The end of Liz Cheney, a morality tale.

 (Originally May 7) Liz Cheney is soon to be removed from her leadership position in the GOP hierarch in the House. Her unforgivable error was to vote for Trump's impeachment and be vocal about it. She was trying to hold Trump accountable for his part in the failed coup on Jan. 6. 

She survived one vote shortly after the impeachment by over 2-to-1. Now it looks like Kevin McCarthy has thrown her under the bus and will let others run her over repeatedly. 

Why the change? I don't know. Maybe it's jockeying in the deep GOP circles, as people have to swear loyalty to Trump (and his lies) or they get dumped. I can believe Trump-support is that strong in some places. However, in general I think Trump will get weaker and he'll continue to get weaker. He doesn't have much of podium, and his program of whining about the election will look more and more immature as time goes on. I think this will shrink the GOP because a lot of people in the US are smarter than that, and will want some results instead of just resentment whines 24/7. 

But with people who remain in the Republican party, Trump may be a post you latch on to. Rally around him.... in the absence of actual policy and issues. This should cost the GOP in the midterms, but that's not a certainly at all. It depends on what the Dems are doing. Are they have their own crazy moments, or is sanity holding sway?

It looks like Cheney will be replace by another token woman, Elise Stefanik from upstate New York. She's been a good GOP barbie, repeating all the requisite lies. I doubt she'll be able to lead in anything other than continuing to sell out and cash in. Liz Cheney cashed in on being a GOP woman in Congress, so why not someone else. It's not like Cheney got the position because she was well known for her scruples. 

Image: glitternight.com

Extras. Mitt Romney was booed at a convention in Utah. When he came to the podium to speak, there was lots of clapping and warm response, but the boos were in that background and didn't stop until a party leader admonished the crowd. Not good Mormon behavior folks. 

Update 6/30/22. Liz Cheney is getting some very thorough revenge. She's doing great in the hearings about Jan. 6. Very poised and on-point, without grandstanding. June 28 was particularly devastating with a top aide of Mark Meadows spilling a lot of stories not heard before. GOPers wanted to relegate Cheney to the ash heap, but she's not going there. 

December links

Many developments in the Russia investigation. Confirmation of Trump's involvement in paying off women before the election, but no shockers. More too, but I'm not sure what's new. There was a reminder of what a scummy lawyer Michael Cohen was-- and he was Trump's lawyer. Trump lies so much that fact-checkers need a new rating, something like 'habitual conman cheater creep.'
Russian bots tried to smear Mueller--of course this happened. We could use a daily index on what disinformation the Russian bots are pushing. And, finally, is this an unrelated corruption scandal, or just typical of Russian (criminal) elite?

Working class protests in France. France, like the US, has a rural/urban divide. The rural people feel overlooked and dismissed by the traditional elites. This time the protest centers on hikes in gas prices, which hit those in rural parts more. It seems so familiar to me that I have remind myself that I don't know about the issues in this other country.

What's wrong with the GOP? Power is more important to them than the principle of democracy. Just another article about this. Similarly, they champion the idea of fake news, and not because they want accuracy in reporting. Maybe there's hope because some are acknowledging reality on the 'small government' fable and noticing what people actually want.

Don't trust InfoWars... or anyone who's been on InfoWars. Roger Stone, a slimy Trump adviser, loses a defamation suit.

Economic predictions. A round-up I might want to review in a few months.

Trump vacillates on the shutdown. Trump doesn't know what he wants or why. So he threatens a shutdown, backs away, and then demands the money to start the wall anyway. All in the space of a few days. I was expecting the reversal on Trump's part, but I didn't think the GOP in the House could put together and pass a bill to his specifications. They did, and now the Senate is in the hot seat. The Senate is still working on a compromise, a deadline has passed, so the US government is officially shutdown. Why wasn't this settled back in September, or during the summer? Because the GOP has no frigging idea how to negotiate and they wait until the last minute.

Image: cnet.com

Is it a hate group?

Conservatives like to claim that the Southern Poverty Law Center, the long-time watchdog on hate groups, is now a hate group itself. They want to make this claim because the SPLC has labeled some of their favorite organizations as hate groups, including the Family Research Council.

This time I looked into the Alliance Defending Freedom. It's been active in lawsuits, such as defending the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. From what I know, that baker isn't filled with hate, and defending him isn't what I'd call hateful either.

However, the SPLC has quite a solid complaint against the group for supporting laws that mandated sterilization of transgender people who wanted official name and gender changes. It also has a list of other positions against transgender and gay people, with the worst behavior over a decade ago, but several incidents in the past 5 years.

The Alliance (ADF) tries to look friendly and not hateful on its website, but some of the hate comes through. It lies about Planned Parenthood--but isn't that de rigeur for any conservative group? It claims it supports rights and freedom, but doesn't mention how not all rights get their respect. Some people's rights are obviously more important than the rights of those gays.

ADF lawyer moving up.

Image: thenation.com

Anti-Trump conservatives

I've been neglecting this story for too long. Some conservatives, and not the usual suspects, have been clearly against Trump. Eric Erickson of RedState makes an impassioned argument against Trump as a wicked person lacking morals. Another writer at RedState blasts Jerry Falwell Jr for supporting Trump. Glenn Beck is also making a moral argument against Trump.

Image: theinsurgent.com

Related Extras. Erickson tells of Trump supporters harassing him, and the deeply difficult decision not to support Trump at a time of great stress in his family. This article lists several prominent conservatives who are against Trump. However, I will never give Mark Levin credit for his stand because I've never known him to do something for the right reason. He's one of the biggest liars I ever seen, including doctoring evidence.

Unrelated Extras. Unbelievable theory that the Trump video was a fake. Why Trump's charges of voter fraud are unbelievable. A prediction that the GOP will continue on a white nationalist course. Former conservative Andrew Sullivan argues that Trump is a fascist.

Brilliant or crazy: Was Moynihan a neocon?

I have to repeat the headline: is it a brilliant insight or insanity to list Daniel Patrick Moynihan as a neocon?

You may be wondering where this crazy notion came from. Honestly, I never would have thought of it myself, so of course it came from some reading on the web. Specifically, it came from this article:

"A historian of American intellectual thought would probably conclude that once there were actually serious neoconservative thinkers like Daniel Bell, Nathan Glaser, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol who published original and ground-breaking works on social and economic policy, some of which have become classics in the field. But when it comes to the field of international relations, neoconservatism has failed to produce any great thinkers, and will instead be remembered for its many pundits and operators, or policy entrepreneurs..."

The article is a reflection or complaint about neoconservative foreign policy, and is worth reading. But what really lit my fuse was the reference to Moynihan as a neocon. Is it possible that he actually was a neocon?

I have a few memories of Moynihan, who was senator from New York (my home state) from 1977 to 2001. He seemed to have a clearer insight into problems than other politicians, and he wasn't afraid to depart from the party line. In that vein, he raised concerns about welfare and its effect in breaking down black families. He was decades ahead of others with that insight (though it doesn't tell the whole story of family breakdown).

I know I can't rely on my memory to answer the question of whether Moynihan was a neocon, so I went to my constant friend Google. It brought me to another fascinating article about Moynihan's long history in politics. The article contains a hint that perhaps Moynihan was a neocon:

"He had predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union as early as 1979 (all those years spent studying ethnic conflicts and failed economic development projects were not in vain). As the Berlin Wall came down, he began to rethink the world in the most sweeping terms. He decided that that moment was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to establish global rule of law. Needless to say, that project didn’t come to anything. But his letters on the subject still make for fascinating reading."

Luckily, he couldn't have been full neocon because he voted against authorization of the first Gulf War. Perhaps he could be classified as a social neocon since he voted for outlawing partial-birth abortions (more properly called dilation and extraction abortions). But his voting record is quite mixed--against welfare reform (strangely), against the Defense of Marriage Act--so he doesn't seem like a social conservative either.

The upshot is that it seems a stretch to define Moynihan as a neocon. Phew, that's a relief!

Image: urbanland.uli.org

Mixed feelings about Reagan

I realized earlier this year that I can't imagine what this country would be like without Ronald Reagan having been president. Not having him would have been similar in impact to the civil rights movement failing. I also realized that I would have voted for him at the time if I had known how his leadership would have played out.

I didn't vote for him, but not just because I was still habitually in the liberal camp. Many of his positions were pure bullshit (bring back school prayer) and some seemed dangerous, like the bravado against the Soviet Union. I already knew not to believe everything a politician promised, so I didn't worry much about the loss of abortion rights.

The impetus for my thoughts and this post was hearing a Commonwealth of California broadcast with James Baker. [Sorry, but I couldn't find a link.] He spoke about several environmental issues, including Reagan's strong support for a robust treaty on the industrial chemicals linked to the ozone hole. That is such a contrast to today's GOP.

After listening to James Baker, I was in a particularly pro-Reagan mood, and I started to wonder: did I have any solid reasons to worry that Reagan was against environmental protections? Then I remembered that Reagan had appointed an egregious twerp as Secretary of the Interior. This guy was so bad I can still remember his name--James Watt. That memory killed the pro-Reagan buzz and put me back into crisp reality.

So here are my lists of what I liked and disliked about Reagan in retrospect:

• PLUSES
• Stopped the spiral of social spending
• Tackled some tough problems like SS and Soviet Union
• Flexibility--policy changes in  response to changes in situation
• Good response to ozone hole--backed a strong treaty
• Lowered ridiculously high tax rates
• Genial with other people, willing to negotiate in good faith and for the greater good

• MINUSES
• Rhetoric, probably empty, about rolling back good reforms on school prayer and abortion
• Rhetoric vilifying and dehumanizing various conservative targets like women on welfare and the Soviets
• James Watt, the worst Secretary of Interior, who had  no sense of preservation or conservation
• Robert Bork, a reactionary, evil legal genius who might have sent the Supreme Court on a course of incredibly harsh but solid rulings
• Frequently pandering to the conservative base instead of using good judgment

Luckily we were spared the worst damage that Reagan might have wrought, but there were definitely some big risks. Because we got mostly the pluses and less of the minuses, Reagan was quite a good president. I sorely wish his like was running for office these days.

Image: dailykos.com

Extras. Reagan's Top 10 from a brainless conservative viewpoint, that is, the typical kind of bluster. A compendium of short intelligent essays. I'll be working my way through them. A fascinating detailed list that's remarkably even-handed.

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?

Short: Open Letter to Conservatives

First, two disclaimers:

1. The open letter is NOT short. It's long, but pithy and readable.
2. It was written by Russell King, whoever that is, and published by Talking Points Memo. However, all links to their version are broken, but here's a complete version that still works as of May 2013. The pictures were added, and are somewhat nasty.

Here are some teasers:

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against... 

You have to condemn those among you who ... celebrate violence, joke about violence prepare for violence or use violent imagery, "fun" political violence, hints of violence...

I found this open letter as I searched for a blog from a former conservative in hopes that it would enlighten me. (Side note - I can't even remember the particular issue that prompted my search, and it happened just this morning. Thoughts have no time to get moldy in my brain--they turn to dust almost immediately. I'm not looking forward to dealing with my brain as it reaches 70 years old.)

Here is a refutation of the complaints in the open letter, except when it's confirmation of them. An excerpt:

Conservatives stand on principles: limited government, personal liberties, freedom of expression, and so on. We believe in the principles that the Founding Fathers espoused, and not the whims of your modern-day liberal intellectual.

With all this material, there are probably some solid complaints and enough straw men for one hell of a bonfire. Enjoy, and bring the wieners.

Sincerely against same-sex marriage

I've been lucky to have had diversity in friends during my life. And by 'friends,' I don't mean casual acquaintances of a few months or years, but people that I will never forget. Several of these friends have been devout born-again Christians.

I'm not in touch with them now, but I wonder what our conversations about marriage equality would be like. Many fundamentalists follow the dictum "Love the sinner, hate the sin." They may have immense caring and compassion for gay individuals, but they don't accept same-sex relationships as good. (Others are less scrupulous about loving the sinner, and their entire reaction is tilted toward hate.)

I'm not going to discuss the biblical justifications for being for or against same-sex relationships. These arguments have thoroughly hashed out, so I'm sure everyone is familiar with them. No repetition here is required.

When I think of some fundamentalists I've known, I can't predict which doctrine they would follow--against homosexuality per tradition or accepting of homosexuality in God's loving nature. I've certainly seen some friends torn between the harsh judgments of their religious and the love that is also preached and practiced there.

For example, one coworker and I shared many stories about our faiths and families. We also shared a strong work ethic and a serious, responsible attitude to life, so we built up a lot of mutual respect. She knew that I wasn't a saved Christian and didn't believe in an afterlife. I still remember the tears in her eyes as I departed from that job and from her life as an unsaved soul. Her final wish was that someday I would believe in heaven. Not because I was just another soul that was lost, but because I was someone about whom she cared deeply.

So I won't condemn this kind of Christian for being an anti-gay bigot because in her heart there wasn't bigotry or hatred. That doesn't mean I give this kind of Christian a pass. I have pushed some of my born-again friends very hard on abortion, and even harder on doctrine of eternal damnation.

I want them to question some of the received dogmas of their religion, but in doing so, I'm asking for a lot. In effect, I'm saying "Because I'm someone you respect and like, I want you to question the religions ideals that you've held for decades." What right do I have to do that? Only the right of the free exchange of ideas between people who love and respect one another. So I can't condemn them if they decide to stick to the traditional interpretation of the Bible, because I've learned to love and respect them even though we disagree on some fundamental questions. For anyone who'll take the time to really listen, really think, and most of all, really care, I have immense respect.

I don't expect everyone to feel the same way. I won't tell my gay friends to give these Christians a pass. But regarding the ones I've gotten to know well, maybe I'd explain how I can still be friends with anti-marriage-equality advocates. It's something like 'Love the sinner, hate the sin.' On many days I'm the sinner, or the person who's wrong, so I remember not to hate.

Image:  pinterest.com

Extras.

1. Love the sinner: origin of the phrase.
2. Love the sinner and deny communion.
3. Love the sinner, rapture the sinner.
4. Love the sinner irks this pastor.
5. Love the sinner or lose the sinner (long).
6. Love the sinner and don't stand in the way.

Grand promise of "Get out the vote"

Getting your voters to the polls is the bane of many campaigns. The numbers (and wishful thinking) say you can win if you can turn out many more of your supporters while your opponent only does as well as last time.

It seems that every political faction uses this great hope to explain why they can win, but few actually deliver. Well, I'm tired of the argument. Mike Huckabee is the latest politician to reach for this argument. He's pulling it off the shelf as he tries to keep the GOP as socially conservative as possible, even after their losses in the 2012 election.

No dice, Mike. I don't believe you have an extra 6 million SoCon voters whom you can get to the polls. But more importantly, Allahpundit at HotAir runs the numbers casting doubt on this too (same link). He shows that the SoCons are voting in large numbers for the GOP candidate, those numbers haven't dropped, so a logical conclusion is that few SoCon voters are sitting it out.

Although I'd love to vanquish this type of argument for good, it's not easy to do. American elections typically have turnout of 60%, so large numbers of untapped voters definitely exist. That doesn't even include citizens who haven't registered to vote but would be eligible.

Obama is the only candidate I know who has actually succeeded in greatly increasing his votes through registration and GOTV efforts. There's always been more potential among Democratic constituencies for higher turnout, but Obama turned the potential into actuality where others haven't been able to. However, he's not going to hand his secrets or his organization over to the Democratic Party as a whole.

This doesn't bother me at all. If he's the one who built the machine and knows how to drive it, he should be the driver. It's all too likely that no one else can keep his machine in working order. Anyone who owns a Rolls would be crazy asking me to fix it, and lots of Dems are less savvy than I am, even the ones who've gotten elected. So, Mr. Obama, hang on to those keys. I hope you can keep your machine polished and in good working order. If others want to repeat your success, let them built a machine themselves.

Image:   theobamadiary.com

Extras. Other views on why the GOP lost:

• Decent argument that it was the lost Libertarian vote.
• Round-up on who didn't vote--tries to look factual, but it's mostly interesting speculation.
• Long but readable article blaming it on the campaigns.
• God chose not to intervene. God may be less reliable than GOTV efforts.

Short: Newt Gingrich rescues the GOP

OK, only in his own fantasies.

I was researching CPAC (particularly who controls the conference schedule), and I found this gem of incomplete thinking. Here is the short version:

• Karl Rove shouldn't try to pick the GOP candidates because he's on a losing streak. And he shouldn't soak up all the GOP money!
• Rich GOP donors shouldn't try to pick the winners just because they have wads of cash.
• Don't shoot all the consultants.
• Get wonky data types like the Dems had and start testing the GOP messages.

The first three recommendation are negatives--what NOT to do. Really, when you're short of ideas, this doesn't help because you need suggestions of what TO DO. The last suggestion is the most ironic, however. Really, all the GOP needed was a bunch of data-crunching nerd-whizz-geniuses, and they could have won?

Maybe he's right--after all, the Oakland A's management used nerd-genius ideas to build a winning team on the cheap. Still, I can't imagine what whizz-bang ideas would help the GOP sell their moldy old ideas that tax cuts equal a booming economy because we've lived the 2007-2009 cycle disproving that. Maybe they would use the nerd-geniuses to identify some sidelined GOP ideas that are winners, but that doesn't seem to be the plan since the general GOP declaration is that their ideas are good, goshdarnit!

Not even Gingrich can follow up on his ideas, like this one:

Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal.

This observation dead ends with ... nothing. The GOP has policy problems that nerds or other magic potions won't cure. It's the policies, stupid. Work on them.

 Trying to dress up the GOP as winners

Image: news.cnet.com

Extra. Another post on the same site irritated me with different rhetorical fallacy.The author argues that you shouldn't worry about mass shootings because the numbers are too small--you really need to focus on shooting deaths in urban areas. Here's some truth there, except maybe we can work on improving both situations. So why not?

Poof! Most of his argument is shot down. Does he really want to rely on such a weak argument?

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

Seeking new conservative voices

With the failure of the conservative message in the 2012 election, I wondered who was going to rise in the GOP/conservative circles. Of course I'm not the only person wondering. It's a topic all over the conservative blogosphere.

Ted Cruz

I already covered what was written at HotAir, but I thought one prominent voice was missing from their list: Ted Cruz, the Tea Party favorite who's the new senator from Texas.Ted Cruz is a staunch conservative, but also a smart one who sidesteps the gotcha questions. This is his statement on Akin and Mourdock's statements on pregnancies resulting from rape:

"I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals. I would note that it seems the media is never asking Democrats what their view is, of say partial-birth abortion …"

Cruz isn't likely to be caught on tape denying abortions to rape victims, though that is his stance. He also hones his message to the bare essentials, and thereby avoids those inconvenient, painful details, such as how many government employees would be added to the unemployment roles, or how voucherizing Medicare will affect the care provided. Though he wants to be a major voice, I'm not sure he'll succeed without grappling with at least a few of those messy details.

Erick Erickson

A stronger voice is Erick Erickson, the editor of redstate.com. He's just moved from being a commentator on CNN to Fox News. He should have a big megaphone there, but he's got quite an independent streak that Roger Ailes may not tolerate. And the simplest way to deal with independent speech is not to give it airtime.

Whatever happens on Fox, Erickson still has redstate.com as a platform frequently listed among the top ten conservative blogs. I checked it out at length for the first time, and I was pleasantly surprised at the clarity of the writing and the enforcement of civil conduct in the comments. Redstate had several interesting posts about how the GOP should deal with the reality shifts from the 2012 election. It was both strategic (new goals) and tactical, and much more intelligent than the equivalent on HotAir.

So I'll be reading much more Redstate, reading less from screaming reactionaries on HotAir, and still checking National Review to see whether they'll continue to ignore the war (or skirmishes) between the base and the GOP establishment in its Rovian avatar. I'll also read Keith Hennessey, a suggestion from commenter Truth > Spin, for an economics-based conservative view.

Image: politicalirony.com

Update 2/15/13. Oh dear, Ted Cruz seems to be a jerk (term I prefer to the more usual epithet 'asshole'). Even RedState commenters think so.

Good news from the GOP, Part 2

I didn't get to say this in the previous post, but the GOP's offer to delay the debt ceiling vote for three months seems very significant to me. Obviously the three months aren't significant, but the possibility of a positional or tactical change in the GOP is.

The change I sense is that the GOP is trying to scale back its demands. That's not surprising since they lost the election. However, they didn't scale back their demands in December, or on the basis of pollling all during 2011-2. At first after the election, they still tried to maintain the Bush tax cuts, then tried to maintain all the tax rates, before they finally gave in. Then they vowed to get as many spending cuts as they could in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

A common thread here is what I'll call a "maximalist position." The GOP seems to aim for the biggest payoff they can get. That's normal, I suppose, but contrast that with the Dems, who gave in on tax increases in August 2011, and readily allowed the higher threshold for tax increases during the fiscal cliff negotiations. The Dems haven't held up for the maximum return.

Why are the GOP working to hard to extract the maximum they can from their position? I have a theory. Most of the GOP converted very late to fiscal conservatism, like in the second half of 2008. Having wasted so much time, including their own period of political hegemony (House, Senate, presidency), they had to quadruple their efforts to cut back government.

If this sounds like I'm trying to mock the GOP (and I think it could be interpreted that way), you'll have to take my word that I'm not mocking them. I sincerely believe there was a realization among conservatives that they had slept through their chance to streamline government, but they were awake now, and want to make up for that missed opportunity.

So small government talk went into overdrive. Maintaining the Bush tax cuts and lowering government spending were twin objectives. However, on the spending side there had been a lot of ground lost, with the budget doubling between 2000 and 2009. That can largely explain the desperation of the GOP to fight all spending and to emphasize spending cuts.

My theory has its flaws. Many Republicans don't seem to mind defense spending, and even supported higher defense spending. Increased spending on Medicare wasn't attacked, and savings were criticized instead. The GOP may want spending cuts, but not enough to actually detail what they should be. Frankly, there are a lot of holes in my theory. Perhaps fiscal discipline is only a campaign cry for the GOP. However, there is something about the intensity of the desire to cut spending that this theory captures.

In contrast, some conservatives, in particular Charles Krauthammer, are talking about lowering their sights and trying for fewer cuts. Part of the idea is partisan, to let the Democrats run wild and expose how much they'd love to spend. But another thread may be that some in the GOP are recalibrating what they can achieve, and backing away from the maximalist position. Perhaps if they try to do less, they'll actually succeed in gaining more of their agenda in the near future and in future elections. That would be ironic, to achieve more by aiming for less.

Image: lolriot.com

Extra. Another time I thought the political scene was changing. I was wrong then, but it was fascinating how much did change, but not as I predicted.

Breaking: Major fissures in the conservative world

Is the US conservative universe collapsing? There are certainly a lot of odd tremors:

• A major leak from Fox News--a high-level Fox contributor visited David Petraeus in Afghanistan with a message from Roger Ailes advising Petraeus on how to deal with his boss (otherwise known as the president). We lowly peons can listen because someone made a digital recording which has been leaked to Bob Woodward. I wonder what other vile secrets will be escaping the Fox vaults next.
• Fox has exiled Karl Rove and Dick Morris from their Fox News pulpits, at least temporarily. Another interesting Fox leak.
• A group of fiery no-compromise congressmen have been removed from their committee posts. This is a message to Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters that compromise will happen, so get out of the path of the speeding bus.
• Key senators aren't backing Boehner's inadequate but significant offers to raise taxes. DeMint is icy, McConnell is non-committal.

I'm not predicting the end of US conservative or any such nonsense, but there appears to be increased seismic activity. I expect a major shake-up, and I can't see the hard-liners, no-compromise guys winning. However, they may put on one hell of a show while they're going down.

Image: hshdude@flickr

Extra: More great images here, but too much for this post.

Same day update. Oops, I forgot about Dick Armey leaving FreedomWorks in a huff. FreedomWorks had a major role in training conservatives in grassroots organizing, though it wasn't in on the very beginning of the Tea Party.

Update 12/6/12. Jim DeMint is leaving the Senate and going to the Heritage Foundation where he hopes to be more successful at conservative messaging. Or maybe he's tired of being in the minority and all that blasted compromising that has to be done.

Lying his way to the White House

I'm amazed that Romney is so close to winning the election in 3.5 weeks. The turning point was the first debate, and the change was more due to a strong Romney performance. To many liberals, Romney is getting too damn close to a huge win for a huge liar.

Romney of the debates

To conservatives, debate was vindication that Romney could do what Reagan did in 1980. In that debate, also against a sitting president, Reagan showed that he wasn't a warmongering, jingoistic John Birch type, and he went on a landslide election.

Romney's performance isn't a sure repeat of 1980, but he made a hell of a lot of progress in that direction. Romney the debater said President Romney wouldn't raise the deficit through tax cuts--definitely not, not 'maybe not.' He would not be a slash-and-burn president on the federal government, unlike the terrifying impression most Tea Party adherents have projected. This reassuring performance, more than Obama's lackluster one, helped Romney in the polls.

Romney of CPAC

The debate probably wouldn't have salvaged Romney's campaign if he had delivered these talking points from his CPAC 2012 speech:

[In Massachusetts] if there was a program, an agency, or a department that needed cutting, we cut it.  In fact, a commentator once said that I didn’t just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd.  And I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington... I will dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce.  

In their current form, Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable... When it comes to Medicare, tomorrow's seniors should have the freedom to choose between traditional Medicare and a range of private plans. If these future seniors choose a more expensive plan, they would bear the additional cost.

Mine will be a pro-life presidency. I will ensure that organizations like Planned Parenthood get no federal support... I fought for abstinence education in our public schools.

I pushed for a stay of the [same-sex marriage] decision, fought for a marriage amendment to our constitution... On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am President... I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

There are those who say you can’t talk straight to the American people on these key issues and still win an election. I say we can, we must, and I will!

So the Romney of the debate was not the Romney of CPAC 2012. Well, that's no surprise, because that speech was delivered during a hard-fought primary against more conservative contenders. Does this mean that Romney is the biggest liar who might end up as president?

May the best one win

I'm not going to judge who's the biggest liar because it's always a matter of degree of falsehood, something for which we don't have a scientific measure. Most people blast the lies of the other side, and give their side a pass. You aren't impartial either, so don't trust yourself to judge who is the worse liar. I will, however, point out what Romney said and didn't say.

I notice one interesting parallel. I wonder if Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 because he was a better liar than Hillary. How ironic if Obama now loses to Romney because Romney can shift his positions more suavely than Obama can.

Perhaps this is our pattern for the future--our president will be the person who is most adept at obscuring what they've done and what they plan to do while pleasingly speaking lovely words. But that's nothing new. "He lied his way to office" is something we hear every presidential election. This year may be a change in degree or brazenness, or it may be more of the same. Presidential campaigns aren't for the scrupulously honest.

Image: eclectablog.com

Extras.
Peggy Noonan's useless advice to Romney: "Be serious and fight." A real conservative reveals Romney's CPAC lies.

Romney shuns the right flank of his party?

Romney was sounding like a level-headed moderate in the debate last week. His conservative supporters, far from panicking, rejoiced, though more over his strength and steadiness than over the content of what he said. Let's just review a few things he said:

• On individual income taxes: "We ought to bring the tax rates down... But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money..."
• On taxes for high-income folks: "But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy."
• On tax cuts and the deficit: "My number-one principle is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit."
• On cutting government workers: "'ll make government more efficient and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way."
• On education funding: "All right, I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and -- and grants that go to people going to college."
• On the spending cuts he'd make: Obamacare and PBS and programs such as Medicaid "that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level." Medicaid is the only such program that he mentioned, but it's big.

Consider the conservative orthodoxies that he didn't talk about:

• The 20% tax rate reduction that is still on his campaign website.
• Tax reduction on "job-creators."
• Lower deficits than Obama's been running.
• Cutting off all funding of Planned Parenthood.
• Cutting as many lazy, overpaid federal bureaucrats as possible.
• Outlawing abortion.

These orthodoxies he did affirm:

• Strengthen the military.
• No tax increases.
• Repeal Obamacare.
• Obama doesn't know how to turn around the economy.
• Taking $716 billion from Medicare was horrible.

Romney the moderate?

If Romney is able to turn around his campaign on this platform, he won't owe very much to the right flank of his party since he will have won based on a much more moderate version of GOP conservatism.

That doesn't mean that the GOP right flank will acknowledge this change or the debt that they would owe the more moderate Romney should he win. It also doesn't mean that Romney will govern this way once in office. Bush, "the compassionate conservative" changed almost immediately. Obama couldn't or didn't enforce the transparency and bipartisanship he promised.

Romney's change in tone during the debate doesn't guarantee anything. The only real change is a change in possibility-- Romney has shown that moderation has some power to influence opinion. Actual governing is much trickier, as every president finds out.

Romney 5.0: No longer the severe conservative

Image: washingtontimes.com

Just to be clear, I used to think Romney was a moderate, but not after the entire primary season and this summer. I am thoroughly disabused of that thought. He's no moderate by ideals, but he plays one when it's opportune.