of the First Amendment ensue. The news media is delighted because it finds next injection of controversy, especially needed right now because the congress critters (Damn them!) patched together an agreement and went home for Christmas.

I've never given a damn about what a reality star said. Not anyone on Jersey Shore, not one Survivor, not any of the numerous glitzy, boozy, over-made-up Housewives. These people are the lowest, and I don't know what they are doing on my TV (a topic that might deserve a discussion), but what they say is of NO CONSEQUENCE AT ALL.

So ignore it. Don't get involved in a controversy about what an empty-headed media whore says. That also goes for: Ted Nugent, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And Sarah Palin too. She has to decide whether she's a reality star (which is how she behaves) or a politician. If she's a reality star, she doesn't have to been careful. Instead, she can trash talk all she wants. If she's trying to be an influential political leader, her words should matter, and they shouldn't fall to the low level of the reality TV personality, like these:

"Just finished a long week-thinking in a few weeks we could be living in a very different America-pls Excersise your right and Vote.Pls"

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care." 

"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

"Don't Retreat. Reload."

 Image: humorismy.biz

Extras. Other stupid Palin quotes. More here and here and here. Some people laud stupid. More on the Duck Dynasty person here and here, if you want to research it more. Personally, I regret the time I've wasted on this story, but I did decide one thing: Call them stupid and move on. No boycotts required.

Finally, to be honest, one of the Palin "quotes" above came from a real (dumb) celebrity. Read the other celeb quotes and then you'll realize why we can't hold celebs to the same standards as our politicians, reporters, or pundits.

GOP stands up to the Tea Party Part 2

So many thoughts. Not so many complete sentences.

GOP standing up to Tea Party. Orrin Hatch blasts Heritage. Corporate backers stick with Boehner, toy with the idea of backing establishment Republicans against Tea Partyers.

Tea Party not backing down. RedState doesn't want a house divided; it wants a house purged.

Tea Party is still behind its belief that Obamacare can be stopped/defunded/gutted. They pretend that this was the plan all along, to fight tooth and nail, close down government, do everything they can. But that's a story that only started over the summer.

In this article, RedState blames the GOP for not following through on defund promises, but all the early articles it refers to talk about broad fiscal goals, not Obamacare. I checked the RedState archives: Ben Carson, black neurologist hero of the Tea Party, had lots of complaints about Obama, not just Obamacare. In a February article, the focus was on governors refusing to set up exchanges. Search for "defund," "repeal," and "delay" in articles from that time and you'll see that it wasn't part of the vocabulary then.

Rush Limbaugh, another big voice (and big ego) for the Tea Party, isn't backing down either. He wants Ted Cruz and Mike Lee times 5 or 10 or 45 in the Senate. Per the Washington Times, the Tea Party is "poised for a major victory in the larger Obamacare War." Details absent, though.

Image: usnews.com

Extras. History of the shutdown per Politico. How the House voted on the measure to end the shutdown and raise the debt limit. How the Senate voted. Currently the Senate has about 10 senators with similar strategies to Ted Cruz/Mike Lee. After the 2014 election, who knows.

So many great images to choose from. Google image search: GOP stands up to tea party cartoon.

Another RedState article where they look at evidence but still somehow manage to draw the wrong conclusion--that is, the conclusion they want to draw.

Limbaugh explains his party

Prologue. I'm adding this section based on a comment that the material is dated. The reason I delve into this topic is 1) to gauge Limbaugh's influence; 2) to read for myself what Limbaugh proposes for this country; 3) to discover his methods of argumentation. I believe Limbaugh's influence is waning, but his proposals and methods remain worth examining.
***************************************************

Limbaugh spends most of his time bashing Obama and other Dems in power, and much less time suggesting a conservative platform that makes sense and contains any detail. This is the closest I found to policy prescription:

First principles, first conservative constitutional principles are the answer.  Articulating that as fact with depth and conviction is what the people of this country want...  We are fed up and exhausted with people who measure their comments. The blueprint for rebuilding America has been written.  Ronaldus Magnus wrote it; Barry Goldwater wrote it; William F. Buckley Jr. wrote it; Burke wrote it, any number.  Friedrich Von Hayek wrote it; Milton Friedman wrote it.  Market capitalism is the answer.  Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer. 

It all starts with the individual.  Private property rights is the foundation because without private property rights there are no rights for people anywhere else.  The Republican nominating process is a competition of ideas and the ability to communicate how can we get back to our pursuit of happiness?  How can we get back to our pursuit of excellence?  How can we get back to the trusted institutions that have defined this nation and its greatness for hundreds of years?  How can the individual be empowered?

Not too many specifics there. Market capitalism will do all the heavy lifting, and if you have any doubts, you have to go somewhere else for even a hint at a different solution.

With this lack of policy discussion, Limbaugh does his audience no favors. Candidates are distinguished not by their policy ideas, but by other aspects (same link as above):

And whichever of these Republicans has the ability to consistently say so, take it to Obama, stand up for America, stand up for the American people, articulate a great belief and faith in the decency and the potential greatness of the American people... is who is going to get this nomination.  And that is who is going to lead in the polls... 

Nobody should be shocked, I don't believe, to learn that a Republican articulating conservatism fearlessly who is also pointing out the media's partisanship, who schools the media in their own malpractice... The American people, the vast majority of them want the media defeated every bit as much as they want Barack Obama defeated because the American people understand that they're one and the same.  The American people understand that American decline is being happily presided over by Barack Obama and the acolytes and stenographers and the fellow travelers in the media who build Obama up facilitate America's decline...

But Newt, or whoever, in the Republican primary field, this field of nominees, when they go after the media, they are signaling to the American people that they understand and are fearless and are willing to buck the establishment. 

Republican voters are fed up with establishment Washington Republicans kowtowing to the media, trying to use the media to get their message out, worrying about what the media says or thinks about them.  The American people don't want somebody who's afraid of the media.  The American people, the voters on our side particularly wants somebody who will take 'em on, just like we want somebody who will take Obama on fearlessly and not be worried about what's going to be said about it...

Limbaugh's prescription for choosing the GOP presidential nominee was to give the base red meat--lots of bashing of "Barack Obama and the acolytes and stenographers and the fellow travelers in the media who build Obama up facilitate America's decline."

However, when those red meat pitchmen stumble because they'll spin any story (Bachmann and the herpes vaccine), or they can't remember which government departments are superfluous, or their 9-9-9 plan doesn't add up, the lack of policy knowledge does cause a bit of a problem. Here's what Limbaugh says about the failure of the read meat provisioners:

The Republican establishment's trying to marginalize the Tea Party. So really, at least for me, [it] is not hard to understand. Now, there's an abject sense of panic that has set in... The race is gonna go on. See, they thought that this would be over before it started. Remember what I told you: They're gonna split the conservative vote and elect the moderate. They were gonna stand traditional theory on its head.

The traditional theory is: In the primaries, you play to your base, you win the nomination; then when you win the nomination and go to the general, that's when you go push moderates like McCain does -- and you lose. They decided, "We're gonna lose from the get-go. We're gonna nominate a moderate. We're gonna take conservatives in our party that we can't stand and we're gonna have as many of them up there as possible splitting vote," in this case splitting the polls, because there weren't any votes until January. But they were hoping the polls would end this race before a vote had been cast. So they welcomed Perry getting in and Ron Paul and Herman Cain and all these people, because it allowed them the opportunity to ridicule them.

Wow. All those crappy candidates were a cunning idea of the GOP establishment. How convenient that they all decided to enter the race, but I suppose the establishment wooed them with sweet talk via untraceable  telephone calls. One thing Limbaugh doesn't explain is how the establishment managed to keep the one good Tea Party conservative candidate (whoever that was) out of the primary.

Limbaugh also ignores that many of the non-moderate, non-Romney candidates had their turn at the top of the polls. That would have been an ideal time for conservatives to rally around, but it didn't happen. Why? Don't expect any analysis from Rush.

Here, from a single hour, is Limbaugh encouraging a "red meat" caller:

CALLER:  Listen, ...my wife and I even talked about this Saturday before we voted, and you're the only one that I hear say it and you're exactly right, it is exactly a message that we're trying to send.  We're Romney supporters... but we kind of decided to vote for Newt and it was specifically because of what he did in the debates and taking the media to task and actually just making us feel good about that.  We're so sick and tired of every single time we watch the news or anything in the media the feeling we get, the sick feeling we get every story they tell almost... And actually we really want Romney to hear that message, though, this message that we just sent by voting for Newt.

RUSH:  I know.

CALLER:  That's what I wanted to do, I want him to take that.

RUSH:  ...The heads of your party, you want the people that run the party that you're a member of to get the message, stop making fun of you, stop impugning you, stop thinking you're a bunch of hayseed hicks.  You just to want save the country. You want somebody that's gonna have fire and brimstone to go out and beat Obama.  You don't want people that are afraid to campaign.  I know exactly what this victory in South Carolina was all about.  The Republican primary voters are this audience... the people who make this country work are sick and tired of being blamed, falsely accused, attacked, called bigots and racists and sexists and homophobes and all these other horrible, rotten things, selfish, greedy. 

They're seeing their futures robbed. Their party doesn't seem to have the guts to do anything to stop it.  They see their party leaders wanting to get themselves in charge of it all.  This guy, if I'd-a let him go on, he'd say, "We don't care if Newt were married ten times right now. We don't care if Newt had married a horse right now.  The message is what we want sent."  We want this party to figure out how to represent us.  We think we know how to beat Obama, and it's not with McCain.  It's not by going after the independents.  It's not by saying we want to compromise and cross the aisle and work with those people who are destroying this country as it was founded.

Note how Limbaugh channeled that comment and built on it. In contrast, see how he manipulates the discussion away from a caller who wants a competent manager, not a "narcissistic orator:"

CALLER: You know, (sigh) I hired a lot of people in my time, and my golf course architect, I had a very good one, and I hired him, you know, based on what he could do, but I also hired him based on his character. So I went to do a little research because I hadn't really checked into the candidates all that much, and so I just started Googling, and I was just astounded of what I found out both about Gingrich and Romney -- and, you know, it comes down to me: "What's the question? Do we want to hire a successful manager to run this country, or do we want to hire another narcissistic orator?"

RUSH: It's not about either of those right now. That's what I'm trying to say. Those are backbench issues right now. That's not what's going on here. What's going on here is the conservative base trying to send a message to the Republican establishment: "You're gonna have to have somebody who's legitimately conservative. That's the only way we're gonna be passionately behind our nominee, and that's the only way we're gonna beat Obama." This is something really big. This is not the voters saying, "We love Newt! Newt's the only guy!" That's not what's going on here. Newt's a vessel right now, and Newt would be wise to understand that, too.

So, according to Limbaugh, competence, character, and avoiding a narcissist are "backbench" issues. That's not what's important... if it stands in the way of the read meat rhetoric that Limbaugh and his audience love. Newt is the one giving the best red meat at this point, but he's just the "vessel" -- a good escape hatch if Limbaugh wants to turn on him.

It's no wonder that Limbaugh that is a terrible source for understanding the GOP. He doesn't understand how his party keeps picking moderates, and he doesn't understand how the country as a whole prefers candidates who aren't doctrinaire conservative.

I had been hoping for insight on why the loudest voices in the GOP wail and moan about not choosing conservative candidates, yet it happens two presidential primaries in a row. Who are the Republicans responding to the polls, which showed for much of 2011 that Romney was not the one they wanted? I can't tell whether conservatives are in the majority in the GOP or whether pragmatists are. Please, someone, help me! (Someone other than Rush Limbaugh.)

EIB = Excellence in broadcasting, LOL

Image: fgap.blogspot.com

Extras:
Presage of the election demographics and Rush doesn't believe it.
Typical Rush: Another exemplar concerning Pelosi, whose criticisms sound pretty valid to me, but he does squat to refute them.
Rush on policy--bizarre paranoia.
RedState supports Rush for having "spine."
The kind of adulation of Obama that Rush derides.
A different voice in Jan '09: GOP needs to change and adjust --Bruce Bartlett
Also by Bartlett in July '07--who is the anti-Bush?

According to Rush: Planned Parenthood

After my loads of research on Rush Limbaugh, I have several fascinating stories still to share. This is the first of the addendums.

A woman caller had this question: "Why is Planned Parenthood supporting the Plan B pill in the first place? Won't it cut down on abortions?"

Now, this is interesting. The Limbaugh line on Planned Parenthood (PP) is that their one interest is abortions. Yet this listener noticed an odd dissonance. If PP is all about abortion, why would they support contraceptives? After all, if contraception, such as the morning-after pill, is effective, you don't need abortion, so there are fewer abortions, and that is counter PP's mission.

This listener doesn't see that Limbaugh has been feeding her and all listeners a crappy half-truth. That possibility hasn't entered her mind, but she does pick up on this inconsistency, so she calls Limbaugh (the educator, the answer-man, the voice of conservatives) for an explanation. Limbaugh asks her to take her best guess for the reason, but she muffs it. So he steps in and builds the story:

CALLER: I had two questions for you. Number one: Why is Planned Parenthood supporting the Plan B pill in the first place? Won't it cut down on abortions?

RUSH: Well, great question. You want to try taking a stab at answering it yourself? 

CALLER: ...They're mad at the Obama administration for doing away with it, so they're playing it both ways. 

RUSH: Well, that could be. But what does Planned Parenthood stand for?

CALLER: Abortion.

RUSH: Women aborting babies, however they do it. However they do it. Other than the back alley, however they do it. So the thing is if the morning-after birth control pill at age 15 conditions women, "This is no big deal!" Planned Parenthood would have to support it. Look, liberals are liberals first. Abortion is the sacrament. If you look at liberalism as a religion, abortion is the sacrament. So whatever moves the agenda forward is okay, and this moves the agenda forward.

The agenda forward is women having abortions, whenever, however... It is true that the Plan B morning-after pill will impact the Planned Parenthood bottom line. So it just means that they'll go into the manufacturing business, or they'll invest (chuckling) in pharmaceuticals. I don't know. It's a great question, but the answer is: "Hey, what's the objective? Abortions!"

So there is the dissonance, but Limbaugh papers over it with the affirmation dogma that PP is all about abortions. In the real world of honest discussion, someone would explain that PP's goal is not just to perform abortions, but to give people, mostly women, the tools to manage when to have children. When that's the goal, there is no disconnect between providing contraception and providing abortion.

However, in Limbaugh's world, and according to many conservatives, abortion is the only reason for PP, so there is this inconvenient fact that PP also supports contraception like Plan B. Limbaugh can't explain it on his own terms, so he gracefully punts. I don't know if his audience notices or not. The caller doesn't get another word, so we don't know if she found the answer convincing or not.

Limbaugh goes on to criticize PP for falsely hiding its mission (abortion per Limbaugh) with the name 'Planned Parenthood:'

RUSH: Now, I know. I know there are people in this audience who cannot possibly think I really mean that. Folks, not only do I really mean it, it's true. Don't blame me if you can't get your arms around that. There are over a million abortions a year. Planned Parenthood supports them and performs them. It's not even controversial to say that what Planned Parenthood is about is abortions and as many as possible...

When I first heard of Planned Parenthood, to show you how the left uses the language, I thought it was exactly what it says: Planning parenthood. I was very young. I was in my teens, early twenties. I thought you went to Planned Parenthood and they would help you plan your family, help you deal with the economics of it and raise a family...

That's not at all what they do. They want people to think that. So when somebody like me comes along and points out what they really do, people say, "No, no, no! That can't possibly be!" Some people don't even want to conceive that that's what they do, but it is. This is the cross that I bear: Bringing the truth to people that they may not want to hear. Therefore it makes me "divisive." -- emphasis added

Ah, Rush, you were so naive when you were young. You imagined that Planned Parenthood  helped you get a job and manage your money, maybe get an affordable apartment or house for your family. But delaying having children wasn't part of your vision for how to plan your family. To think, PP manipulated language to make you think they are a helping organization. And all the time, they're only about abortions. Thank God for Rush, and his willingness to bear the cross and tell the truth. I hope he can continue with his sacrifice and his truth-telling mission... all the way to the bank, since he isn't going to earn any honesty awards.

Inconceivable--One of 11 categories of PP services

Image:  plannedparenthood.com

Is Rush the soul of the GOP?

Comment thread from Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is the most powerful person in the GOP or the head of the party. But what is his position and role? That's a question that's mystified me for quite a while and maybe it's worth exploring. Let's look at some data points:

• He is a big source of talking points for many conservatives, but so are Mark Levin, Breitbart, the Fox News commentators, Michelle Malkin, etc. He's not unique in having many dittoheads.
• As the comment exchange above shows, Limbaugh hasn't had a strong influence on the party's choice of presidential nominee.
• While he's a target for liberal anger, many conservatives have avoided criticizing him, his rants, and his positions.

To get a feel for Rush's significance, I read a lot of transcripts of his show. I read transcripts rather than listening because it's easier to apply critical thinking to text than to a stream of spoken words. It's easy to reread than to replay. I was also careful to apply reasonable guesses as to what was serious and what was satire.

Overall impressions

Though Limbaugh is most infamous for calling Sandra Fluke "a slut," he doesn't generally go in for extravagant name-calling. These are the insults I found in the course of researching his transcripts: slut (of course), feminazis, Dingy Harry (Reid), "Drive-By media," Mark "Maxi" Shields, and "NBC's Meet the Depressed,." This contrasts with someone like Ann Coulter, who's made a career of diatribes against liberals. Her statements are much more hyperbolic and insulting. Here's an example:

"Liberals hate the idea of God because it competes with their conception of themselves as a specially anointed elite."

So, even though I initially thought Limbaugh was a political shock jock, my research didn't bear that out. (Better examples of shock jocks here and here.)

Instead, Limbaugh seems to be an explainer for traditional conservatives. He provides the words to explain some inchoate thoughts and underlying premises that his listeners already have, but haven't verbalized. So his listeners may know they hate liberals, but he gives them specific examples of liberal behavior to hate, and specific arguments why liberal policies are stupid. This is extremely helpful if you don't know how to construct these arguments for yourself (the research for examples, the rationales for what's wrong). These explanations fill a void for the less intellectual conservatives, and there appear to be many of them.

Limbaugh's followers, if they want extreme rhetoric, have to go elsewhere. But they don't seem to want that. His callers, who are obviously screened, are always polite, as Limbaugh is to them. These aren't people looking for a pissing contest. They are socially conservative and are uncomfortable with obscenity and extreme language. They are family-oriented; many proudly saying how they are raising their children as "Rush babies," that is, children who grow up learning their political thinking from Limbaugh's radio show.

So Limbaugh casts himself as an educator, but also as a listener to his "salt-of-the-earth" audience. He builds them up as the ones who think, who understand the issues, who are the majority in the country, who  "probably know this yourself because you're the ones that create the results of the poll."

Limbaugh on policy and analysis

Limbaugh, for all his pride in educating and being educated in turn by his listeners, provides scattershot arguments. His logic is hard to follow, made even harder because he doesn't write columns, he only has his radio show, where he can throw in as many diversions and other tricks as he needs to camouflage weaknesses in his arguments. I tried to find a clear explanation and defense on many GOP positions, but I didn't find them. He sticks to sounds bite and taking potshots at liberal policies and liberal politicians. If anyone finds where he makes a strong, coherent argument for, say, a GOP tax policy, let me know.

The longest policy analysis I found from Limbaugh concerned immigration. In that piece, he made the following points, all quotes:

• ...McCain was pro-amnesty. He didn't like the word, but McCain was identified with wanting it. A far as the Hispanic community was concerned, McCain was okay. He was all for relaxing immigration law.
• And remember it was the conservatives who finally got a fire lit under the House Republicans in the summer of 2007 to kill it.
• While the Hispanic voters would look at McCain and say, "Yeah, he's one of us. He's for us," they still couldn't vote for him because the party wasn't.
• If amnesty was it, McCain shoulda won big...

Oh damn, that wasn't really a discussion about why a particular amnesty policy was better, but such explanations are rarely the subject for Limbaugh. Perhaps this is better, through still terribly thin on depth of analysis:

First conservative constitutional principles are the answer... The blueprint for rebuilding America has been written.  Ronaldus Magnus wrote it; Barry Goldwater wrote it; ... Friedrich Von Hayek wrote it; Milton Friedman wrote it.  Market capitalism is the answer. Robust liberty and freedom for the American people is the answer, and then a government willing, after unleashing that, to get out of its way is the answer. 

It's terribly frustrating, not finding the 'why' for ideas Limbaugh supports. I guess you just have to 'believe' despite Limbaugh's claims that his positions and his listeners' positions are based on knowledge and thinking.

Non-endorsement of candidates

Limbaugh assiduously avoids declaring preferences for one GOP candidate over others. He's got several good reasons for doing this. He avoids feeding the internecine battles that weaken the GOP (as they would with any party), and therefore his party is stronger. He also avoids the embarrassment of backing a loser. Since "I told you so" is a frequent refrain of his, his credibility in not backing a loser is probably the bigger consideration.

However, he does covertly signal his preferences. In 2008, he barely mentioned McCain. He spoke well of Fred Thompson, but hedged. He aired some complaints about Huckabee and called his supporters "Hucksters" which doesn't sound complimentary to my ears. In 2008, he liked Romney best among the final three, and speculated that there was a deal between McCain and Huckabee to block him. You know he dislikes a candidate when there's a criticism, but it's never so pointed that Limbaugh would be trapped as being against the candidate. As I said, he must remain neutral so that he doesn't lose credibility by picking a loser.

Here's a fascinating exchange with a caller who pleads with Limbaugh to mediate a squabble between Huckabee and Romney:

RUSH: It is an unfortunate comment, and Romney came back and said, yeah, these religious comments are over the top. It was what his speech was about last week, which I thought, as I said many times, I thought it was a fantastic, inspirational, and uplifting speech, and it wasn't so much about religion as it was about religion's ties to the founding of this country, and very, very important. I think Huckabee is showing us who he is, and he thinks this is what it takes to win, and he's a Baptist minister, and his religion is very serious to him, too. He's using it for all it's worth for him, and I think I understand why. I don't think I could stop it, either.

CALLER: Well, I don't know. I think you could. I think you control America, and that's good. I think at the very least, you ought to be able to control the Republican nominees. I mean, they're all beholden to you, they wouldn't be in power anyway.

RUSH: You may have a point, now that I think about it in that regard. You might. People don't believe this, but my staff would believe me when I say, I walk around here with such humility, you would not believe it. They're all laughing because they know it's true. Okay, so, you know, I'm thinking you may have a good point here in the sense that what you're asking for is somebody to stand up and say, "Would you guys stop acting like kids and start talking about the issues that are going to get us elected president: taxes, immigration, the future of the country and so forth, and stop all this stuff." That's the kind of thing you want me to say?

CALLER: You got it. We need a referee, Rush.

If you read this section and the entire transcript, you can see how Limbaugh executes some of his style. He:

• Digs at Huckabee, but not at Romney. 
• Compliments the caller, says he'll do something about it, but doesn't follow up. 
• Accepts the caller's statement that he [Rush] is an influential person, but also plays up his humility. 

Here's an example of his rhetoric in 2012, another presidential election where he remained officially neutral in the GOP primaries:

Newt Gingrich is making it clear that he is proud of this country and its history, of our culture, the idea of American exceptionalism.  My point is here, nobody ought to be shocked to learn that a Republican who is articulating conservatism proudly, competently, confidently, articulately, nobody should be surprised that that person is nearing the top of the heap.

His tacit support of Gingrich continued here and here, where Gingrich got the only compliment in an overview of a debate, which was: "That's lighting dynamite and throwing it in a crowd of liberals. Oh, I know it's a hundred percent true."

How did he feel about the other candidates? I'll just end with this from Limbaugh's website:

Image: rushlimbaugh.com

Recommence circular firing squad

So today Reince Priebus released the report on post-mortem on how the GOP lost the 2012 election. I thought it was a surprisingly realistic first step for the GOP, who haven't been exactly clear on the objective world for the past two years.

Some ideas I agree with:

• Don't piss off women so much. They're not just vessels for babies... now that they have the vote.. and jobs.. and that damned independent streak. They have less time for news (due to tons of other responsibilities), but word does get around if a party doesn't care whether women get contraception or not. Lots of women pay attention to that.
• Be welcoming to minorities. This will be harder because the GOP is the epitome of a white men's country club. Sure, there's room for a few more tokens to get up on stage and milk the party for support. But how many minorities are eager to sign up after watching the disrespect leveled at Obama and Holder and Sotomayor. Even white males who step out of bounds are hunted down like (as) RINOs. This is not a tolerant party. Good luck on winning skittish minority voters.
• Pass immigration reform. This could be a no-win situation for the GOP. Latinos aren't voting for Republicans in large numbers because the GOP are nasty to immigrants, who are largely Latino. But if there's a path to citizenship, that will mean more lower-wage and minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic. Tough dilemma--do you take the risk and try to turn it around? Or do you hold tight to principles and circle the drain?
• Shorter primary with fewer debates. Those debates did show the country a lot, including that audiences could be stacked, or they may be just a bunch of random yahoos. But it certainly was a pander-fest. A shorter campaign would help a little, but the bigger problem is pandering to the shrill conservative media. I don't think there were many suggestions about that.

The response from parts of the conservative spectrum were much uglier than my reaction. Limbaugh says "I’m sorry, but we’re not disrespectful to anybody." HAHAHAHA. Rush is personally disrespectful to the vast majority of humanity, so let's just say that he's so acclimated to disrespect that he doesn't smell it anymore.

It looks to me as though Priebus's outreach to the Ron Paul liberty wing is falling flat. You really need to read the hair-raising comments here. They include throwing someone under a lawnmower, stabbings, kissing back sides, and a few Jew comments too. But definitely, there is no way the Paul wing is going support fewer caucuses, another Priebus proposal. The base at HotAir isn't happy either, with the general sentiment being that it's another way for the establishment to muzzle the base.

I won't tell the GOP what to do. They aren't my party, and I've learned from experience that you can't manage anyone else's life from the outside. I hope they make decisions that are beneficial for them and for the country as a whole, whatever those decisions will be. So, best of luck, GOP. Try not to screw it up.

How the hell do I fix this?

Image: go.bloomberg.com

Extras. An insider at The Weekly Standard has written a moderate-length analysis of the GOP problem with a suggested, but unlikely, solution. A shorter version here to whet your interest.

The HotAir bloggers support the gist of the post-mortem. The commenters want to hang the traitors to GOP principles.

Erick Erickson at RedState: 'Meh. It just wasn't our year.' This response confuses me because it's completely anti-analytical.

What not to say, conservatives

The conservatives are trying to have a constructive discussion about how to improve their campaign message. They've mostly decided that their ideals are correct (a premature conclusion), but they sorely need to tweak the message.

To the world outside the conservative bubble, this looks suspiciously like denial, or yet another plan not to change anything. (Some are hoping it's a sign that the GOP has entered the first phase of death.  Let's see, the phases are "denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance," right? Somehow I think breathing will stop before 'bargaining' begins.)

However, according to RedState, some tweaks to the message are still out-of-bounds. RedState derides a young conservative for deriding Rush Limbaugh, while ignoring the constructive ideas in the 10-page article. According to RedState "Thou shalt not publicly castigate Limbaugh." I can be certain this applies to Limbaugh and not every Republican because another headline on the same day was "I am very disappointed with Governor Rick Scott."

Another post on the same topic meanders around to giving Karl Rove the benefit of the doubt concerning his mission to nominate better (less verbally vulnerable) candidates. RedState must have rethought their initial attack on this project, which they labeled as anti-grassroots. So Karl Rove has qualified permission to speak.

The most reasonable post they had on messaging was from February 2012. It is specific in its critique of the 53% meme:

What we’re essentially saying is that the income taxation model is unfair to 5.3 out of 10 of us and so we are going to stand toe to toe against the 4.7 other people and totally say that to them.  And we don’t care if it alienates them because screw them, they aren’t paying taxes anyway and on top of that, we can win even if it’s only with 53% of the vote, so who needs ‘em? 

What should the attitude and the message be? This much more appealing one:

We’re just one society, and it’s all overtaxed and you could afford to do more if you kept more of the money that’s being taken from you.

So what is the lesson for conservatives who want to learn how to deliver the message better? It's hard to suss out. Part of the message seems to be that Limbaugh can say anything stupid or obnoxious, and you must put up with in reverent silence. For all others, check with RedState to find out how far you can go.

 Image: zazzle.com

Short: The continuing slide of Sarah Palin

I try hard to stay positive even in criticism. Maybe that's why I don't write too often about the latest outrage. I certainly try not to crow over someone's fall. But the latest story about Sarah Palin has been a while in the making.

Sarah Palin will no longer be a Fox News contributor. I've watched a few of her appearances, and I was surprised by how Fox treated her. They would start the interview, she would prattle on mostly about tactical issues, then Fox would cut to some real news and leave her waiting for 20 minutes or more. It's not that she deserves any better. I've never heard her say anything new and insightful. Her speeches and observations always been a chewed-up mess of pre-digested talk radio rhetoric.

So Fox News gives Sarah Palin the heave-ho by way of an insulting contract offer. She says contradictory things in her brief interview published online: conservatives must widen their audience, but then she praises Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.com. These are not commentators who are broadening the audience for conservative ideas. Mark Levin and Breitbart.com are proven conservative fabricators who will lie endlessly if they perceive political advantage. Of course they supply conservative spinners like Sarah Palin with a lot of material, so she better be grateful.

For Fox News, it's reasonable to flush out the stable, but I doubt the replacements are better. I'll have to watch to see.

Image: perezhilton.com

P.S. I wish Fox News would flush Juan Williams too as another commentator who spits out only warmed-over analysis. I haven't missed him on NPR in the least.

Leader of the opposition

Ed Morrissey of HotAir writes a couple of interesting columns on who will be the de facto leader of the Republicans. He correctly points out that Boehner and McConnell will be too busy and too tainted with deal-making, so he offers these names:

1. Rand Paul
2. Bobby Jindal
3. Rick Perry
4. Marco Rubio
5. Chris Christie

These are mostly good picks in that they're likely to be visible leaders, if not the leader. (It makes me wonder who was the leader from 2009 to 2011 when the primaries started. Critics say it was Rush Limbaugh, and maybe it was. Luckily not anymore.)

Rand Paul is certainly going to be the leader of the small-government libertarian pack. He has stayed almost constantly true to those principles. However, the libertarians aren't the dominant force in the GOP, so he couldn't be the dominant leader. His small-military views just aren't popular with most of the GOP, and they can't overlook that.

Bobby Jindal bucked a fair amount of the 2012 losing rhetoric, so it seemed that he was trying to make a name for himself as an intelligent reformer of the GOP. As a moderate, I like that, but I don't know if enough Republicans feel that way. Certainly the noisy ones don't. Nonetheless, he deserves to be on this list right now, but he could easily fall off by going too far or not far enough.

Rick Perry doesn't deserve to be on this list. He was a laughable candidate in 2011. Maybe the pain meds have worn off, but you can't fix stupid. He gives every indication of having been briefed on all of his opinions, rather than mulling them over and developing his own ideas. I think he's someone's marionette. If he can become a national leader, then I don't know anything about American politics.

Marco Rubio is certainly running for leader and running for president. However, Romney's campaign showed the weakness of choosing someone who is constantly running for office instead of being engaged in actual governing and problem-solving. Rubio is flash but no substance at this point. I don't think the GOP will go for a lightweight again.

Chris Christie has lately been reviled among many Republicans, so it's hard to imagine him rising above that to be a spokesman and leader of a large enough slice of the GOP. He's certainly got the verbal talent and a can-do record, but too many Republicans hate him right now, and that's not going to be easy to change.

Something missing from this list is the conservative-pragmatic governor archetype. I'm thinking Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Rick Snyder. They've all dealt (cleaned up/reformed) at the state level with the kinds of problems the federal government faces--how to trim spending and reduce benefits for government workers without massive service cuts. Also important, they haven't tainted themselves with culture war rhetoric on abortion and contraception as Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has.

These governors are the solid, working leaders in each of their states, but who speaks for them nationally? If they did have a national champion, that would be a formidable leader. I'm going to be curious to see how this develops. The next few months will be worth watching.

 

Image: qctimes.com

Extra. Will we have new leaders in punditry? It's less important, but it would be such a relief.

Update 6/21/13. According to this column, Jindal has trotted out the typical GOP fallback position of bashing liberals. It looks like Jindal will put on any stance when it is expedient, including clear-eyed reformer. Too bad it was just an act.

For posterity: Obama Claus

"Sorry but Rush had it right. This was an election where Mitt Romney was running against Santa and there are too many moochers out there that are selfish greedy people who were perfectly happy to vote for the rat-eared bastard so long as they got their special gift from Santa affirmed- be it free contraception, no cuts in expensive entitlement programs, the facade of legitimacy for sodomy, the promise of free citizenship for illegals, or whatever else the rat-eared wonder was able to pull out of his gift bag for a bunch of people that contribute nothing to society." -- HotAir comment

The other Santa theory (the complete one) here.

Post election: Survey of conservative reaction

Just before the election, I promised to check on four aspects of the election, of them being the partisan spin. Since the GOP expected victory but suffered a clear loss, they have much more spinning to do. Here's my survey:

Anger, War, and Assorted Violence

In this small conservative site I started following just before the election (they tracked Nate Silver's prediction until they were proved too accurate), their first reaction was anger:

Keep in mind, though, that every year these assholes [moderates and libertarians] buy season ticket seats in the peanut gallery and no matter how much you try to appease them they will continue to fling turds at you until you completely concede every single one of your ideological positions. -- Starless, Conservative Commune

It's going to be so much fun seeing all those "unexpectedly" stories continue for the next four years.  Medicare patients "unexpectedly" seeing their actual healthcare access go away. Full-time employees "unexpectedly" getting turned into part-timers. -- Meep, Conservative Commune

When I was a child, we were still proud of our political forefathers... A majority of Americans still believed in things like Honor, Love of Country, Service, Charity, God, Providence… No longer is this so... Half of the people I pass on the street are takers. Half of them are in it for themselves. Entirely. Half of them really do believe the Government is their savior. -- Enoch Root, Conservative Commune

I am sick to death that the class warfare worked for the rat-eared wonder. When he was giving his concession speech last night he was talking about “we did it” but those comments were not addressed to all Americans ...

 ... goin' Galt -- HotAir comments

Breitbart.com declared war:

The defeat of Barack Obama would have launched the beginning of America coming together. But apparently, liberal America prefers to battle for the soul of the country... The war begins now. -- Ben Shapiro

From Breitbart comments:

I was torn before the election and am still conflicted about whether a country of ignorant, obese narcissists was worth saving.  It seems unfair that the other fifty percent of us have to go down with them...

Well... we could always pull a "reverse Christopher Columbus."  Invite all the dumbies here and then go elsewhere.

 Its not worth saving.   Let it burn.

 Image: msnbc.msn.com

The Usual Suspect - The Media

Naturally, there were the usual complaint about the media:

Most of us who follow politics understand the reasons and have a pretty good idea of why [Romney's] going home and the Obama's are staying in the White House.  Short version: They let the left define the election issues....It was a masterful job of distraction aided and abetted by  a complicit media (hey, "60 Minutes", you have NO credibility anymore). ... The winning issues: Jobs.  Economy.  Debt. Deficit.  ObamaCare.  Benghazi. Fast and Furious. -- Bruce McQuain, Conservative Commune

My response: No one gets to own what the issues are, what topics get more continuous coverage, and what people think is important. The issue of Romney's tax returns withered. So did Benghazi. Both died because of the general population judged them as less important. Quit whining that you didn't get to choose the issues--it's a general decision, not yours, not one campaign's.

Damn Them All

The Wall Street Journal lashed out at a lot of targets, including Ben Bernanke, John Roberts, and Hurricane Sandy. The editorial is chock full of instant talking points and over-the-top rhetoric.

• Boehner has as much of mandate as the president does. 
• Obamacare "will spread like termites" as Obama consolidates "this liberal entitlement dream." 
• "However implausibly" voters believed Bush was more to blame for the state of the economy than Obama. [Yes, that's totally implausible.]
• John Roberts' sin was providing "a salve of legitimacy" to Obama. It also helped him "unify his party around something to protect..." [Roberts really should have considered the electoral effect of his ruling, even though he's part of an independent, third branch of government.]
• Obama's victory was "the definition of winning ugly." Well then, how should we label this editorial--maybe "partisan gynmastics."

That king among the haters, Rush Limbaugh, had this to say:

We are outnumbered.  We're losing ground... Why does putting Condoleezza Rice front and center at the convention not work?  Why does putting Marco Rubio front and center at the convention not work? ...We have done the reach-out. We have done everything they, quote, unquote, say we should do to show that we're not just the white guys party... Why doesn't it work? Is it seen as not genuine?  Is it seen as tokenism?

My response: Rush, in the real world, no,, it is not seen as genuine, and yes, it is seen as tokenism. Just look at how you started this discussion--"we are outnumbered."But according to you, it's the media's fault for ridiculing these tokens in the GOP.

Here's the most concise answer to the whiny Republicans:

What is funny is that there are a LOT of us white folks out there who voted for Obama as well. The Republicans are simply on the wrong side of history. They still think they have a God given right to dictate how everyone should live and until that stops, they will lose. -- Atlantic comment

 Image: washingtontimes.com

 The Good News

The National Review had a more practical take on the election results, which serves as a blessed counterweight to the WSJ's caterwauling:

Blame for this debacle is widely shared... Until conservatives devise a domestic agenda... that links small-government principles to attractive results, they are going to have a hard time improving their standing with women, Latinos, white men, or young people.

The surprising number of commenters on HotAir (who are better than those of FreeRepublic but not as generally intelligent as commenters on Atlantic or Washington Post) offered insights:

We are doomed. We can’t “appeal to Latinos” — Ted Cruz lost every Latino border county by 35 points to a fat white good ole democrat in Texas. HISPANICS WILL NOT VOTE GOP... Look, I don’t see the GOP winning the presidency again in my lifetime. We have lost 5 of the last 6 popular votes...THERE IS NO PATH TO 270. Once Texas flips to Latino, CA+FL+PA+MI+NY+IL gives a 200ev route from day one... I think the GOP should say gay marriage and drugs are state issues and basically absorb the libertarians. I hate to say it but suck up the Ron Paul wing. -- picklesgap

I actually think that Romney was probably the strongest candidate we had this year. And that’s a pretty pathetic statement on the quality of the GOP field... Fewer GOP senate candidates who feel compelled to share with the world their Very Special Personal Insights on rape and pregnancy would probably help. -- Hayabusa

I’ll tell ya, in my neck of the woods, most of the younger voters are more libertarian or conservative than they realize but are turned off by the hold religious types have on the Republican Party. Anecdotal but still.  -- oddjob1138

We also need to be aware of the fact that this high turnout among young voters might not be an anomaly... [Kids] who used to be completely indifferent to politics (out of sight, out of mind mentality) are now bombarded by friends on FB/Twitter who share their political musings 24/7. -- Good Solid B-Plus

...When you ask if Obamacare should be repealed and we go back to the days of insurance companies deciding your fate, the majority says no, keep Obamacare... If you watched the Dems you saw a rainbow of colors. This isn’t a white country anymore. Reps better change or go the way of the Whigs... This country needs 2 strong parties to fight it out over ideas. It’s terrible when one goes off the deep end and allows a radical fringe to dominate. -- independentvoice

The Republican Party needs to be more inclusive and welcoming. You can not have issues with minorities, gays and single parents and expect them to vote for you and win elections. As a single mother never having been married I did vote a straight R ticket yesterday in PA, but I need the GOP to change path to stay an active Republican. I can’t defend comments about rape and abortion being illegal even when it risks the life of the mother... I don’t expect the party to adopt my beliefs, but I want to feel welcome within the party. -- LawnGnomeFanFirst

I think we seriously need to look at two things: one, our candidate quality, and two, making small compromises to win bigger... Everything the pollsters were saying about turnout models was right, and everything we said about them was wrong. -- KingGold

 Image: macon.com

Extras: The blame (and 20 minutes of cursing) lays with the libertarians and all those people too scared to post negative stories about Obama on their Facebook pages.

No, it was fruition of a Soviet plan: "Raise the young to be takers and after a few generations when the old conservatives die off, the country is ripe for the taking."

Romney's campaign was convinced by its own spin and were "shellshocked" by the loss.

Still more interesting HotAir comments.

Update 4/27/14. Here's a good post from the National Review. It points out that Romney did better than many GOP senate candidates, so it wasn't Romney that dragged down the ticket.

Reflections on spouting

This reflection was inspired by the Lubbock County judge and his concerns about Obama sending in the UN troops. While watching him, I wondered if he was for real. Some people in America actually believe talk like this, that Obama is a hair's breadth from being a dictator, and that civil war will erupt if he's reelected. These are true tin-hat paranoids. But many more (I'm guessing) say these kinds of things without really believing them. Unfortunately, it's hard to identify the true crazies from the more numerous people in America who are simply spouting.

The spouters do so because it's cathartic to express their hate of Obama and America's liberals. Expression is such a cathartic experience because we are usually constrained by manners, religion, social relationships, risk aversion, etc. from saying a hell of a lot of the thoughts that stream through our heads. Inside everyone of us is a person who would love to spout out everything if we could do it with impunity.

And we actually see people who get to do this: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and innumerable screaming heads on cable news. Who doesn't want to be able to do some of that?

There is a drawback to all this spouting. Well, many drawbacks, but I'll focus on two of them. There's a kind of one-upmanship that can occur that is most often seen in "Yo Mama" insults or southern insult contests-- "I'll beat you so bad you'll have to ..." So in all the red parts of the country, people have been talking about how awful it will be if Obama is reelected, and the predictions have been ramped up many times. It's no wonder that there's an elected official in Texas who says such things.

Another problem is that some people aren't in on the joke, so to speak, and don't realize the level of exaggeration. They take it as gospel. But we can't tell those who are serious from those who know it's a bunch of over-the-top claptrap.

When Obama wins (more likely when than if), we have to hope that there are a lot of people in these camps who know how to de-escalate. The example of 2009 doesn't give me much hope, but I'm a silly optimist anyway. I'm the last one you want to invite to your gloom-and-doom survivalist compound, which I guess accounts for the lack of invitations I've received. I guess they weren't lost in the mail.

 Does she or doesn't she?

Image: indiedesign.typepad.com

(First appeared as part of another post.)

Update 9/1/12. Yikes. Three soldiers killed two people to prevent them from leaking their plot for killing Obama, allegedly. Extreme speech has consequences, folks.