| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Jim Geraghty: "Don't Panic!" |
| 2006-04-11 |
| National Review. EFL'd a touch, boldface emphasis added. I see that George Conway, another NRO blogger, appears to have come to the end of his rope regarding the current Republican Party leadership . . . First, get that man a good sandwich or other comfort food and a Guinness. Save some room for dessert. Let's get the blood sugar up. Second, there are two things that conservatives can do right now. They can push for the ideas that they believe strongly in, and take their message to the people. . . . Or conservatives can throw up their hands and say, "I'm through with this, I'm leaving the party, all of this is pointless." With option one, conservatives may win, or they may lose. On option two, they will definitely lose. Third, let's not recall previous administrations through rose colored glasses. Thinking back to the Clinton administration, do we look back fondly at their "foreign and military policy competence" in the way they handled the growing al-Qaeda threat? The cruise missiles fired, once, at the training camps and empty tents? Those decisive, responses to the first World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole? Do we look back fondly at their "foreign and military policy competence" in the way they handled Iraq? The collapse of the U.N. inspections, periodic cruise missile attacks that had little impact, the leaky sanctions that hurt the Iraqis more than the regime and that the world was ready to repeal? Do we look back fondly at their "foreign and military policy competence" with, say, their approach to China? Loral? Madeline Albright's champagne toast in North Korea to "friendship between our peoples" with Kim Jong Il? If you're upset with the current Bush administration's stance on illegal immigration, how did you like the Clinton administration's "Citizenship USA" program, unveiled in August 1995, designed to deal with an INS backload that ended up naturalizing 1.1 million immigrants in time for Election Day 1996? We are righteously outraged with Abramoff and Duke Cunningham, and ought to be. But let's not forget Henry Cisnero's guilty plea about lying to the FBI, Hazel O'Leary's apology to Congress for her travel expenses, John Huang, James Riady, and Maria Hsia, the Marc Rich pardon, the grant of clemency to FALN bombers in 1999... I'm not even getting into that scandal, or Jocelyn Elders' "hands-on" proposal for sex education. In Congress, the opposition party had Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowski, the post office scandal, the Keating Five (with McCain), Tony Coehlo's resignation. By the way, it's not like the post-1994 Republicans had avoided any perception of scandal until recent years. We've had Gingrich's book deal, Bob Livingston's resignation, Rep. Nick Smith's claim that someone offered a bribe on the Medicare bill, the guilty plea of a New Hampshire GOP official and a consultant to using the phones to "jam" the lines of the New Hampshire State Democratic Party's phone bank on Election Day 2002. Let's go beyond Clinton, and think back to the first Bush administration. Perhaps we were happy at the time with the decision to leave Saddam in power in Iraq, but it certainly left a festering problem. The military deployment to Somalia represented a major commitment of U.S. armed forces to a part of the world where we had no compelling national interest; the subsequent withdrawal (on Clinton's watch) is cited by jihadis as a major victory. Do we look back fondly on Bush's economic policies, the retraction of "read my lips, no new taxes," the "Chicken Kiev" speech, the well-oiled communications machine that was the 1992 campaign? How about Justice David Souter? Regarding the Reagan administration, many of us have fond memories because the Gipper, God bless him, got so many big things right. But do we think back on Iran-Contra, or the quiet-at-best reactions to the bombing of the embassy in Lebanon and the Marine barracks months later? The handling of Robert Bork's nomination, the 35 percent approval rating in January 1983, the revelation of the astrologer? And if you don't like our current immigration policy, what do you think of Reagan's 1986 mass amnesty for illegal aliens? Any administration is going to have its mistakes, and sometimes, they're going to be big ones. Let's be honest about where the current president and cabinet have botched things, but let's not fool ourselves into nostalgia for some golden age of political and substantive skill. I like the attitude described by Tony Robbins (can’t find his quote online, so I’m paraphrasing). If you’re a gardener, and you’re worried about weeds, the answer is not to panic because you know the weeds will crop up and grow and take over your garden. The answer is also not to be excessively positive, and declare, “there are no weeds, there are no weeds.” The answer is to say, “I know there are going to be weeds, and I’m not going to panic when I see them, because if I see them, I can do something about it.” Yes, the Republicans have problems right now. But it’s better that they see them and can do something about it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #20 Move the government from DC to somewhere else every 8 years and don't permit the current workers to move with their departments or congress critters... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-04-11 23:21 |
| #19 Fortunately for the GOP, every time I decide I'm not voting for another ####### RINO again, some Donk like Dean, or Feingold, or McKinney opens their mouth. I vastly prefer stupidity and incompetence to insanity, cowardice, and treason. |
| Posted by: DMDF 2006-04-11 22:51 |
| #18 Hmmm, I think a more effective fund raiser would be for the Republican committee to put similar bills with Ted Kennedy (D-Margaritaville) in their fund raising material. You know why many Republicans who actually deserve the boot will get reelected this year? Because the Democrats just suck so bad. They are a party of incoherent moonbats with no goals, a campaign slogan that consists of "vote for us because having no plan means that we don't have a plan that sucks". Yawn. Do your best to divide and conquer. But ultimately the Republicans, no matter how repugnant, are offering more than a vote of "sticking it to the man" with the expectation that we will be delusional enough not to realize that they are the man. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-11 22:31 |
| #17 I think I'll keep my trousers up and not drop any soap around any Dems if you don't mind. LOL |
| Posted by: anon 2006-04-11 22:02 |
| #16 When that phone rings and the talker at the other end announces that he/she is calling for the Republican Senatorial Reelection Committee, just laugh your head off before hanging up. They do understand money. When that solicitation shows up in the mail from the Republican National Committee, just stuff this in the return envelope. |
| Posted by: Snang Phose5463 2006-04-11 22:01 |
| #15 Dieing (sic) of old-age in office before considering replacement of a incumbent representative isn't anywhere in the constitution that I've read. Brilliant! How do you do it Holmes? The insight, the clarity. Where are my shades to protect my eyes from the illumination. By the way, Leigh, just exactly which district primary races are you talking about? Which Reps are you referring to and which replacements will provide us with the salvation you seek? Who exactly do you plan to vote for to achieve a better result? Oh, I see, you're deep and insightful wisdom is simply an overall vague "Republican primary" in a general vague congressional or Senate race. So deep. So helpful to the discourse. Do you plan on just sending your vast sums of money to various races nationwide or do you have specific primary races in mind with specific concrete goals in mind? Do you even know what district you live and vote in? Hmmm, why do I doubt that that you do? But let me give you the benefit of the doubt, Please share. I'm all for replacing incompetent incumbents with someone who can do a BETTER job. Please let me know specifically which races and candidates you plan to support to make the world a better place. Otherwise, STFU and stop boring us with you childish demands for imaginary white knights to appear out of nowhere to save the day. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-11 22:01 |
| #14 Unfortunately, politics is a zero sum game. Think. |
| Posted by: Slimble Chugum3811 2006-04-11 21:21 |
| #13 2b - Bite me. I've been reading and posting (infrequently) at Rantburg since 9/11. Just because I don't think supporting incumbents who seems more interested in sucking up to illegal voters doesn't mean I don't support general party objectives. Dieing of old-age in office before considering replacement of a incumbent representative isn't anywhere in the constitution that I've read. I'm suggesting that putting incumbents to a primary challenge is a better alternative than either: a) slavishly supporting somebody who doesn't represent my interests (and seems intent on subverting/minimizing the value of US citizenship.) or b) voting for democrats who actively want to socialize our country. Jeez... what are you? An incumbent? You'd think I suggested selling my soul because I disagree with incumbents (like Mccain.) |
| Posted by: Leigh 2006-04-11 20:40 |
| #12 Write, donate to the correct congresscritters - I have Duncan Hunter, who's on our side - if you have Donk - look elsewhere, even Tancredo can use your help, and if he builds a big warchest from small donations, he can spread it to proper picks. Don't give up. I have Boxer (lost cause - dumb as a bag of rocks) and Feinstein (she's not stupid, just wrong a lot of times - she does respond to pressure tho') as my Senators. The border states need to rise up and DEMAND enforcement. Legal Latinos will join in, believe me |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-11 19:17 |
| #11 Write your Congressman and especially your Senators and tell them to grow a spine. An ANSWER-sponsored Rent-A-Mob shouldn't intimidate them. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-04-11 18:19 |
| #10 It's possible to have one's cake and eat it, too. Phil Graham stopped Hillary Care, but I doubt that even HE could have stopped the prescription |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-04-11 16:56 |
| #9 Screw that I may have to hold my nose but I will NEVER EVER vote for a Dhimicrat EVER again. If it's between the Devil running as Republican against a Demoncrat then maybe I would change my mind. Short of that I can't stand any of the Democrats. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-04-11 16:52 |
| #8 Groan! i so tire of this!! I've never heard of Leigh before. Probably just one of those trolls that always seems to come out with "wisdom for dummies" whenever there's an opportunity to sow seeds of discontent. Leigh, Leigh, honey. My apologies if you are just dumb. But you are wasting your time here, look a the headlines being read here, this isn't a watering hole for those in need of identity assistance. Here's a tip, go to one of the sights that discusses the lipstick color Jennifer wears and maybe you'll actually pick up a vote or two. It's a sad way to spend your day - mistakenly thinking you have enlightened someone when you are really just annoying them with your stupidity. Go outside, get a life. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-11 16:40 |
| #7 I'm actually prompted to work against the Republican incumbents in their primarys rather than selling my soul to the Democrats in the general election. And that's exactly what you would be doing by working against the Republican incumbents. I'm amazed at the amount of foolishness members of my own party manage to express from time to time. I'm amazed at the amount of foolishness coming out of the Republican Party and Republicans on the Hill and in the White House. I'm amazed at the complete lack of organization and organizational capability within the Republican Party as a whole. But does that mean I'll simply drop trousers and bend over for the reaming I'm all too likely to get under a Democratic administration? No. Thanks very much. I think I'll keep my trousers up and not drop any soap around any Dems if you don't mind. I think I'll continue to donate to the Republican Party and support my Republican incumbents (not that there are any out here in the 10th US House District of California where I live) and not desert the Party when the chips are down and I'm ticked off because people on the Hill and in the White House don't seem to be listening. So, Leigh, if you want to stick your head in the sand, be careful who's standing behind you because you might just get what you deserve. The alternative is simply too frightening to consider - higher taxes, disengagement worldwide, a for-sure amnesty, corruption, down-sizing of the military during time of war, corruption, higher taxes, cradle-to-grave government interference, socialism, corruption, and higher taxes, etc., ad infinitum... |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-04-11 16:31 |
| #6 Phil, I'm actually prompted to work against the Republican incumbents in their primarys rather than selling my soul to the Democrats in the general election. |
| Posted by: Leigh 2006-04-11 15:59 |
| #5 Actually, I wasn't as upset at Clinton. I didn't expect any better from him. I had hopes for Bush though. |
| Posted by: Formerly Dan 2006-04-11 14:53 |
| #4 Reformat Washington! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-11 14:50 |
| #3 Well, Leigh, you'll have about four more years of the problem getting much worse than it is now, along with many other problems, before you get a chance to repent. Voting for Perot didn't do anyone any good in the 90's, except for the Dems. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-04-11 13:53 |
| #2 I just wish we could get rid of them all and start over. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-04-11 13:31 |
| #1 Right.... So, no matter how pissed I am with the Republican's on immigration, I'm supposed to just vote Republican anyway 'cause the alternative is worse. I'm sorry. This immigration problem is so big and so problematic that I can't ignore the failure of Congress and the President to address them. Off with their heads! (figuratively on election day - unless the Senate gets their rectal-cranial inversion resolved to my satisfaction before then.) |
| Posted by: Leigh 2006-04-11 13:27 |
